Posted on 05/18/2015 12:19:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
And this is exactly right. I remember during the judicial proceedings on prop 8 in California that one witty fellow remarked:
Why don't we all just save a lot of time and ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?
You can make it legal.
You can call it good and right.
Doesn’t matter.
When the grooms kiss, many in attendance look away because it makes them uncomfortable.
What have ww here...? Looks like a turd sandwich!
Nero is busy bending over for 0bama.
Wow, Metallica?? Odd choice.
“No, the converse argument does not work.”
It does. However perverse, the procedure is legal where she performed it. As such, it’s not grounds for recusal. For that, you need advocacy.
And that proves she's a lesbian?
It is fair to say that most of what I see him doing is defending Obama. I don't actually understand him, but I think there is more to him than what he appears to be.
Performing such a procedure in light of thousands of years of prohibition against it, *IS* advocacy.
The concept of "marriage" was never intended to encompass any relationship other than man/woman. If you break the concept away from it's normal and socially functional meaning, it is just as reasonable to assert that it applies to goats, pigs and vegetation, as it is to say it applies to two males.
It is a deliberate effort to reject the normal and socially viable definition. It is completely an act of advocacy.
RE: Wow, Metallica?? Odd choice.
Did the article say Metallica?
Or is it “Mr. Sandman” by the Chordettes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNuX7bs2qAM
Boy, and here I was thinking the Constitution only affirmed SOME inalienable Rights; among those Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whereas govt, obtaining their Powers (note: NOT Rights) from the consent of the governed, are instituted to protect our Land, borders and the Rights of the Citizens.
Now, I care not what two people wish to do personally; not do I believe We should require PERMISSIONS from govt for a number of things; nor should words be twisted to mean what they do NOT.
If I wish to call my love, of 13 years, my spouse/wife/etc. I should get every nod/acknowledgment in doing so...WITHOUT needing to kneel before the State/Fed to do so.
In this regard, Buzzie is correct. Though, now that the Left wishes to open this Pandora’s box; I wish to instate my 2nd A. ‘Constitutional Carry’ Rights, Docs/lawyers licensed in one State need not worry in another...and the list goes on and on.
Why pass an Amend with NO teeth, where the existing Amendment do just as you describe....They are just not being FOLLOWED nor properly interpreted.
Might as well make murder even MORE illegal for all that would do.
“The witch knows she has a bias and she just doesn’t care. To her, the Constitution is what she says it is.”
A degree from Harvard or Yale law school is today a prerequisite for being a Supreme Court justice. State University law school graduates need not apply. Occasionally a graduate of another Ivy League School like Ginsburg (Columbia) makes the cut. All of these schools teach the “living Constitution”.
First and foremost, there is no such thing as binding precedent at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices of the High Court are not bound by “stare decisis,” only lower courts must follow the holdings of higher courts. Some of the most famous landmark decisions of the Supreme Court have overturned precedent.
While I will always take the points of view of other conservatives into account, I have my own points of view. I will not succumb to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Just because a point of view is popular with some conservatives doesn’t make it the only valid point of view.
I can guarantee you that there will NEVER be a time when constitutionist conservative justices don’t consider and aren’t guided by original intent.
Originalism, strict constructionism and textualism are the philosphical foundations of conservative jurisprudence.
Originalism is the theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified. That’s historical precedent.
Strict Construction means interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes. By contrast “broad construction” looks to what someone thinks was the “intent” of the framers’ language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and the complexity of modern society. That’s historical precedent.
Textualism is a theory of statutory interpretation which holds that a statute’s original meaning as evidenced in its word for word text should govern how judges interpret the statute, as opposed to alternative methods of statutory interpretation such as inquiring into historical sources in attempt to discover the intent of the legislative body that approved the statute.
Textualism is consistent with the “Plain Meaning Rule,” which says that interpreters of statutes ought to interpret what a statute says according to its “plain meaning.”
“Textualism” also refers to a set of practical techniques used by some noted jurists to nail down the meaning of a statute through close consideration of its text. That’s legal precedent.
Historical legal precedent is a factor that conservative judges take into consideration when looking for an understanding of original intent, narrow construction and textual considerations. Precedent can be a guide at the Supreme Court. It is not a legal straitjacket.
I was responding to someone who claimed that there are two lesbians on the Supreme Court. As far as I know, there are not. There are three women on the Supreme Court, two of whom are formerly married to men.
So, in the first paragraph you say “I was talking to the general FR community who has no idea what goes on in today’s culture.”
In the second paragraph you say “Try to find one freeper who will let their kid audition for the school play or musical because of their silly fear of homosexuality catching.”
Which is it? Are they clueless and need your help to tell them homosexuals are in the theatre, or do they know and are keeping their kids out (I personally vote for #1)?
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.