[BenLurkin]

The wrong side of WHAT history?

[lightman]

Good for the FL AG.

The PA AG said she sided with the plaintiffs and refused to defend the Commonwealth.

[doc1019]

The people speak, a liberal judge overturns. Why do we even bother with the voting process?

[ClearCase_guy]

Jurisprudence: "Whatever I think is best."

It saves a lot of time, because you don't have to write up a whole bunch of laws and get them passed. You know, "It's whatever."

[libertylover]

Homosexuality is not normal and I don’t want my government pretending otherwise. It’s simply not normal for a member of any species to behave in a manner that would lead to the extinction of the entire species of the behavior was widespread.

[Reddy]

The judge comparing the legalization of homosexual marriage to interracial marriage is disgusting

[SoFloFreeper]

"wrong side of history"?

Uh...Genesis 19, anyone?

Ancient Greece?

Wrong side of history??

The "sexual revolution" of the 60s, 70s, helped beget unprecedented numbers of abortions, STDs, AIDS deaths, and broken families.

Is that the RIGHT side of history, there, Hinkle?

[kiryandil]

Ahhhhh, this judge is just another black-robed evil clown blowhard.

You don't see these judges standing fast on the issue of the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment against the states and their little private real estate theft schemes (property taxes).

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

...Protection against taking of private property without just compensation
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

So why is it that most state governments can seize "your" property and sell it for a piddly tax lien, HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

No "just compensation" there. And judges like these turn a blind eye all day, because it's THEIR paycheck.

Hinkle can just shut up, as far as I'm concerned.

[kaehurowing]

I don’t remember learning in law school that “the wrong side of history” was any sort of standard of review or test by which you could determine the legality of a statute.

[Amendment10]

"Hinkle ruled that labeling marriage as only "between a man and a woman" was in violation of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it does not provide a guarantee of equal protection and due process under the law."

As questioned in related threads, where did these misguided activist judges go to law school? (I don't really want to know.)

Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, officially clarify in the congressional record that the 14th Amendment applies only those privileges and immunities amended to the Constitution by the states to the states, but the Supreme Court has historically clarified that the 14th Amendment added no new personal rights to the Constitution.

• “Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

• “3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay rights, the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues like gay marriage, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.

[virgil]

Truth to power.

[ViLaLuz]

Well, who is on the wrong side of eternity?

[lastchance]

“wrong side of history.”

That is what passes for legal argument? What a joke.

[Phillyred]

Gee silly me I thought you were supposed to determine either the wrong or right side of the constitution!!!!

[sten]

which side of the history is Sodom on again?

[Pollster1]

And when national socialism is making gains, will a judge decide their victory is inevitable and resistance is on the “wrong side of history”?

I miss the rule of law, the good old days when judges were supposed to decide cases based on written law and the written Constitution, not just a current fad.