Posted on 10/16/2006 8:04:00 AM PDT by SmithL
Why?
The liberal activist SCOTUS does it again.
Washington fiddles while America burns...
Because there are still too many liberals on the court that would uphold it and make bad law. It is better to wait until the right mix is on the court.
Have the President's two "conservative" appointees ruled conservatively on a single case yet? This sure looks like the same old liberal SCOTUS to me.
They don't have the votes. I believe we need one more conservative to start winning cases.
"...sailing, carpentry and plumbing" ?
Don't necessarily like the decision but now the SeaScouts need to SELL their rip-rap and RENT space at a marina.
lol. every freeper should stay at home and not vote to protest! then we get more liberal judges confirmed by a dem senate...that'll show em!!
There shouldn't be children in a place like Berkeley anyway. It's abuse.
Children could get infected or sodomized in a sick place like Berkeley.
Have you considered how a long a wait this might be? Most of the Justices on the Supreme Court are "conservatives" who have been placed there by "conservative" Presidents, so I guess we're waiting for a third Party to rule, or for America to collapse; whichever comes first.
It would be nice if someone who owns a private slip says "Here ya go boys". My dad was a scout and that's how I became a sailor. Payment?? I'll put it in my will. It's yours "FOREVER".
Private organizations are (or at least should be) free to include or exclude whomever they want. However, they should be prepared to face the consequences of such policies, like those who don't share their views not giving them freebies.
I wonder how many boat slips the Scouts could have rented for what this case is costing them?
Sounds good until you look a little deeper into your logic.. This is a govt. owned marina, and it gives free access to nonprofits. It is, in fact, discriminating against the scouts and trying to force its own mores on a private orgn. Does the govt. then have the right to discriminate or not according to whomever is in power when te rules are made? Or should it treat all orgn. fairly? Oh, I forgot--this is CA. vaudine
Not SCOTUS, it's the California SC.
I'm sure Berkeley offers various privileges to other organizations whose biases they favor. Sounds like a research project...
Yes we Dems fight hard to keep the perverts away from pages and scouts.
Aren't all of the other organizations also discriminating? They do not allow people with the boy scouts view into their organizations.
I have not read the opinion of the California court, but I think this case seems equivalent to what happened in the 80s when cities divested investment in South Africa. For example, my town could treat NAMBLA or NARAL differently from other groups because they are perverts or baby killers.
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.