Cheech & Chong's The Corsican Brothers (1984)
|
Louis Corsican: The Evil Fuckaire - he's trisexual! Lucian Corsican: Trisexual? Louis Corsican: Yeah, he'll try anything: men, women, goats, chickens, dogs, mud... |
 |
Posted on 02/24/2012 10:57:38 AM PST by massmike
In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.
Philip R. Carrizosa of the executive office of communications at the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed the authenticity of Price’s email regarding gender identification and sexual orientation to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation.
...as a result of Corbett’s 2011 California bill, the office has “expanded the collection and release of aggregate demographic data to include gender identification and sexual orientation.” Therefore, Price explains, judges and justices must reveal their “sexual orientation,” in addition “to their race/ethnicity [and] gender identification.”
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
“Their personal lives should be irrelevant.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incorrect. When anyone elects to run for public office, then their personal lives become very much our business.
Can’t
Make
This
Stuff
Up....
Just imagine the outcry if a CONSERVATIVE government demanded judges (or any government employees) answer the question, “Are you gay??”
As long as they are law-abiding citizens and have not taken part in organizations that seek to destroy America and undermine our constitutional republic and they can be objective in their decisions, their personal lives are irrelevant.
I don’t care if a judge is pro-2nd Amendment or anti-2nd Amendment if they can rule objectively based upon the US Constitution on 2nd-Amendment issues. And I really don’t care what their sexual choices are, as long as their personal life does not compromise their ability to be objective and does not bring disrespect to their position. Congressman caught sending harassing, sexually-explicit texts and images should be removed from office for both of these reasons.
Unfortunately, activist judges tend to be liberal/leftist. And they believe the bench is where they can force their political and social agenda on the citizenry. Activist judges need to be removed from their positions.
Those who, from mental issues or physiological inadequacies, fear the homo sapien ultimate biological achievement of heterosexual love, the prime directive of the prime directive of species survival aka procreation, crave not only popular acceptance of their oddness but praise, forced if necessary by rule of law, of their deviant failings as some intellectual “art form.” or at the least "normal" for the superiors of the race.
Homosexuals are on average very smart—expert rationalizers— and affluent so the amoral Democrats recruit them because they have both the money and hate for moral clarity that is what the party always needs and what the party stands for.
Robert Bork brings up an excellent point in “Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”
He explains the “Durkheim constant,” which is that a community will come to accept lower types of behavior until it becomes standardized. Moynihan called this “defining deviancy downward.” Krauthammer pointed out an odd paradox that, while this is occurring in American culture, there is another effect that is also occurring. He said, as you imply, that while Americans are allowing our moral standard to degrade, those who are degrading our moral standard are not content with just that, so what they are doing is redefining what has traditionally been the accepted moral standard as now being deviant.
If you spank your child, that is a form of abuse.
If you don’t have an agreement in writing from a sexual partner, you can later be accused of rape, and society will back the accuser.
And, as you stated, if you object to homosexuality and especially if you object to same-sex marriage, you are some sort of reclusive, repressed puritan that needs to be ostracized by the enlightened community.
Krauthammer called this paradoxical effect “defining deviancy upward.”
These are the brilliant minds that the left cannot debate, so they use the Alinsky method of ridicule to keep people from listening to them.
William Flax
I’m sorry, but because you do not care what a person’s values are, because you don’t care what their core beliefs are on a PERSONAL level; then you have no right to be outraged later when they act out their ungodly actions and express their personal perversions on a PUBLIC level.
Robert Bork brings up an excellent point in “Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”
He explains the “Durkheim constant,” which is that a community will come to accept lower types of behavior until it becomes standardized. Moynihan called this “defining deviancy downward.” Krauthammer pointed out an odd paradox that, while this is occurring in American culture, there is another effect that is also occurring. He said, as you imply, that while Americans are allowing our moral standard to degrade, those who are degrading our moral standard are not content with just that, so what they are doing is redefining what has traditionally been the accepted moral standard as now being deviant.
If you spank your child, that is a form of abuse.
If you don’t have an agreement in writing from a sexual partner, you can later be accused of rape, and society will back the accuser.
And, as you stated, if you object to homosexuality and especially if you object to same-sex marriage, you are some sort of reclusive, repressed puritan that needs to be ostracized by the enlightened community.
