Page 1 of 1 pages
Outrageous! How dare they twist the law to serve their own out-dated and immoral political bigotry, that is the injustice.
~coyote wisdom~
Posted by COYOTE on Feb 27, 2004 at 8:29 PM
It’s disgraceful that President Bush bemoans the decisions of “activist judges” in the U.S. who make their decisions based on the tenets of the Constitution, yet would never think to complain about those judges who blatantly disregard the Supreme Court in order to push forward their own moral agenda. Even worse, I’m pretty sure half the country is worried now about these “activist judges” and how they are all going to tell us how to live our life. If liberals could only be half as passionate about their rhetoric, we could probably scare some people into thinking like us as well.
Posted by rikov on Mar 2, 2004 at 10:58 AM
This is scary. The courts are being filled with ultra-right wing idealogues. Their job is to interpret the law, not bring their bias to life. I see that the courts are more and more places where civil rights and individual rights are just ignored in the name of morality and right-thinking. If they can come after the rights of one group, they can come after the rights of any.
Posted by Michele on Mar 3, 2004 at 12:39 PM
This is scary. The courts are being filled with ultra-right wing idealogues. Their job is to interpret the law, not bring their bias to life. I see that the courts are more and more places where civil rights and individual rights are just ignored in the name of morality and right-thinking. If they can come after the rights of one group, they can come after the rights of any.
Posted by Michele on Mar 3, 2004 at 12:39 PM
Bigotry in motion.
Posted by Amber on Mar 5, 2004 at 4:23 PM
Bigotry in motion.
Posted by Amber on Mar 5, 2004 at 4:23 PM
“turned 18 the week before he performed consensual oral sex on another boy, then nearly 15”
Can you be any more biased in reporting? What the above means is that a man, an adult male, had sex with a 14 year old boy.
I take it your argument is that this child molester should be punished less severely? How much less severely?
If it was your retarded little brother who had been molested by this man, would you think a milder punishment in order?
I am surprised I have not read any of your comments calling for greater tolerance of pedophile priests.
Posted by Nus on Mar 10, 2004 at 2:33 PM
“blatantly disregard the Supreme Court in order to push forward their own moral agenda”
Actually, were you to read the decision, you will find that the ruling is based on the legislative will as illustrated by the act.
This country’s laws are enacted by the elected representatives of the people. The courts, including the Supreme Court, are not in the business of governing, nor do they have the right to govern, the people.
“Their own moral agenda” - that agenda being the discouraging of adults from coercing children into engaging in homosexual acts? Yeah, how dare they.;
Posted by Nus on Mar 10, 2004 at 2:52 PM
The Supreme Court is going to spank Kansas like a red-headed stepchild on this one. And I say the sooner the better. Hold on Matthew, the good guys are on the way!
Posted by Dennis on Mar 20, 2004 at 3:00 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Outrageous! How dare they twist the law to serve their own out-dated and immoral political bigotry, that is the injustice.
~coyote wisdom~
It’s disgraceful that President Bush bemoans the decisions of “activist judges” in the U.S. who make their decisions based on the tenets of the Constitution, yet would never think to complain about those judges who blatantly disregard the Supreme Court in order to push forward their own moral agenda. Even worse, I’m pretty sure half the country is worried now about these “activist judges” and how they are all going to tell us how to live our life. If liberals could only be half as passionate about their rhetoric, we could probably scare some people into thinking like us as well.
This is scary. The courts are being filled with ultra-right wing idealogues. Their job is to interpret the law, not bring their bias to life. I see that the courts are more and more places where civil rights and individual rights are just ignored in the name of morality and right-thinking. If they can come after the rights of one group, they can come after the rights of any.
This is scary. The courts are being filled with ultra-right wing idealogues. Their job is to interpret the law, not bring their bias to life. I see that the courts are more and more places where civil rights and individual rights are just ignored in the name of morality and right-thinking. If they can come after the rights of one group, they can come after the rights of any.
Bigotry in motion.
Bigotry in motion.
“turned 18 the week before he performed consensual oral sex on another boy, then nearly 15”
Can you be any more biased in reporting? What the above means is that a man, an adult male, had sex with a 14 year old boy.
I take it your argument is that this child molester should be punished less severely? How much less severely?
If it was your retarded little brother who had been molested by this man, would you think a milder punishment in order?
I am surprised I have not read any of your comments calling for greater tolerance of pedophile priests.
“blatantly disregard the Supreme Court in order to push forward their own moral agenda”
Actually, were you to read the decision, you will find that the ruling is based on the legislative will as illustrated by the act.
This country’s laws are enacted by the elected representatives of the people. The courts, including the Supreme Court, are not in the business of governing, nor do they have the right to govern, the people.
“Their own moral agenda” - that agenda being the discouraging of adults from coercing children into engaging in homosexual acts? Yeah, how dare they.;
The Supreme Court is going to spank Kansas like a red-headed stepchild on this one. And I say the sooner the better. Hold on Matthew, the good guys are on the way!
register a new account »Posting Security