To: /\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 75thOVI; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...
Passing it on..
To: davidosborne
The woman's case was that her children were being abused by the natural father, but the truth was that the ACLU, the National Lawyers' Guild and the reast of the trial lawyer establishment needed a test case and they've had it in for Justice Moore for years because he fought them many times and won.
To: davidosborne
What a refreshingly clear and concise judgment. Hats off to the best man in Alabama!
To: davidosborne
You know what the best part of that judgment is? The UNANIMOUS part!
To: All
To: davidosborne
Judge Morre should have been with me today. I'm not judging, mind you, just recounting an observation. I was picking up a few thing at the Ft. Belvoir Commissary this morning when something just struck me as odd. Two females. One, an army major in uniform, and the other in civilian clothes. My mind quickly discounted the possibility of sisters, two people from the same office, or just ordinary room mates. I thought at the time, if that's not a domestic partner thing going on, I'll eat my hat. As Seinfeld would say, "Not that there is anything wrong with that."
It should go without saying that, of course, I could have been wrong.
To: davidosborne
Man, "politically correct" this guy ain't!
12 posted on
07/31/2002 4:30:31 PM PDT by
Illbay
To: davidosborne
Ah, to have a Supreme Court filled with such realism, clear-thinking, and courage to defy politically correct lies.
Liberals would leave the country in droves, and we'd throw rotten vegetables at them as they left. Unless, of course, they happened to be peta members, in which case we'd throw cheeseburgers at them.
13 posted on
07/31/2002 4:54:53 PM PDT by
watchin
To: davidosborne
amen amen amen.
60 posted on
07/31/2002 6:58:48 PM PDT by
goodieD
To: davidosborne; EdReform
65 posted on
07/31/2002 7:36:26 PM PDT by
ppaul
To: davidosborne
WoW!
They (the court) should expect a large, loud number of people standing outside the courthouse screaming at the top of their voices, and calling them bigots and homophobes very soon.
They will be mostly dressed in pink chiffon.
To: davidosborne
Why the repost of a six month old article. Did something change the decision? Was it overturned or something?
To: *SASU; JMJ333; Tourist Guy; EODGUY; abandon; Khepera; Dakmar; RichInOC; RebelDawg; Fiddlstix; ...
Woo Hoo!
77 posted on
08/01/2002 5:28:06 AM PDT by
Khepera
To: davidosborne; Khepera
but the courts of this State have consistently held that exposing a child to such behavior has a destructive and seriously detrimental effect on the children. Shocked! I am absolutely shocked that a judge would use case precedent to make a determination on whether something is legal or not. Doesn't he know that the American judicial system is based on judges re-interpreting laws as cases come before their benches and not on any effort to determine what the law's authors meant or how courts have interpreted those laws previously? In my opinion .... What? ... Case precedent is a cornerstone of US jurisprudence?
Nevermind!
Shalom.
86 posted on
08/01/2002 6:58:11 AM PDT by
ArGee
To: davidosborne
Wow, the judge let fly. God bless him, bump for Alabama.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson