Obama to fire gay military officer. Martinus pops vein.

[Siege]

Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. 

the guy worked in Hollywood, how homophobic could he be?

That guy from Lethal Weapon and the Road Warrior also worked in Hollwood...

[Siege]

My main civic argument against gay marriage is one of example.

If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.

I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they keep it private.
Or at least out of line-of-sight from the children.

with so many gays and bi around here, it's a wonder you haven't turned gay yet!

I always thought that "straight" people who claim that homosexuality is a choice must have chosen to be straight, and thus they must have at least considered the question... 

Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.

[garbon]

Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.

Sorry, but no.

[crazy canuck]

Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.

Are you talking about some skinny, stupid Jewish kid that can't resist the taste of bacon.

[Razgovory]

That guy from Lethal Weapon and the Road Warrior also worked in Hollwood...

Hans said he wasn't anti-semetic.  In fact I remember he wrote an editorial to in his local paper to that effect.

[Faeelin]

Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.

In other words, you have struggled and have managed to overcome your latent homosexual tendencies?

[garbon]

In other words, you have struggled and have managed to overcome your latent homosexual tendencies?

Latent? Overcame?

[grumbler]

With the difference that in the overwhelming majority of cases they reference actual words actually written in the actual document.

Not even sure what this means.  RvW certainly referenced words in the US constitution.

[grumbler]

In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by US legislators.

No.  It was drafted by a constitutional convention and ratified by states (almost always in ratification conventions, but if not by the state legislatures and executives acting together).

There was, in fact, no legislature to draft such a document - the Congress of the Articles of Confederation expressly lacked such a power.

Amendments are enacted, or not, by legislatures and executives acting together, both on the Federal and state levels.  No legislature can enact an amendment by itself.

[ulmont]

In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by US legislators.

No.  It was drafted by a constitutional convention and ratified by states (almost always in ratification conventions, but if not by the state legislatures and executives acting together).

And yet, there's a lot of overlap between the signatories of the Constitution and the 1st Congress...

[The Minsky Moment]

With the difference that in the overwhelming majority of cases they reference actual words actually written in the actual document.

Every case, including Roe, references the words actually written.  Where they go from there . . .

Justice Scalia is held out by some as a champion of strict construction, but he signed onto the majority in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, which struck down a state statute as unconstitutional under the 11th Amendment, even though the plain language of the text of the 11th amendment was to the contrary.  This is one example, I could easily name others.

This is not to pick on Nino - anyone who has served on the Supreme Court for more than a couple months can be similarly criticized.

Nor is it an "everyone does it, so it's OK" excuse.  The fact is that every jurist eventually gets confronted with the difficult choice of deciding a case according to the strict text, or deciding a case according to the spirit and intent of the law.

How and when one makes the call to pick one approach over the other typically determines the ideological box people put that jurist into.

How and when an observer cries "legislation from the bench" typically determines the ideological box you can place that observer into.

[Admiral Yi]

Every case, including Roe, references the words actually written.  Where they go from there . . .
[/quote]
Which ones did Roe reference?

[The Minsky Moment]

Every case, including Roe, references the words actually written.  Where they go from there . . .

Which ones did Roe reference?
[/quote] 
It references several different provisions; the Blackmun opinion specifically relied on the 14th amendment.

[MadImmortalMan]

Of course they can't simply follow stare decisis, or they'd have to uphold every moronic case of ages past. The problem is that since stare decisis can't be used universally, they have to pick when and where to apply it and what cases to apply. There can be no objective standard. (Unless you want to revoke the citizenship of all black people and a bunch of other completely nonsensical stuff.)

The only way to apply past decisions objectively and fairly is to take the stance that stare decisis is completely nonbinding and need only be applied when convenient.

[derspiess]

How and when an observer cries "legislation from the bench" typically determines the ideological box you can place that observer into.

What it the observer is someone who actually does it, like Sotomayor?