Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prop. 8: Judge Walker's bias will be overruled
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 4 2010 | Maggie Gallagher

Posted on 08/04/2010 6:19:25 PM PDT by NoLibZone

Despite the media hoopla, this is not the first case in which a federal judge has imagined and ruled that our Constitution requires same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Nebraska ruled for gay marriage in 2005 and was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 2006.

The Proposition 8 case on which the Ninth Circuit's Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two straight guys with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the gay legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core civil rights of Californians and all Americans to vote for marriage as one man and one woman.

Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority. Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; US: California
KEYWORDS: homsexauals; prop8; samesex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2010 6:19:26 PM PDT by NoLibZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Did you read ANY of his rant (er, uhhhhh DECISION) this is a Gay with a mission...er, a guy with a mission...welll, his position is not a missionary one...ahhhhhh...fugeddit. A typical fruitloop on the bench...shame on us all for allowing this.


2 posted on 08/04/2010 6:22:48 PM PDT by jessduntno (I wonder...how will third Manassas turn out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

The 9th will affirm and if it is accepted by the SCOTUS it will be up to Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.


3 posted on 08/04/2010 6:26:41 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Asshat judge. Does not even know the law.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

United States Code, Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7


4 posted on 08/04/2010 6:28:09 PM PDT by djf (They ain't "immigrants". They're "CRIMMIGRANTS"!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Will NOT stand... This is just another case of the Judiciary reaching beyond the law. If the Supreme Court upholds this, it will be another peg against law and order in the US. (Actually, just a small part of an ongoing rebellion against the attempt to overrule the people). After all, the people rule, NOT the government and the Constitution shall be read as written, not as they prefer...


5 posted on 08/04/2010 6:37:07 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

And Kennedy’s bias?


6 posted on 08/04/2010 6:40:13 PM PDT by cmj328 (Got ruthless?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

good point!


7 posted on 08/04/2010 6:45:50 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

I would have guessed a Clinton appointee but was surprised to learn we have George Bush to thank for this one.


8 posted on 08/04/2010 6:46:04 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

He was appointed by Reagan not Bush.


9 posted on 08/04/2010 6:55:51 PM PDT by OldGoatCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cmj328

Justice Kennedy is a Roman Catholic.

His bias shall be for “Social Justice”.


10 posted on 08/04/2010 7:06:25 PM PDT by NoLibZone (If we could remove bad representatives through voting, voting would have been made illegal by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

The case will definitely be overturned. It was doomed from the start when the militant homosexuals were allowed to cherry pick Judge Walker, an avowed and unrepentant homosexual. What next, are we going to choose pedophile judges to preside over molestation cases. This is pure insanity. Luckily, the USSC will slap queer Walker in his face and overturn this soon.


11 posted on 08/04/2010 7:15:42 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Justice Kennedy ought to recuse himself from receiving Communion.


12 posted on 08/04/2010 7:17:27 PM PDT by cmj328 (Got ruthless?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

The case will definitely be overturned. It was doomed from the start when the militant homosexuals were allowed to cherry pick Judge Walker, an avowed and unrepentant homosexual.

Thanks Reagan.


13 posted on 08/04/2010 7:22:02 PM PDT by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Deagle
I don't think you understand. The "People" may cry "no, no", but their eyes say "yes, yes".

If the People really want to get rid of the Supreme Court's abominable, unnatural and genocidal "interpretations" of law, they can. It's called Revolution. We didn't have one in 1933. We didn't have one in 1973. We didn't have one in 2003. And doggone it, we're not going to have one when Justice Kennedy writes his predictable opinion in 2013 finding no rational basis for marriage.

14 posted on 08/04/2010 7:22:51 PM PDT by cmj328 (Got ruthless?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Exactly.


15 posted on 08/04/2010 7:23:33 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

Not sure why it matters who appointed him - geez, it is becoming known by now that all elites seem to think similarly.
No, it is not a genetic thing, but an elite thing taught in college - wonder who all those college teachers stand? Geez, maybe it’s just a generation thing...


16 posted on 08/04/2010 7:24:12 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cmj328

Yes, that is coming sooner than you might expect. Don’t agree with your earlier statement about People crying No though... We have had enough.


17 posted on 08/04/2010 7:33:10 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

The People haven’t had enough. They want more.


18 posted on 08/04/2010 7:41:17 PM PDT by cmj328 (Got ruthless?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

I should think it would.


19 posted on 08/04/2010 7:44:21 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cmj328

Hope you’re wrong...


20 posted on 08/04/2010 7:49:46 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson