Posted on 06/02/2004 6:46:51 PM PDT by doug from upland
Edited on 06/02/2004 7:31:16 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
This ones for you - it is CA!
Yes, the poster to whom you referred made an error in spelling. Perhaps, however, it would be helpful for you to put a period at the end of your sentence rather than improperly finishing it with a question mark.
We are all guilty of spelling and grammatical errors. We don't usually point them out just to stick it to a fellow FReeper.
Judge Hamilton, a curse on your moustache!
There is ONE reason why the Second Amendment to the Constitution was written - to protect ourselves from tyranical govt officials.
It was a commercial dispute involving a federal contract on a government project. I believe the project was at Onizuka AFS. It wasn't an earth-shattering case, but I do recall that she was disinterested in the issues and believed we were wasting her time with this silly case. My client was pretty pissed off.
She is truly a cancer in our judicial system. In addition to supporting Muslim prayer in public school and ruling to overturn the ban on PBA, this judge ruled in favor of two gay dudes who wanted to register as prospective adoptive parents on adoption.com.
http://usanow.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_usanow_archive.html#108612366900975405
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Phyllis Hamilton - Part III
Apparently, there is not enough time in the day to catalog all of the morally bankrupt rulings issued by Judge Phyllis Hamilton. No wonder Clinton nominated her - there's absolutely no liberal cause she doesn't love.
In recent posts, USANow has documented her preference to remove any and all obstacles to a woman's right to murder her unborn. The cruelty and horror of Partial Birth Abortions are minor by-products of a woman's right to make whatever "medical decisions" she wants. In addition, Hamilton has issued a ruling upholding a public school district's right to force students to practice Islam in school for 3 weeks.
Are there any limits to her lack of moral character? Does she ever issue any judgement that supports common, everyday, American values? Apparently not. Earlier this month, two gay men sought to post their provile on www.adoption.com as potential adoptive "parents". Adoption.com, as you would expect, refused to post the profiles of the two homosexuals. So the homos sued and had the good fortune that their case landed in the court of Phyllis Hamilton. Naturally, Hamilton ruled in favor of the gay men, stating that adoption.com was discriminating based on sexual orientation.
It seems that an organization would be able to create a valuable service like adoption.com in such a manner that supported traditional, accepted, normal family values. Obviously, Hamilton doesn't see it that way. I think all would agree that homosexuals should not be discriminated against with respect to employment, college admissions, etc. However, is should also be crystal clear to anyone with a brain that two gay men cannot be classified as "prospective adoptive parents".
PS - if you disagree with USANow, ask yourself this question. How would you like to find yourself, at the age of 12, as the adopted child of two gay guys? Wouldn't you be pissed that some judge forced an adoption agency to allow a gay couple to adopt you? Cub Scouts would be a real hoot on the father-son campouts. Your wedding day would be just grand as two "Dads" walk you down the aisle. A district judge has absolutely no business enforcing her moral perversions on a defenseless child up for adoption.
posted by John @ 3:37 PM Comment (0)
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.