Monthly Select Month September 2010 (53) August 2010 (206) July 2010 (224) June 2010 (190) May 2010 (201) April 2010 (182) March 2010 (153) February 2010 (137) January 2010 (140) December 2009 (123) November 2009 (123) October 2009 (94) September 2009 (149) August 2009 (176) July 2009 (221) June 2009 (172) May 2009 (125) April 2009 (133) March 2009 (144) February 2009 (122) January 2009 (97) December 2008 (113) November 2008 (106) October 2008 (118) September 2008 (157) August 2008 (134) July 2008 (93) June 2008 (87) May 2008 (26) April 2008 (40) March 2008 (69) February 2008 (113) January 2008 (181) December 2007 (100)
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) Comments (0) Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Comment (All comments are held for moderation.)Cufon.replace('h1'); Links Home Current Issue About Us Advertising Contact Us Media RSS Feeds Kindle Edition Store Print Subscription Digital Subscription Blogs First Thoughts The Anchoress Gateway Pundit Spengler Secondhand Smoke Evangel Postmodern Conservative Find Us Facebook Twitter Contact ft@firstthings.com p. 212.627.1985 Legal/Terms and Conditions _uacct = "UA-3008891-1"; urchinTracker(); _uacct = "UA-7796747-1"; urchinTracker(); _qoptions={ qacct:"p-04kfJS4F5Z9Ro" };
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Read Full Article »
