If that one passes, it's probably on a fast track to SCOTUS, assuming any appeals on stay grant certori.
There's more info at http://www.no-on-e.com
I note with somewhere between amusement and appallment that this is considered a CA import from folks who failed to ge it on the ballot here.
If that one passes, it's probably on a fast track to SCOTUS, assuming any appeals on stay grant certori.
There's more info at http://www.no-on-e.com
I note with somewhere between amusement and appallment that this is considered a CA import from folks who failed to ge it on the ballot here.
I hope NONE of them pass, but I agree with you-- if any of them pass, I hope the Supreme Court swats them down. They of all people should recognize the threat to an independent judiciary in these bills.
I'm not surprised that it failed to get on the ballot here in California-- despite the fact that we have some very conservative folks around here, the majority of us have some common sense. Let's hope the folks in South Dakota have some too-- the good news is the legislature there is against this bill. That *might* help. We'll see, come November 7.
I hope NONE of them pass, but I agree with you-- if any of them pass, I hope the Supreme Court swats them down. They of all people should recognize the threat to an independent judiciary in these bills.
I'm not surprised that it failed to get on the ballot here in California-- despite the fact that we have some very conservative folks around here, the majority of us have some common sense. Let's hope the folks in South Dakota have some too-- the good news is the legislature there is against this bill. That *might* help. We'll see, come November 7.
There's a bit of an argument to be made for having it pass and then be unquivocally struck down, perhaps. With failures at the ballot level, proponents could be encouraged to keep trying to get it passed; a SCOTUS ruling (or appeals ruling) would set precedent. Of course that's not always a guarantee ppl will stop their nonsense, as witness the efforts to swing SCOTUS conservative and re-visit prior decisions...
There's a bit of an argument to be made for having it pass and then be unquivocally struck down, perhaps. With failures at the ballot level, proponents could be encouraged to keep trying to get it passed; a SCOTUS ruling (or appeals ruling) would set precedent. Of course that's not always a guarantee ppl will stop their nonsense, as witness the efforts to swing SCOTUS conservative and re-visit prior decisions...
I agree-- I'd prefer to have it pass, then have the Supremes overturn it and make it clear that this won't fly. I'm not so sure about an appeals ruling-- sometimes one court will rule one way, another court will rule differently, and the Supreme Court will take its sweet time in deciding whether or not to accept the case... So I also agree with your final comment there. What scares me the most I think is that this is even happening at all.
I agree-- I'd prefer to have it pass, then have the Supremes overturn it and make it clear that this won't fly. I'm not so sure about an appeals ruling-- sometimes one court will rule one way, another court will rule differently, and the Supreme Court will take its sweet time in deciding whether or not to accept the case... So I also agree with your final comment there. What scares me the most I think is that this is even happening at all.
I suggest you read Pat Buchanan's take on judicial tyranny:
http://www.theconservativevoice....icle/
19722.html
I suggest you read Pat Buchanan's take on judicial tyranny:
http://www.theconservativevoice....icle/
19722.html
I don't see anything tyrannical about mandating equality under the law. To condone gays as second-class citizens violates the spirit of the Constitution, and what this country stands for.
I don't see anything tyrannical about freedom of speech. You don't like pornography? Nude dancers in bars? You aren't gay and you're not into gay sex? Then don't watch or buy porn; don't go to topless or nude bars; be heterosexual, in the privacy of your own home (the same is true for gays too-- have sex in the privacy of your own home. It's not my business, and shouldn't be anyone else's).
I don't see anything tyrannical about the separation of church and state. If you want your kids to have bible study and prayer in the classroom, send them to a private, sectarian school. I understand there are quite a few good Catholic schools out there, for example (I've always thought some of the Catholic schools provide a better overall education than some of the public schools, anyway). It is not appropriate for PUBLIC funds to be used to pay for PUBLIC educators to provide such things as Bible studies or prayer, which I assume (and most people would equally assume) would be geared to the Christian Bible and to the Christian God.
What I see as tyrannical is a group of people who have a narrow cultural and social construction of the world insisting that the rest of the nation, the judiciary, and the legislators conform to their own particular worldview (I'm not alone in this: a CNN poll says two-thirds of Americans feel that politicians should not inhibit the judiciary.)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...dges/
index.html
That said, I do thank you for providing the link. It's always interesting to read other perspectives, even when I disagree.
I don't see anything tyrannical about mandating equality under the law. To condone gays as second-class citizens violates the spirit of the Constitution, and what this country stands for.
I don't see anything tyrannical about freedom of speech. You don't like pornography? Nude dancers in bars? You aren't gay and you're not into gay sex? Then don't watch or buy porn; don't go to topless or nude bars; be heterosexual, in the privacy of your own home (the same is true for gays too-- have sex in the privacy of your own home. It's not my business, and shouldn't be anyone else's).
I don't see anything tyrannical about the separation of church and state. If you want your kids to have bible study and prayer in the classroom, send them to a private, sectarian school. I understand there are quite a few good Catholic schools out there, for example (I've always thought some of the Catholic schools provide a better overall education than some of the public schools, anyway). It is not appropriate for PUBLIC funds to be used to pay for PUBLIC educators to provide such things as Bible studies or prayer, which I assume (and most people would equally assume) would be geared to the Christian Bible and to the Christian God.
What I see as tyrannical is a group of people who have a narrow cultural and social construction of the world insisting that the rest of the nation, the judiciary, and the legislators conform to their own particular worldview (I'm not alone in this: a CNN poll says two-thirds of Americans feel that politicians should not inhibit the judiciary.)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...dges/
index.html
That said, I do thank you for providing the link. It's always interesting to read other perspectives, even when I disagree.
Commenting by HaloScan
