Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Raar... conservative BAD
Intelligent debate on judge whatsisname:
Michael Colbruno:
He claimed that because the federal government doesn't provide protections based on sexual orientation, then the court isn't required to protect that class of people. Perhaps he should support broadening civil rights protections rather than limiting them.
Or, perhaps, he should uphold the constitution.
I have no problem with protecting free speech, but there are proper venues for such speech. Directing it at vulnerable gay and lesbian students, who are grappling with enough teen angst without being subjected to hateful speech, is not appropriate.
And therefore unconstitutional? Because if not, it's not something the judge should be getting into.
Alito's decision served to perpetuate hatred, fear and prejudice rather than advance the noble ideals of respect, nonviolence and social tolerance.
Take it up with the constitution, dude. Being a judge isn't an elected position where your job is to make the government do all the good things. It's a position where your job is to make sure the government does what the government is supposed to do.
Terry Patterson:
There is solid foundation for this in law, in the "reasonable man" principle. The reasonable person exercises due diligence to ensure that his acts (including words both spoken and written) do not injure others. The reasonable man sets the stage for civilized governments to establish systems of justice and fair play. What is good for the reasonable man is good for us all.
Acts always injure others. Always. The reasonable man, by this definition, does nothing. And, of course, the job of the judge isn't to "do the most good" as Terry seems to think. Otherwise, we may as well go with the "dictatorship" approach to government.
Under this principle, no responsible jurist in the 21st century would conclude that it is appropriate for a woman to get a man's permission to have an abortion. The social order and the common good would be seriously disrupted if such a practice became precedent.
I sure hope Terry's not talking about that case which did not involve spousal permission, but just notification. But I sort of think that's the case.
. . .
|
. . .
|
