Why is this even an issue?

[Garfield1966]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ay-judges_x.htm

That’s like saying a female judge cannot rule on and abortion issue, a black judge cannot rule on a civil rights issue, a married judge cannot rule on a issue involving mariage.

it saddens me that he should have to even worry about such a silly thing. I guess it is a good thing that he has the judicial integrity to make sure that he is doing his job to the best of his ability.

 

[delldude]

"Everybody's got a personal life, but you don't bring it to work," says Kistler, 57. "You're not here to impose or enforce your personal viewpoint. You're here to follow the statutes and the Constitution."

But too many push their own agendas by seeking activist judges....

I shudder to think what the outcome would be of a Republican Federal Court candidate in a democrat controlled house or senate....sexual orientation wouldn't be an issue???

 

[UAL_TECH]

But too many push their own agendas by seeking activist judges....

I shudder to think what the outcome would be of a Republican Federal Court candidate in a democrat controlled house or senate....sexual orientation wouldn't be an issue???

Orientation or position?
Kama Sutra?
😛

 

[Ch. 12]

I shudder to think what the outcome would be of a Republican Federal Court candidate in a democrat controlled house or senate....sexual orientation wouldn't be an issue???

Yeah, man...and those same damned democrats ruined life by removing the race issue as well. What a bunch of whiny civil rights jerks! If they would just go away, Hitlers could come out of hiding everywhere and go on with their master plans for master races.

I sure as hell hope that there is never a day when I have to treat somebody of a different race, orientation, or culture as an equal!!

Disclaimer: For those that can't read facecious tones or sarcasm in posts, this one was completely filled with these tones.

 

[delldude]

Yeah, man...and those same damned democrats ruined life by removing the race issue as well.

Nobody shuffles the race card deck better than the dems....

 

[Garfield1966]

But too many push their own agendas by seeking activist judges....

I shudder to think what the outcome would be of a Republican Federal Court candidate in a democrat controlled house or senate....sexual orientation wouldn't be an issue???

Any judge is an activist if they are doing something you don't like. I don't like the conservative activist judges because I feel they are reading into the constitution intents that are not there. Limiting who can get married, limiting what a woman may do with her body, just to name a few.

I have seen nothing to indicate that sexual orientation would be an issue in a democrat controlled senate. Their opinions on birth control, abortion, gay rights, civil rights yes. Whether they enjoy the company of the opposite sex or the same sex has never been a democrat hot button. That is the domain of the christan right who controlled the republican party.

 

[Seatacus]

Wasn't it a big issue when the supreme court nominees were being voted on. Many were concerned about their Christian values effecting their decisions.

 

[Garfield1966]

Wasn't it a big issue when the supreme court nominees were being voted on. Many were concerned about their Christian values effecting their decisions.

I do not recall sexual preference being an issue at all since they were all heterosexual males (I don't count Miers).

Religion has become an issue due to this administrations persistence in bringing religious over tones to nearly all the endeavors it undertakes. Those of us who believe religion should be a private affair undertake in ones home or religious establishment are justifiably concerned about the intrusion of religion in day to day affairs of state. In our opinion, religion has no place in the public eye.

 

[delldude]

Any judge is an activist if they are doing something you don't like.

How about when they circumvent the legislative process and pull an end around on our constitution by legislating from the bench?
Liberal dem SOP...

 

[Garfield1966]

How about when they circumvent the legislative process and pull an end around on our constitution by legislating from the bench?
Liberal dem SOP...

Can you give me a "for instance"?

I'm still trying to figure out how you think a legislative branch of government that tried to do an end run around the constitution (trying to keep Shiavio alive) is capable of approving appointments by an administration (who also tried the same end run) that are not activist? This applies to both parties. As I said earlier, the "activist judge'' argument in IMO is quite tired and old. Any judge can be considered activist if they are deciding law that someone does not agree with. That is like saying republicans are for smaller government, They are for 'different' government. Same size, just different priorities.

 

[delldude]

Statement by the President





The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate. I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today.

Info

 

[Seatacus]

Religion has become an issue due to this administrations persistence in bringing religious over tones to nearly all the endeavors it undertakes. Those of us who believe religion should be a private affair undertake in ones home or religious establishment are justifiably concerned about the intrusion of religion in day to day affairs of state. In our opinion, religion has no place in the public eye.

OK, so you can count on gay people to be unbiased when making decisions but those "wascally" Christians are just determined to insert religion into their decisions.

So what is it about gays that makes them have such a high moral authority and the ability to put their "gayness" out of their minds(except when they are thinking about pages) when making judicial decisions. And what makes you think Christians can't do the same.

Do you happen to know the religious makeup of the Supreme Court?

In our opinion, religion has no place in the public eye.

What if your religion is Pagebyterian?(just kidding, couldn't resist)?

What about religious people in the public eye?

I'm not sure but I think about 70-80% of Americans consider themselves religious. The percentage may be higher if you can count illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Are aetheists the only people qualified to make judicial decisions?

 

[local 12 proud]

OK, so you can count on gay people to be unbiased when making decisions but those "wascally" Christians are just determined to insert religion into their decisions.

So what is it about gays that makes them have such a high moral authority and the ability to put their "gayness" out of their minds(except when they are thinking about pages) when making judicial decisions. And what makes you think Christians can't do the same.
What if your religion is Pagebyterian?(just kidding, couldn't resist)?

What about religious people in the public eye?

I'm not sure but I think about 70-80% of Americans consider themselves religious. The percentage may be higher if you can count illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Are aetheists the only people qualified to make judicial decisions?

 

[Garfield1966]

OK, so you can count on gay people to be unbiased when making decisions but those "wascally" Christians are just determined to insert religion into their decisions.

So what is it about gays that makes them have such a high moral authority and the ability to put their "gayness" out of their minds(except when they are thinking about pages) when making judicial decisions. And what makes you think Christians can't do the same.

Do you happen to know the religious makeup of the Supreme Court?
What if your religion is Pagebyterian?(just kidding, couldn't resist)?

What about religious people in the public eye?

I'm not sure but I think about 70-80% of Americans consider themselves religious. The percentage may be higher if you can count illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Are aetheists the only people qualified to make judicial decisions?

That is not what I meant to imply. My intent was the implication that due to the fact that he is gay he would be biased or perceived as biased in a case addressing a gay issue yet a married woman (O’Conner for example) can make a decision on abortion but no one bats an eye. My intent was to point out that there seems to be double standard.

Never meant to imply that they have any more of a moral authority than anyone else. As stated above, why was Thomas not questioned when he sits on a civil rights case or O’conner on a woman’s issue? Is that not the same thing? The point I was attempting to make was that the fact that the judge is gay should not have been a factor if O’conner or Thomas being a woman or black is not an issue. I merely wish to see gays treated as an equal in our society.

Dell.

Marriage is a civil contract between two people. The religious aspect of it belongs in the church/temple/monastery of your choice. If the president does not like it, I really don’t care. Religion has no business sticking it’s nose into the private affairs of the American public. If your religion wants to ban gay marriage that is with in their right to do so. I am not a member of your religion so I really do not care. When your religion tries to tell me what I may or may not do, that is when I start to care.

Eventually, this country will grow up and gays will be treated the same as everyone else. The same tired excuses were used when blacks wanted to join the military, when women wanted to join the military, when black wanted to go to a white school, about inter racial marriage … etc. I have some hope that this country will out grow it’s bigotry one step at a time. Hell, eventually this country might actually have a woman president, or a jewish president or a black president.

 

[Seatacus]

That is not what I meant to imply. My intent was the implication that due to the fact that he is gay he would be biased or perceived as biased in a case addressing a gay issue yet a married woman (O’Conner for example) can make a decision on abortion but no one bats an eye. My intent was to point out that there seems to be double standard.

Ok, I see your point.