I agree with the judge in principle. But my problem with this situation is the following. No federal laws were broken because 1A prohibits Congress from making such laws.
And I don’t know of any specific state laws that abridged the student’s constitutional rights, so Sec. 1 of 14A probably does not apply here.
The way I see it, in the absence of state laws which protect students in such situations, the judge essentially had no choice but to legislate a conservative-favoring law from the bench to protect the student. The problem is that, as a consequence of the “case closed” complacency of concerned conservative citizens and state lawmakers as a result of the judge deciding things in their favor, some pro-gay judge will eventually legislate an anti-conservative law from the bench and decide against another student in a similar situation.
In other words, as a consequence of not recognizing the difference between legislative and judicial powers, I think that conservatives are failing to recognize that this is a “loose canon” situation which needs to be resolved by either local code or state law imo. That is, unless conservatives want to continue playing “Russian roulette” with good judges versus activist judges where protecting people’s constitutional privileges or immunities are concerned.
So what am I overlooking?
So what am I overlooking?
and they have called it Separation of Church and State.
When it is nothing less than States rights, although i like the way the Judge ruled it should have been decided by the State.
It is hard to tell how it would have turned out if it had of been left up to the State to decide, because people are not governing their States.
I guess we can be thankful for a supreme court Judge that will make the right decision on an issue that is really not his to make, but like you say, what next?