   |
         |
American and proud
After the latest SCOTUS rulings, I was wondering what the hell is wrong with this bunch of idiots. Then I found their picture and it answers so much.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.
Thank you to the 5 (and ONLY 5) judges on the Supreme Court of the United States of America for over turning an unconstitutional ban on hand guns. After yesterday’s decision on THE RIGHTS OF CHILD RAPISTS, this decision was a surprise.
I really wish I lived in America so I could enjoy some of the various gun rights other states have.
My favorite Archie Bunker routine.
LMAO!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
I am cross posting this from Bloviating Zeppelin
Once again, the California Supreme Court shows residents that it couldn’t care less what 36-million Californians think (as Fornicalia approved Proposition 22 in the year 2000, on a 4,579,386 / 61.2% Yes votes …… 2,897,689 / 38.8% No votes), by granting same sex marriage.California’s supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
With its 121-page majority opinion, the California Supreme Court opens a box best left closed: what are, then, the limits to marriage? One man, two women? Three women? Twenty women? One woman and a power tool? One man and one boy aged 13? One man and one goat? Five women and a Labrador Retriever? What about a California law aimed at churches, making it illegal to refuse to marry a same-sex or an “out of definition” series of persons or objects in what California now considers to be a lawful marriage?As I have said and written, time after time, real power exists in the judgeships, SCOTUS appointments and education. We hand education and appointments to the Left, and we lose power entirely in this nation because the Left will continuously work OUTSIDE the electorate in order to promote and fulfill their Leftist/Socialist agendas — those agendas that will not, generally, be approved by the electorate at large. But something tells me this will, in fact, be going to SCOTUS.Further, Gov. Schwarzenegger has just now come out with a statement he will not be supporting an proposal to amend the California consitution indicating marriage is, in fact, a union between one man and one woman.However, from the Pacific Justice Institute:Today the California Supreme Court handed down a ruling which legalized same sex marriage in California. The California Defense of Marriage Act, also known as Proposition 22, was found to be unconstitutional by the high court. Passed by the voters in March of 2000 by a wide margin (61.2%) the law was codified as Section 308.5 of the Family Code and stated: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Chief Justice George wrote the opinion for the court and was joined by Justices Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno. Justice Baxter wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion joined by Justice Chin. Justice Corrigan also wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion. Six of the seven justices on the court were appointed by Republican governors.
This is not the last word on this issue. In November the California voters will be presented with an opportunity to amend the California Constitution via the Marriage Protection Act. Should the Act pass, it will not be subject to review by the California Supreme Court.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, “This is a classic case of judicial activism at its worst. This decision will now make the passage of the Marriage Protection Act critical for the survival of the will of the people of California.”
There is now no legal definition of marriage in the State of California.BZ
P.S: California residents, go to: http://www.protectmarriage.com/
Here is where you might want to hide your eyes… Fair warning has been issued!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
