"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 10:56 PM 2/24/2004 -0500 David Hobby wrote:
...
> >
> >Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment?
> >
> >"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
> > without due process of law;"
> >
> >Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San Francisco performing
> >gay marriages? I don't see how this applies.
>
> That is a pretty novel interpretation of "due process." So, would you
> have no problem with Republican justices frustrating and delaying the
> lawsuit against Cheney's Energy Task Force on the basis of technecalities?
I don't think it is. Of course I have a problem with judges acting in
a partisan manner to defend the Executive Branch. The Judiciary is
supposed to be independent. But even if they are frustrating the
lawsuit,
I doubt they are using the Due Process Clause to do it. Which was my
point.
> >I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact
> >cheer.
>
> Like when I said that I would not have signed the Bush v. Gore opinion had
> I been on the US Supreme Court?
Sorry, it was not meant as a personal attack.
> >> If anyone is wondering why "conservatives" are now rallying behind an
> >> amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can clearly
> >> not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.
> >
> >Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided
> >that the next clause:
> >
> >"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
> > of the laws."
> >
> >meant that gays had a right to marry too.
>
> And indeed, every homosexual in the US has the right to marry someone of
> the opposite sex.
And rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges.
So? (Note that I did not claim that the Equal Protection Clause
supported gay marriage. As I said in another post, the Constitution
is meant to be interpreted.)
> But seriously, what gives here? Why is it that *I* have to constantly
> prove my "bona fide" intellectual credentials around here?
I never said that, did I?
(What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials
was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back.
You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an
intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...)
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
