Posted on 06/30/2010 1:34:04 PM PDT by opentalk
Kagan just said she wouldn't answer whether marriage was a state issue ... wait for it ... because there's a case coming down the pike. This is a load of horsepucky. It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed's human lover is filing a case.
Then she said she wasn't going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value -- a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution -- and she followed that whopper up by saying "there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition ... what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don't get the full weight."
Unreal. Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972. She doesn't answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument.
In other words, she's pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just ask her if States have any rights? Doubt she would answer honestly, but we could all save a lot of time. Jeepers, seeing her fat face everyday is punishment enough.
Lyndsey Graham will still vote for her.
I’m busy at work but I heard her refusing to say she had written somthing, alluding it was in her hand-writing.
I’m busy at work but I heard her refusing to say she had written somthing, alluding it was in her hand-writing.
“she followed that whopper up by saying “there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition ... what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don’t get the full weight.”
Something about Elena Kagan tells me she has a lifelong familiarity with Whoppers (Big and Junior) and that there’s something akin to a Freudian slip involved whenever she talks about how much “weight” to accord this or that: according anything its “full weight” might understandably make her nervous.
Lyndsey will vote for her because they’re the same gender.
Good point. This will come into play with AZ, state immigration laws, states repealing health care. Obama wants to consolidate power under him. He seems to be punishing of Red states, sends aid and funds to Blue states.
Marriage issues on state ballots usually side on traditional marriage definition.
The list, ping
Marriage is a religious issue.
The state merely dictates the terms of the contract - after the fact.
That’s because he’s a limp wrist, closet poofter.
The issue of partial-birth abortion had raged during the Clinton years, with the President ultimately vetoing a measure by Congress to ban the procedure, but Nebraska banned it on their own.
In order to defeat that law, Kagan manipulated a report by a panel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to fool the Supreme Court into thinking that doctors had supported the idea that it was a medically necessary procedure, when in fact ACOG couldn’t specify a single set of circumstances where it would save the life of the mother:
Listening at work, always getting interrupted.
The Socialist in Chief is the best example.
In normal times I thought that was reason to be disbarred, not going through hearings for supreme court Judge.
They don’t see the shame of having to deny the very essence of their being. They are ashamed of themselves, yet they want us to accept their perversions.
She’s is beyond horrible.
A perfect 31 - 0 record,actually.(It would be 32 - 0 if the politicians let it on the ballot in Massachusetts).
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Pinging both lists again since the protection of marriage is more than just a "homosexual agenda" issue. It affects everyone who has kids, pays taxes, employs others, is an employee, plus numerous other people who work in fields that will be affected by two people of the same sex demanding, for instance, that you cater or photograph their wedding. Or hire your band to play. Or you are a divorce lawyer and one of them wants you to represent them. Or you work in an adoption agency. Or you rent a house or a room in your house. (People used to be able to rent a house saying "married couples only - is that illegal now?) That's just a small sampling.
these libertarians(why on this site is beyond me) think anything marry, thinks it is no one business, , well except their employer, housing, rents, o and that little thing of marrying daughters, sons, dog,s and pigs
yea you're right, the woman next door wants to marry her son and the guy I met the other day wants to marry, have sex with his 5 years old girl. ARF NAH no business at all, let anything marry , that is what you and Ron paul wants right?
I don't think your neighbors or the people you meet there are a good influence on you. I hope you get well enough to get out of the nervous hospital soon. Do you find Freeping makes you better or worse ?
In that case, please remember what "I" would look like if I were only crazy and not stupid too.
mmmm OK
Yes indeed. See Jennifer Roback Morse’s elucidation of
the implications “The Case of The Incurious Economists”
Hogwash. The ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity." The natural family is the fundamental institution God designed to be the nursery of that posterity.
Four States were allowed into the Union only on the condition that they forever swear off plural marriage.
Do you want to expel Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah and Idaho from the Union on the basis of your revolutionary idea that government has no interest in the institution of marriage as the guarantor of its future survival and prosperity?
Or, do you think it's okay if particular States reinstitute polygamy?
I have a hard enough time believing states should require a license to fish in waters open to the public. I do not see room for government in my relationship with God nor in procreation.
It ain’t all about you. What you do affects everyone else.
There is no imposition, except by God Himself. It's the way He made things. (In America we call that the Natural Law, which we hold to be "self-evident," or "as obvious as the nose on your face.") You can rail against it or deny it, but you can't change it.
And human "laws" that go against the Natural Law are stupid. They don't work, because they deny the facts about human nature and the way the universe is put together.
Conversely, human laws that accord with the Natural Law work, and help bring about a freer, more decent, more secure, and more prosperous society and nation.
That's reminds me of why I divorced you.
Not that funny.
But it is you who has divorced yourself from America’s cornerstone principles concerning liberty and its basis in morality and the duty to protect the God-given, unalienable rights of all.
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.