Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kagan Refuses to Answer Whether Marriage is a State Issue
Human Events ^ | 06/30/2010 | Ben Shapiro

Posted on 06/30/2010 1:34:04 PM PDT by opentalk

Kagan just said she wouldn't answer whether marriage was a state issue ... wait for it ... because there's a case coming down the pike. This is a load of horsepucky. It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed's human lover is filing a case.

Then she said she wasn't going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value -- a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution -- and she followed that whopper up by saying "there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition ... what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don't get the full weight."

Unreal. Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972. She doesn't answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument.

In other words, she's pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; kagan; marriage; moralabsolutes; no; notqualified; unamerican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2010 1:34:06 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Wouldn’t it be simpler to just ask her if States have any rights? Doubt she would answer honestly, but we could all save a lot of time. Jeepers, seeing her fat face everyday is punishment enough.


2 posted on 06/30/2010 1:37:54 PM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Lyndsey Graham will still vote for her.


3 posted on 06/30/2010 1:40:20 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I’m busy at work but I heard her refusing to say she had written somthing, alluding it was in her hand-writing.


4 posted on 06/30/2010 1:42:04 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I’m busy at work but I heard her refusing to say she had written somthing, alluding it was in her hand-writing.


5 posted on 06/30/2010 1:42:12 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

“she followed that whopper up by saying “there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition ... what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don’t get the full weight.”

Something about Elena Kagan tells me she has a lifelong familiarity with Whoppers (Big and Junior) and that there’s something akin to a Freudian slip involved whenever she talks about how much “weight” to accord this or that: according anything its “full weight” might understandably make her nervous.


6 posted on 06/30/2010 1:42:18 PM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Lyndsey will vote for her because they’re the same gender.


7 posted on 06/30/2010 1:46:31 PM PDT by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just ask her if States have any rights

Good point. This will come into play with AZ, state immigration laws, states repealing health care. Obama wants to consolidate power under him. He seems to be punishing of Red states, sends aid and funds to Blue states.

Marriage issues on state ballots usually side on traditional marriage definition.

8 posted on 06/30/2010 1:49:38 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: opentalk; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; ...

The list, ping


9 posted on 06/30/2010 1:52:11 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Too bad nobody in Senate or the Peoples house, except maybe crazy old Ron Paul knows the right answer . Marriage is none of any government's business, Fed, State or local at all .
10 posted on 06/30/2010 1:58:04 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Marriage is a religious issue.

The state merely dictates the terms of the contract - after the fact.


11 posted on 06/30/2010 2:01:15 PM PDT by meyer (Big government is the enemy of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

That’s because he’s a limp wrist, closet poofter.


12 posted on 06/30/2010 2:06:10 PM PDT by Rebelbase (Political correctness in America today is a Rip Van Winkle acid trip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
I think that was a memo about defending partial-birth abortions.

The issue of partial-birth abortion had raged during the Clinton years, with the President ultimately vetoing a measure by Congress to ban the procedure, but Nebraska banned it on their own.

In order to defeat that law, Kagan manipulated a report by a panel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to fool the Supreme Court into thinking that doctors had supported the idea that it was a medically necessary procedure, when in fact ACOG couldn’t specify a single set of circumstances where it would save the life of the mother:

Kagan’s SCOTUS deception to defend partial-birth abortions

13 posted on 06/30/2010 2:06:33 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Thanks for the info and link.

Listening at work, always getting interrupted.

14 posted on 06/30/2010 2:21:06 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Liberals are a devious bunch, they always have to lie about who they are and what they believe.

The Socialist in Chief is the best example.

15 posted on 06/30/2010 2:23:08 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

In normal times I thought that was reason to be disbarred, not going through hearings for supreme court Judge.


16 posted on 06/30/2010 2:26:56 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

They don’t see the shame of having to deny the very essence of their being. They are ashamed of themselves, yet they want us to accept their perversions.


17 posted on 06/30/2010 2:28:59 PM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DrC

She’s is beyond horrible.


18 posted on 06/30/2010 2:56:25 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Marriage issues on state ballots usually side on traditional marriage definition.

A perfect 31 - 0 record,actually.(It would be 32 - 0 if the politicians let it on the ballot in Massachusetts).

19 posted on 06/30/2010 6:11:56 PM PDT by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: opentalk; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Pinging both lists again since the protection of marriage is more than just a "homosexual agenda" issue. It affects everyone who has kids, pays taxes, employs others, is an employee, plus numerous other people who work in fields that will be affected by two people of the same sex demanding, for instance, that you cater or photograph their wedding. Or hire your band to play. Or you are a divorce lawyer and one of them wants you to represent them. Or you work in an adoption agency. Or you rent a house or a room in your house. (People used to be able to rent a house saying "married couples only - is that illegal now?) That's just a small sampling.

20 posted on 06/30/2010 6:13:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson