Further evidence for increased judicial impeachments to purge the activists in the judiciary.
This is not odd behavior for a practicing homosexual activist. One of the things about obsessive/compulsive behavior is that it dominates all aspects of life. It may be suppressed so that this is not immediately obvious but it is always there adding a dominating influence. This judge could never render any opinion other than the one he did. Because he is not sane enough to do otherwise.
And this should be kept in mind as the homosexual agenda advances along with the overall leftist agenda. The homosexual agenda is a direct attack on religion in general and the Judeo/Christian tradition in particular. Homosexual “rights” will be used to trump long established rights and will become a weapon to silence religious voices and coerce churches into accepting sexual depravity as “right”, “good” and “proper”. The left is very happy with this because to advance the larger agenda it is necessary to marginalize people of faith and to discredit the tenets by which they live. The fallout from this will be the loss of genuine liberty and all that derives from liberty. It is not only a religious issue. The beliefs and traditions that are being destroyed are the foundational beliefs upon which this nation is based and which led to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Witness the complete willingness of the homosexual judge to ignore law, precedent and the results of two elections in California and dozens of such referenda across the country. We have seen this kind of high-handedness before but rarely so blatantly exercised.
The following is the comment published today by Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. I think his analysis is correct; I hope it is.
| "By now, you've heard the good news. The Ninth Circuit reached out the long arm of the law to restrain Judge Vaughn Walker. The three-judge panel set a court date (Dec. 6) to hear oral arguments in the appeal of Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 (and establishing a federal Constitutional right to gay marriage) and also, in the process, overruled Judge Walker's unprecedented decision to rush his ruling into effect immediately, without any review by higher courts. "I've been reading a lot of commentary and talking to a lot of lawyers these past few weeks. But Ed Whelan made one of the most trenchant points I've seen anyone make about the significance of the Ninth Circuit's decision to stay Walker's ruling: "Walker's reversals also call into question the judgment of the supposed dream team of plaintiffs' lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies," writes Whelan over at Bench Memos. "...[D]espite their massive advantage in resources, Olson and Boies have lost to Cooper and his team on every issue that has been decided by any court other than Walker's." And just who is Ed Whelan, you may be wondering? He's the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a very distinguished legal mind. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law school in 1985 (serving as an editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review), clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and spent three years in the Justice Department as Principal Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. He's one smart legal eagle, in other words. So when Ed Whelan says Judge Walker's bizarre ruling will backfire, I sit up and take notice: In fact, he writes the stay "provides yet further compelling evidence that Walker has gone utterly bonkers in his egregious mishandling of this case." He goes on: "This is the third time that a reviewing court has smacked down Walker in this case. The first time was an extraordinary writ of mandamus that a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees issued last year against the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal campaign communications of the Prop 8 sponsors. The second time was the Supreme Court's extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order blocking Walker's unlawful effort to broadcast his show trial. "To any objective observer, Walker has discredited himself by his manifest bias. However the reviewing courts ultimately decide this case, I think it's highly unlikely that Walker's wild legal analysis or his crazed purported findings will advance his cause--and far more likely that they will do the opposite," concludes Whelan.
|