Posted on 03/12/2012 6:20:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The relentless advocates of identity politics don't care about antique notions like privacy in their campaign to make everything subject to quota. Three weeks ago, Lee DeCovnik wrote about the State of California requiring all judges to make a declaration of their sexuality. He asked:
Now that the beastly camel has poked its nose into the tent, can we expect a question on sexual orientation as part of the admissions process for colleges and universities? Just how soon until sexual orientation becomes a factor in receiving preferential treatment in hiring for state jobs, bidding on state contracts, and granting professional licensees from state boards?
Lee has proven prescient. CBS Los Angeles reports:
The next influx of UC students may be asked to state their sexual orientation.
In January, the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Thanks sickoflibs.
That doesn't sound legal. I can't imagine the judges standing for this.
You miss the point silly. The point is to use affirmative action to select gay judges that will make this legal.
As Dems are saying NOW when they lose same-sex marriage referendums on the ballot, “Civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. They should be decided by liberal judges.”
I read a clarification that what they did was to add sexual preference (or “orientation,” to use the liberals’ Orwellian term) to the questions asked in a questionnaire sent to judges, but that judges could leave it blank (and many do). On The Corner on National Review, someone (John Derbyshire?) posted that a far worse development was the fact that the percentage of judges who had refused to answer the race question that has been asked for years had dropped from 9%-10% a few years ago to less than 2% this past year, so judges are going along with the scheme.
Sometimes I see individual trees rather than the forest. ;)
This reads like science fiction. It’s not so much that I care about the private lives of judges, it’s just that using certain bedroom activities as prerequisite for judicial appointments is un-American and a direct affront to the ideas of individual liberties and opportunity.
Over the years, some Freepers have posted about expelling certain (liberal) state from the U.S. or perhaps splitting the U.S. into two nations, given the growing divide between what’s known as Red America and Blue America. Most of them have been in jest (Barry Goldwater joked about it a long time ago), but a few have said it warrants serious consideration. California has become an embarrassment to the entire nation.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/eastern-seabord
Yes, they're even ahead of Massholechusetts on this one.
“Over the years, some Freepers have posted about expelling certain (liberal) state from the U.S. or perhaps splitting the U.S. into two nations, given the growing divide between whats known as Red America and Blue America.”
Barring a bloody civil war, it's the only way I can see “America” surviving. No way it can continue like this. The libs live “1984” - I see it everyday.
And God Forbid if this sack of sh*t POTUS gets reelected, because we ain't seen nothing yet.
Circumstances don’t exist for that yet but they could in the future if we keep going down hill.
We should encourage the Hawaiian Independence movement. And if Vermont ever wanted to join Candada I’d say Bon Voyage, there wouldn’t be any civil war to keep them in as long as it wouldn’t effect the price of maple syrup.
If a state doesn’t want to go independent, I wouldn’t kick it out, but I wouldn’t shed a tear if HI went independent (aso long as we kept the military bases) and VT joined Canada (or declared independence again).
As for CA, I’m sure you’re tired by now of reading about how it should be split up into 5 states, 3 of which would be Republican.
I’m not tired of that at all as I find it an excellent idea that’s fun to contemplate.
Good points.
Can a state be expelled?
Vermont is a liberal mecca.
What makes me laugh about that are the gun laws in Vermont - there aren’t any.
Given that no state may be denied its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, one doesn’t even have to look at history or tradition to conclude that Congress can’t expel a state.
Having a Congress (and military) that would back this would be critical, but I was thinking in terms of an EO.
My thinking on this is, in theory, you could have a crackpot POTUS who could declares the Constitution null and void (think Obama, term 2). If that could be done, why couldn't a POTUS look at the the diseased carcasses of states like CA or MA and to quote a Rat: “A stroke of the pen, the law of the land, pretty cool heh?”
Irrespective of how large a president’s testicles may be, he could not expel a state (or admit one, for that matter) by executive order.
Bummer.
Thank you for the feedback.
Yes it’s odd. I guess the hippies like to pop off shotguns.
Must be the rural nature of the state.
Oddly enough half of DU is pro-gun rights. Probably cause they want to shoot at George Bush.
Indeed. Perhaps they are “EARTH PIMP” wannabes?
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.