Krauthammer called this paradoxical effect “defining deviancy upward.”
These are the brilliant minds that the left cannot debate, so they use the Alinsky method of ridicule to keep people from listening to them.
What would be your litmus test?
Seriously, think about it.
If we do appoint or deny positions based upon “personal values” what is going to be your test?
As I said, it is unfortunate that we’ve gotten to such a point of activism that we assume one’s personal life dictates their ability to be a judge, but that is not the case.
If we can reverse that and review judges on an annual or semi-annual basis to ensure they are making sound, objective decisions, then we will filter out activism and the personal life will not matter.
A perfect example is the homosexual judge who threw out the will of the people in California. Obviously, his personal life impaired his objectivity and he needs to be removed.
Had he put his personal desires aside and supported the constitutionality of that I&R legislation, would you similarly want him removed from office?
One can only dream of how different things would be today with him,Scalia,Thomas,Alito,and Roberts on the Supremes.
Ted Kennedy continues to haunt America from his grave!
WHY is this being done????????/
I scant 2.7% of the population is gay; only 1.7% lestbo.
So - what metric, exactly, will be used to ensure “enough” are on the bench?
And - after the Judge Vaughn Walker fiasco, in which gays generally demonstrated they are incapable of placing professional responsibility above personal activist agenda, wouldn’t it be better -— for our COUNTRY -— to use this data to ensure NO gays/letsbos are on the bench?
Political Correctness is the “Magic Bullet” that the Left depends on to both curse and cure all their opponents and their sick followers respectively.
They are politically correct in Hell but not out of any obligation but out of respect.
Want to be a judge? Claim you’re gay.
Had he put his personal desires aside and supported the constitutionality of that I&R legislation, would you similarly want him removed from office?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a word. Yes.
You ask about a litmus test? How simple can we get here??
How about this as a litmus test? “Are you in favor of gay marriages? You are?”
BZZZZZZZZZ!!!!
“Nope. Sorry, you won’t do.”
Back to YOUR example of that activist judge. Thanks for proving my point. Here’s a question for you to ponder...
Do you know of any politician or judge that is wrong the the gay rights issues, yet is otherwise a fine conservative person? A person who can be counted on to be fiscally consrvative also?
I don’t.
A litmus test? Dude, I got hundreds of ‘em. And they all start with what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom which I mention because I used to have a tagline that drove the libs here at FR absolutely nutz:
“Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in the provacy of your bedroom is my business.”
You need to stop drinking before breakfast. Either you meant that sarcastically or you meant that California has more conservative people than any other state in the union, which is irrelevant and meaningless since 1 out of every 9 Americans lives in California, so numbers wise, it has the most of everything in California. Most millionaires, most illegal aliens, most priests, most astronaughts, most everything.
Now speakingo of average or per capita, then California is one of the most liberal socialist states in the USA.
Well, be careful what you ask for. If we return to “mental illness,” or even if we allow it to be accepted as “biologically determined,” then they will be protected under the ADA and just about every other ‘civil-rights based’ argument there is.
I believe homosexuality is a preference, a choice, and not one that is biological. It is therefore deserving of no special protections or civil liberties.
And, by the way, the call for same-sex marriage is not one of equality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are all limited by the same marriage options (opposite sex, legal age, consensual, no current marriage, etc.). The same-sex marriage crowd is asking for ADDITIONAL or SPECIAL rights. They want to have the same set of options opposite-sex marriages have and they ALSO want to be able to marry people of the same sex.
I say, no special rights to homosexuals.
Cheech & Chong's The Corsican Brothers (1984)
|
Louis Corsican: The Evil Fuckaire - he's trisexual! Lucian Corsican: Trisexual? Louis Corsican: Yeah, he'll try anything: men, women, goats, chickens, dogs, mud... |
|
So post the full text of your “acceptability” test for judges.
I’d love to see that. I guarantee when you detail it, it will fall to pieces, which is why the requirements have traditionally been minimal and we typically look at resume, academic records, publications, and relevant experience.
But hey, if you want to deny a 2nd-Amendment-supporting judge the ability to sit on the bench simply because he does not believe that each and every American has the right to store boxes of grenades, then you just go right ahead with that train wreck of thought.
--William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene II (c. 1599)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.