Why do we even have a legislative branch? It seems a waste of time to go to the trouble of electing representatives when federal judges in California are making our laws:
A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military…
The ruling is expected to intensify political pressure in Washington to act on legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which remains stalled in the Senate despite support from President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.
In the text of the ruling Judge Phillips notes:
The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers in many ways, some described above. The Act denies homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces the right to enjoy “intimate conduct” in their personal relationships.
By this standard the Judge has also nullified a subsection of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—the prohibition against adultery. Since it would infringe on a service members right to enjoy “intimate conduct” in their personal relations to prohibit them from sleeping with a married man or woman, this section has to be thrown out too.
Of course, you could say that my claim is absurd since Judge Phillips never intended to have her rationale applied logically in other relevant areas. I agree. Phillips knew what decision she wanted—and knew what the Obama administration, who threw the case, wanted—and then just pulled a reason out of thin air to provide a legal fig leaf to cover her pro-homosexual activism. The right to engage in sodomy is found in the Constitution, just as the Founders intended, right? No? Well, let’s just say it is and create a new theory of legal interpretation to support our social experimentation.
I say we impeach Judge Phillips. Yes, I know there probably isn’t a valid legal justification or Constitutional warrant for the action. But if the rule of law doesn’t hinder the preference of activists judges, why should stop us from expressing our preference?
(Via: Hot Air)
September 10th, 2010 | 2:13 pm
All the laws but one, eh?
September 10th, 2010 | 2:33 pm
The only part of the Constitution and lesser laws that liberal judges will, when it really comes down to the quick, enforce is the part that empowers them.
September 10th, 2010 | 2:44 pm
How could it possibly take 17 years to determine if this law was unconstitutional or not? Not even lawyers read that slowly.
It’s hard to respect the judiciary when they continually show by their rulings that they are not trying to be objective at all.
September 10th, 2010 | 3:38 pm
“Bad behavior.”
The problem is that if we got that, judges would fall like nine-pins. Take discrimination, where judges declare that a statistical disparity creates a presumption of discrimination. This is a falsehood on the order of “fire wets you and water burns” or “the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.”
September 10th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
Is it really likely that changing this rule would have a deleterious effect on military morals? Our soldiers and sailors have never been models of Christian chastity. Our bases in many parts of the world are surrounded by a sea of brothels catering to every sexual preference, without regard to age or gender.
I am afraid that we are, in the words of Macaulay, “much like the felon who begged the sheriffs to let him have an umbrella held over his head from the door of Newgate to the gallows because it was a drizzling morning and he was apt to take cold.”
September 11th, 2010 | 5:20 am
Why do we even have a legislative branch?
I’m guessing to keep lobbyists employed.
September 12th, 2010 | 12:34 am
[...] Let’s just be careful in this distinction. Oftentimes, it’s all too predictable. [...]
September 12th, 2010 | 12:34 am
[...] Let’s just be careful in this distinction. Oftentimes, it’s all too predictable. [...]
September 21st, 2010 | 5:20 pm
I watched Joe Carter today 21 Sep. about what people on the street think about Gay members in the military. I think its a bit one sided, ask the military members what they think.
Gay members are in the military, if they are revealed it would require many changes.
1st change-we may aswell make all the showers, restrooms, housing and ect. co-ed, woemen, men both strait and gay because whats the difference if a strait man in a shower room with a gay man or a woman, the difference is the strait man will know the gay man is looking at his body just like the women would know the strait guy was looking at her.
I think it would create to much stress on both parties to open it up at this point.
I love that being gay is ok and open in the non military world, but its not time to change that in the military. Is it breaking the law, is it their right, let me ask you then why is it not my right to grow a beard or my hair, why can’t I get out of shape like the majority of the USA, why do I have to pass a physical fitness test every 6 monthes, isn’t my right to be fat and over weight in the military?
The military is the military and follows all the laws and right now its Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, when I joined the military members were discharged if they thought you were gay, it always changes and we will change with it but I hope I made my point.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact