Monte wrote:
No, but people seem to be implying that a person who happens to be gay cannot make a fair decision on a case like this.
No one has said or implied anything of the sort. You are, once again, ascribing an argument you find politically convenient to people you THINK oppose you on the subject.
Monte wrote:
Should black Supreme Court justices recuse themselves in decisions relating to Civil Rights?
That depends on the case. It matters very little if any given judge will or can render a fair and impartial decision based on facts should their position relative to the case be questionable. You'll note, for instance, that I've made no comments about the correctness or legitimacy of this ruling. I've indicated that Vaughn Walkers's sexual orientation will be a viable avenue of attack during appeal.
Monte wrote:
And if so, why shouldn't white people? Why would a straight person be a more fair judge of this case? They have an interest in it, as well.
This has nothing to do with race and sexual orientation, Monte. That said, the legal opponents of Walker's ruling will use both against him on appeal. And if you understood that, you would understand my comments. Regardless of whichever outcome you support, Vaughn Walker has created an opportunity that previously did not exist to legally substantiate and entrench Proposition 8 as valid.
Monte wrote:
Attacking the judge is pretty limp in this case. He's a reagan appointee with a long record of excellent judicial service. His decision, on it's merits, is excellently argued. Hell, the witnesses for the pro-Prop 8 people wound up agreeing with the Plaintiff's case on cross examination.
No one is attacking Judge Vaughn Walker. Although, if you read about his nomination process, you'd find that Pelosi objected to it and succeeded it delaying it until George H.W. Bush took office and re-appointed him. What we have said, however, is that his sexual orientation will complicate the appeals process. But, you'll somehow try to spin this as me opposing the ruling without considering the greater harm being done to our rule of law by both sides of this argument. I mean, really ...
The 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment are nice and all, but no one wants to address blatant violations of Article IV, Section I by the Federal Government or States. And no one wants to answer the 10th Amendment question. The legal argument on this issue should have been over 20 years, but the supporters of "gay marriage" keep using the wrong arguments in courts; and the opponents keep trapping it behind the "interpretive" quagmire that the liberal political agenda has made of the Constitution. But, you know, you'd hate to learn that your politics are your own worst enemy on the subject, Monte. That your arguments have been deftly wielded against you to create DOMA, which still has far more problematic sections in place and as law.
Quote:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
If you really cared about civil rights and the Constitution, you'd want these cases argued on that clause, not the balderdash that is your "interpretation" of what the 5th and 14th say.
_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
