Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rodeo

Prop 8 unconstitutional, overturned

242 posts in this topic

should Clarence Thomas hear cases about black porn issues?

Why yes, yes he should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You twisted my words!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually, it will Depend on what the Supremes say.

I thought one of them died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say upfront, I don't care, let'em get married. Anybody should be able to get married.

But, an openly gay Judge ruling prop 8 is unconstitutional....nope, no agenda there...

so judges shouldn't be allowed to make rulings that they personally agree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying he wants to get married and he hates Johnny Cakes....sheeesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does sound like something that's a conflict of interest. but then when you think about it beyond the surface level, it doesn't make sense for judges to have to recuse themselves because of a case involving their own demographics. that type of thing is for when you're on the board of a company you're hearing or something, not because you happen to be the same race or gender or whatever as the case. Clarence Thomas has every right to hear cases about black stuff, Ruth Ginsberg can hear cases about women, and John Roberts can hear cases about gays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. must spread rep. that one caught me by surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew California had to be good for something. After this gets through the SCOTUS, we can go ahead and sell the state to Mexico. They can't offer us anything else of value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that, THAT attention getter is outta the way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites