The problem sometimes with making fun of secularist libs is that they’re kinda’ boring. They never do anything non-liberal.
All the action is always on the other side. You never know what a conservative is going to do. From day to day it’s a crapshoot. You really never know what position they’re going to take.
But libs take all the fun out of it. They’re always libs.
Case in point – the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday a three-judge panel plans to publish its long-awaited opinion on tomorrow on whether California’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, according to the Washington Post.
Now come on. Does anyone think there’s any chance at all that the 9th Circuit which is the wackiest of the bunch will find in favor of democracy over granting a special interest new rights?
If the Circuits were Stooges, the 9th Circuit would be Shemp. Because they’re so out there that they cease even to be funny.
The panel heard oral arguments more than a year ago but delayed a decision while it sought guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether sponsors of the ban, known as Proposition 8, had legal authority to challenge a trial judge’s ruling that the voter-approved measure was unconstitutional.
I’m willing to bet that the 9th circuit finds democracy unconstitutional tomorrow. Any takers? I could use the cash.
The whole thing is kinda’ moot anyway, because there ain’t a chance that this thing won’t be appealed all the way up to Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan. You decide which stooge is which among them -although how do you not figure Kagan as Moe.
February 6, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Proposition 8, the voice of the people, the will of the governed in California banning same-sex marriage was overturned by Judge Vaughn Walker, an admitted practicing homosexual. A judge who does not know when to recuse himself because of conflict of interest ought to be recalled. Imposing the vice of LUST as the virtue of love is arrogance and uninhibited evil. Forcing the citizens by law to condone such vilification of Justice needs to be addressed at a higher level. Ginsburg wrote a book advocating informed sexual consent for fourteen year old girls. If fourteen year old girls had informed sexual consent to give, the courts would not have to be giving it to them. Common sense, faith and reason. Man has a rational soul. For heaven's sake, let's start using it.
February 6, 2012 at 9:06 pm
"The panel heard oral arguments more than a year ago but delayed a decision while it sought guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether sponsors of the ban, known as Proposition 8, had legal authority to challenge a trial judge’s ruling that the voter-approved measure was unconstitutional."
Calling the vice of LUST, the virtue of LOVE in a court of law is PERJURY. PERJURY IS LYING UNDER OATH. AND YES, courts can commit perjury against Justice. lying under oath
February 6, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Same-sex homosexual practice is wrong because the practicing homosexual ingores or denies the immortal soul of himself and his partner which already a lie and perjury in a court of law. But to inflict this perjury on a community and its minor children is scandal, the soul murder of innocence. The duty of the state is to protect and provide for the virginity, innocence and happiness of its people. This is its duty, not its pleasure, but its duty.
February 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm
I'm offended that you would compare Shemp to the 9th Circuit. Shemp is far and away the most underrated of the Stooges.
The 9th is more like Larry before he became the Cable Guy.
February 7, 2012 at 1:14 am
Two questions:
1) Wouldn't you consider the Supreme Court's ruling in Hosanna-Tabor to be out of the ordinary?
2) You couldn't find a Shemp photo?!?
February 7, 2012 at 2:02 am
if democracy is found to be unconstitutional, and I am sure it will be, just reading the line of thought: "whether sponsors of the ban, known as Proposition 8, had legal authority to challenge a trial judge’s ruling that the voter-approved measure was unconstitutional." What is legal authority? Citizen's do not have a voice in government? Make an unlawful law and everybody who breaks it is a criminal. Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual with a conflict of interest and they are questioning whether the citizens have "legal authority"? Judge Walker has no legal authority to be on the bench in a homosexual lawsuit. An idiot can see that. How evil is this agenda?
February 7, 2012 at 2:40 am
Mary– I believe it was a question of "standing." I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that typically a popularly-passed prop would/should be defended by the state attorney general. That didn't happen in California for highly political reasons. Therefore the opposition focused on the "standing" question to try and get the case thrown out without even a hearing.
February 7, 2012 at 2:50 am
The real question is whether the Californian judge – Walker J – erred by holding that a law, stating marriage to be a sexual union between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional. And the answer, as reason clearly shows us, is that the Judge erred in so holding, because the US constitution recognises the Natural Law, including the natural institution of marriage, and the necessity that man-made laws conform to the Natural Law, and in this, instance, the nature of marriage, which exists due to the very nature of man, and exists prior to and independent of states or their laws. The U.S. Constitution does not protect laws that do not conform to the Natural Law, the truth about man (created male and female) and the truth about marriage. Rather, any law that purported to define marriage (rather than merely recognising that which is pre-defined) as a sexual union between a man and woman or between two men or two women, is unconstitutional. So, not only is a law recognising marriage as being between one man and one woman not unconstitutional, but any attempt to change this integral aspect of marriage, is, itself, unconstitutional. By the same token, if, on any given day, a majority of voters happened to vote to change the meaning of marriage in this way, that would not be a valid law, or a valid amendment of the Constitution – it would not conform to the Constitution as a whole or the natural law philosophy that underpins it. The U.S. Constitution is not a relativist, positivist document – it acknowledges and upholds fundamental objective truths – such as marriage – that are independent of man-made laws, and unchangeable. The U.S.A, a creature of the Constitution, is not merely founded on democracy but the rule of law.
February 7, 2012 at 4:39 am
@ Lynda: Spot on. But there's a rather harsher way to put it, namely, "Either the Constitution acknowledges the actually valid definition of marriage, or so much the worse for the Constitution."
In actual fact, the Constitution—any positive law, actually—has no more authority than the warranty on your refrigerator, except where it merely codifies natural law. Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land; you also want to keep the warranty for as long as you've got the fridge. But all the Constitution's provisions that don't simply recapitulate natural law, have merely conventional authority, just like the customs of some Stone Age tribe.
It seems unthinkable to people that a new interpretation of the Constitution can have no bearing on what is actually just. The thing is not Holy Writ; it's a perfectly serviceable charter of the liberties of one state's citizens, but that's all it is. It used to deny the adulthood of women, and until the Civil War it claimed that slaves—who had 0% representation—actually had 60% representation (that's the real immorality of the "3/5 of a person" thing; for every purpose except calculating the political power of their masters, slaves counted as 0 persons). The Constitution was, then, an unjust and partially illegitimate document. We have since corrected it. But people seem to hold the quaint belief it could not revert to being unjust and illegitimate—one is tempted to ask them their basis for this belief in the miraculous infallibility of a bunch of Freemason intellectuals who actually described (Hanoverian puppet ruler) George III as a tyrant, without a trace of sarcasm.
February 7, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Intersting you only attack women in your diatribe against the court. Name calling seems to be a republican "value". How can you not be considered mysogynistic. Do you hate all women voters or just ones on the left? Do you hate the ones in your church also?
February 8, 2012 at 12:18 am
@Anonymous: Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg are, all three of them, ridiculous. They are, respectively, a race-Marxist, a straight up Marxist, and a gender-Marxist; their positions are significantly more outré than that of the Flat Earth Society.
It is perhaps an interesting coincidence that the three people on the Court who are actually more crazier than Stevens happen to be female, but people who aren't neurotically fixated on demographic categories know it to be a mere coincidence.
But I don't know why I'm arguing with you; not only are you plainly not bright enough to sign a name, you also appear to suffer from some form of paranoid schizophrenia.