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

To: Polycarp
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists di-rected at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homo-sexual conduct.

Exactly. A majority of the SCOTUS, acting as a superlegislature of unelected, life-tenured lawmakers from overwhelminngly liberal backgrounds has decreed, "We prefer the progressive way the liberal California Assembly has dealt with this issue. As liberals, we find it most satsifying andf acceptable. Therefore we now pass a law requiring the other 49 state legislatures to do it like California has done it."

"And thanks for asking! On behalf of our revered mentor Antonio Gramsci we would like to assure you we are more than pleased to ignore the 10th Amendment so that we may do your progressive social engineering for you."

8 posted on 06/26/2003 6:31:24 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Kevin Curry
Which of these liberal justices were appointed by Republicans.

Did Bush 41 and Reagan intentionally put some liberals on the court so they wouldn't have to worry about any backlash if the court turned conservative?
78 posted on 06/26/2003 7:59:03 PM PDT by 7 x 77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

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