Skip to comments.
State's Sodomy Law Puts Lesbian's Judgeship In Jeopardy
CNSNews.com ^
| January 22, 2003
| Michael L. Betsch
Posted on 01/22/2003 5:38:45 AM PST by H8DEMS
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-135 next last
To: Sparta
I disagree its an unnatural law. However as a pragmatist ill support the law UNTIL this likely liberal feminist judge is driven from the bench.
41
posted on
01/22/2003 7:30:38 AM PST
by
weikel
To: Fuzz
"There is a law on the books of TENNESSEE that says a man must run in front of a vehicle that a woman is driving, and, that the car may not go faster than five miles an hour!" If you dont like it, change it. Or change your state constitution to let all laws expire after 5 years. There are too many laws today, no one can honestly say that they are not a criminal. It was easier in the old days, to live a life as a law abiding citizen. My grandparents could honestly say that they were "law abiding citizens". No one today can honestly make that statement.
My grandparents would have had no problems letting a sheriff search their house, since they knew they did not have anything against the law - almost nothing was against the law back then, all drugs and all guns were totally legal, no illegally copied music nor videotapes, etc.
Today, you have to be crazy to think that your home does not contain something illegal.
Comment #43 Removed by Moderator
To: waterstraat
"Today, you have to be crazy to think that your home does not contain something illegal."
That would be the point then wouldn't it? I suppose someone could advocate arresting every female driver in TN that opposes them politically. You seemed to be advocating prosecuting people based on whatever law is on the books, and even advocating no knock raids to discover law breakers. If you were just being sarcastic, then I can see your point.
44
posted on
01/22/2003 7:44:13 AM PST
by
Fuzz
To: Emmylou
I don't have the stats, but I'd bet no one has been prosecuted for this in many years. Even if one or two people had, I'd still say 99.5% of the people in VA breaking this law are never prosecuted. We dont catch every speeder either, but we still keep the speed limits if our state wants them. That is no justification to give you a ticket, and let a judge get off with no ticket.
To: Fuzz
You seemed to be advocating prosecuting people based on whatever law is on the books Yeah, I am.
Prosecute them(esp judges) or get the law off the books.
To: Fuzz
If I could add one amendment to the Constitution, it would be that laws expire in twenty years (or at such earlier time as specified in the law). Laws that are actually worth having could be passed again (as an additional benefit, the work of maintaining the basic code of laws would keep the politicians busy and out of trouble), idiotic anachronisms could die quietly.
47
posted on
01/22/2003 7:47:01 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: steve-b
If I could add one amendment to the Constitution, it would be that laws expire in twenty years (or at such earlier time as specified in the law). Laws that are actually worth having could be passed again (as an additional benefit, the work of maintaining the basic code of laws would keep the politicians busy and out of trouble), idiotic anachronisms could die quietly. How could our founding fathers missed this?
How many people know what is legal and illegal anymore?
How many people know what is legal and illegal in the different states that we travel thru?
Why should you anyone degrading things about criminals and ex-cons, and deny them constitutional rights, when you yourself are a common criminal who just did not get caught?
Back to the subject, judges are not inadvertent lawbreakers. A judge is supposed to know the law, set an example for the community, be above reproach, and this judge in particular knows full well what the sodomy law is.
To: waterstraat
Either of the options you have presented, prosecute all that disobey every obscure and antiquated law, or search out and repeal them all, would squander the taxpayer's money and waste time that could be used for more pressing matters of national security and fiscal management. A little common sense and a little less hypocrisy is all that's required here.
49
posted on
01/22/2003 7:57:44 AM PST
by
Fuzz
To: waterstraat
For example, if someone wants to carry a concealed weapon, and lives in a state that does not allow it, they should move to a state that does permit it. This example is meaningless. If someone wants to carry a concealed weapon in the bedroom of their home, regardless of the law, I am not sure that this is illegal. Even if it is concealed rectally.
To: Fuzz
Either of the options you have presented, prosecute all that disobey every obscure and antiquated law, or search out and repeal them all, would squander the taxpayer's money and waste time that could be used for more pressing matters of national security and fiscal management. A little common sense and a little less hypocrisy is all that's required here. No, I disagree.
We already spend most of our police and prison resources on stupid non violent laws. The problem is that we let judges, cops, and rich white people go free, we let them ingore laws, so these laws are never changed.
Most people in prison, are there because they are convicted of non violent or victimless crimes. We let violent criminals go free early to make room for non violent criminals.
Our society would be a lot safer, and money well worth being spent, if we got rid of these crazy laws, and put murderers in prison longer than 96 months, rapists longer than 73 months, robbers more than 48 months, etc.
Common sense tells me that the only way to get violent criminals off the streets, is to prosecute cops and judges for these crazy laws. Our police spend an enormous amout of time arresting 750,000 marijuanna smokers, while letting rapists drive by.
Putting this judge in prison, and enforcing other stupid laws, may allow us to get rid of stupid laws, and leave violent criminals in prison without parole.
To: Mr. Quarterpanel
For example, if someone wants to carry a concealed weapon, and lives in a state that does not allow it, they should move to a state that does permit it. This example is meaningless. If someone wants to carry a concealed weapon in the bedroom of their home, regardless of the law, I am not sure that this is illegal. Even if it is concealed rectally. You can use whatever example you want, the point is if you dont like your states laws, then move to another state. If you dont like state income taxes, then move to Florida or Nevada. Not paying state income taxes in California, Michigan, or Ohio is not the way to go. If you break a state law, you should be punished, with no excuses for judges.
Comment #53 Removed by Moderator
To: onetimeatbandcamp
Any other attitude leads to selective enforcement: where cops, judges, legislators, presidents, and rich white people are exempt from statims and do not have to obey(or worry about) the same laws that the rest of us do.
To: waterstraat
Well, now that's a post where I can agree with you, up to the last sentence at least. This judge is being questioned on her compliance with this particular law only because of political opposition. That does nothing to further any law reform or political agenda.
55
posted on
01/22/2003 8:24:45 AM PST
by
Fuzz
To: Sparta
The law may be horrible, but the law has to be followed. The hell it does.
Ah yes, more evidence of how Republicans want less government...
Comment #57 Removed by Moderator
To: mickie
Whatever you mean, this pratice is still a fithy, unhealthy action Over 50 or virgin?
To: Fuzz
"There is a law on the books of TENNESSEE that says a man must run in front of a vehicle that a woman is driving, and, that the car may not go faster than five miles an hour!" Ah. Sensible legislation :) (ducking)
59
posted on
01/22/2003 8:37:02 AM PST
by
DAnconia55
(Now, if we can do something about the old people on the road.)
To: waterstraat
How could our founding fathers missed this? Most of the Founders expected Americans to spill some blood every 20 years or so to regain their freedoms.
60
posted on
01/22/2003 8:38:49 AM PST
by
DAnconia55
(A pity.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-135 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson