Posted on 04/07/2011 5:42:53 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Somehow I don't see those who are protesting the loudest over Prop 8 as being as accepting of the will of the voters had the election results been different.
I know.But the Dems always hold “The will of the people” up to be a gold standard.
Except when the people are deemed ‘too stupid’ to ‘see what is good for them’, then the Dems have to thwart the people.
As with the decision on Prop 8.
The problem for most is that it redefines marriage. That's a hard one to get past voters. And homosexual marriage has never passed at the ballot box.
There is that.
If your vote doesn’t matter at all, then there is no point in voting any longer.
Which puts this all right back onto the judge, where does he get the authority to negate the people?
He doesn’t, but we live in bad times.
We need to replace liberal judges and get back to the Constitution. This is as crazy as finding the “right” to murder your own child in the “right to privacy”. 50 years ago an admittedly deviant judge would have been watched or not on the bench at all.
Well, I haven't voted since 2005, partially for that reason.
There is no reason not to vote. Real Conservatives do NOT give up their rights for ANY reason.
Right, but Prop 187 and the prior two votes re: same-sex marriage were not constitutional amendments, were they?
While very dubious, they could at least claim that the CA constitution prohibited those laws from being enforced. This at least is logical if faulty.
In the case of Prop 8, the constitution ITSELF was changed, so saying the constitution (which includes prop 8) prohibits itself! It’s nonsense.
Self-selected?
Yes. The same as pedophiles and necrophiliacs who chose to live that way instead of seeking mental help. They either choose to treat their sexual deviancy or embrace it.
There is nothing in the Judiciary Law or any other Federal law that requires a judge to recuse himself simply because he is gay. Perhaps there should be, but there is not and until Congress changes the law, the same standards for recusal apply to both gay and straight judges. And if "mental illness" is the standard for recusal, then why do we have so many judges that suffer from paranoia, narcissistic personality disorder, and OCD?
To answer your question about "judge shopping," yes, I approve. Every good litigator does it and in my opinion, it is an act of legal malpractice to commence a lawsuit in a judicial district where the assigned judge is likely to show hostility to the plaintiff's case if the case can be venued in a more friendly judicial district. Perhaps one of the best examples of judicial shopping is the decision to commence the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola. All three of the District Court judges who sit in that particular division were appointed by a Republican president and have solid Republican, if not conservative credentials. The commencement of that lawsuit in that particular Federal Court was no accident, but rather a conscious attempt to shop for a judge who is likely to appreciate the conservative arguments against Obamacare.
Suppose, for example, that the people of Kalifornia pass Prop 10 that requires state and local government to give preferential treatment to homos in employment. If I were retained to challenge the constitutionality of Prop 10, I would commence the lawsuit in the Federal Judicial District in Kalifornia that has the greatest number of conservative leaning judges who are most likely the sympathize with my arguments such as the Middle District Courthouse in Orange County. I would not commence the action in San Francisco and to do so would, in my opinion, would be an act of legal malpractice.
Lastly, I do not equate the decision of one Federal District Court judge the decision of nine judges (not eight as you misstate) on the Supreme Court. As everyone should know (but probably don't), the SCOTUS trumps the Circuit Courts of Appeals and the District Courts and the Circuit Courts of Appeals trump the District Courts. The general rules governing recusal, however, apply equally to all Federal judges regardless of the court.
I refuse to play along. It may be self-serving, and I may at some time register again, but for today I am taking my ball and going home.
Nice twist but we aren't that dumb.
Walker had a self-interest in this case as it directly affected him and his deviancy he should have recused himself. NOTHING you can spout changes his self-interest and THAT is grounds for recusal.
Then you have little right to complain about those who refuse to give up their rights.
Actually, I prefer to think of it another way: those who voted them in have no right to complain. They are the ones responsible!
He should be recused form any and all cases that require sound judgment premised upon moral principles -he has none!
Nice twist but I’m not buying. If a voter doesn’t use their right to vote, they have given up their right. And have NO room to criticize others. People like you are why we lose.
Being compelled to engage in Homosexual sex is a mental disorder. Not the same at all!
Get a clue.
I would never be proud of not supporting my country and the Constitution.
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.