No sweetheart. I couldn't care less about this case, or homo marriage. And, domestic law is about as far removed from my area of practice as you can get. You'll forgive me if I'm not up on the latest rulings stemming from a 1970's MN Supreme Court case.
But, I have picked up on a disturbing trend amongst people who say that they're conservative thinking, but they sure do want some judicial activism when a particular case doesn't go their way.
I'll say it one last time - judicial activism isn't OK when anyone does it or advocates for it, especially conservatives.
OK, so what is your position on the homosexual agenda in general and same-sex "marriage" in particular?
And, domestic law is about as far removed from my area of practice as you can get. You'll forgive me if I'm not up on the latest rulings stemming from a 1970's MN Supreme Court case.
They are quite important to the "law is the law" discussion, if what I suspect is true.
But, I have picked up on a disturbing trend amongst people who say that they're conservative thinking, but they sure do want some judicial activism when a particular case doesn't go their way.
What is your definition of judicial activism?
I'll say it one last time - judicial activism isn't OK when anyone does it or advocates for it, especially conservatives.
So that premise applies to Lawrence v. Texas, correct?