Posted on 07/18/2004 7:35:18 PM PDT by paltz
Sheesh, what a can of worms.
Please tell me this is satirical...please?
I'd back this a lot more than a constitutional amendment.
It's high time these activist judges like that tyrant Stephen Reinhardt, are reigned in.
Is that actually real, or is it a Saturday Night Live type thing.
how screwed up in the head can you get?
More than one way to skin a cat!
What do you mean? They're DemocRATS.
Maybe the sexually charged comment about Kerry and Edwards wasn't in there, but I'd bet on the rest.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks the FMA was rushed to a vote too soon. The White House political people observed that in 2000, there were 4 million Evangelicals who didn't vote. They decided that the FMA would be their strategy for making sure this didn't happen again. So they decided to have an early FMA vote to force liberal senators from red states (e.g. Tom Daschle) to vote pro-homosexual. But in the event, they were 12 votes shy of cloture, so they didn't get the vote itself. The two Johns didn't even bother showing up to vote, they didn't need to. Ouch! So by turning marriage into wedge politics, I'm afraid they may have guaranteed gay marriage in all 50 states.
As for the idea of passing legislation to limit the powers of judges, is this really a good idea? There's a reason there's a judiciary: it is a check on legislative and executive power. We might regret taking away their power someday. But in the meanwhile, it looks a bit desperate to talk of such things. Kind of like FDR trying to stack the Supreme Court in the 1930s by making it have 15 justices, when the Court ruled against his socialist programs.
including stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue
They are getting closer FINALLY!
How about forcing the judicial activists OFF the bench through the impeachment proceedings since they have been breaking the laws now with impunity for several decades now!
Nah --- those damned rinos have no guts!
"As for the idea of passing legislation to limit the powers of judges, is this really a good idea? There's a reason there's a judiciary: it is a check on legislative and executive power."
I understand your concern, but the checks and balances haven't worked for a long time. The courts must be brought into line. If congress has the constitutional power to limit court juridictions, now is the time to try it. Yes, there is a risk it could get out of hand - but like I said, the courts already are. Maybe it will sober up drunken liberal judges to the fact they are not above the "consent of those ruled."
This item is an example of excellent satire. Why?
Because it too easily could be real. Does anyone have a single doubt how NAMBLA members will contribute and vote?
But the tip-off is the "Peter Herman" as in "Pee-Wee".
My Congressman at work!!! Go get em John.
May I ask where you found that? I'd like to find a link to it so I can use it in an ongoing debate in our neighborhood over Kerry vs. Bush.
Thanks!
What is the argument behind the claim that:
State 'A' (or fed) must recognize (all) the
marriages of State 'B' ?
"If skinning cats is your thing"...Personally it seems a bit messy. Cats, worms, snakes, its all pretty weird I'd say.
I can't wait to see how they will handle the divorces from the Massachusetts gay marriages. That will be a hoot...Gee whose clothes are whose, and who gets what, its coming!
Pee Wee is a pervert, as is NAMBLA, I think those people should have to register as sex offenders in every state.
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.