edit: nm, it actually did happen lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16007311)

U mad?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16007340)

I don't give a fuck one way or the other about gay marriage - but it should be decided on the state level - not handed down by fiat from a judge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16008846)

This poast fails on multiple levels. Well done, my friend.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16016828)

Plus how pissed must terrorists be to know that some gays are pwning them

People are scared of Israel's military & they allow openly gay people to serve

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16007408)

"The 85-page ruling came in a case filed by the group Log Cabin Republicans against the government and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16008860)

EDIT: If you really think that with the Nazi-like control, the Log Cabin Retardicans dared to file without a prior approval by the Retardican parteigenossin, you are not all that smart.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16008885)

Perhaps the biggest negative of these types of decisions is the politicization of the judiciary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16008944)

I think not.

Courts should interpret the law as it was passed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16008959)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009050)

Loving and Brown are binding precedent, legally speaking. You can, of course, redefine "legally" to mean only "as literally said in the constitution, as interpreteted according to then existing meanings of the words", you can even say that "legally" means "as said in the scripture," but these definitions would very much go against the "legal" realities, and would only help elucidate stupidity if not outright idiocy of so-called "originalists."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009075)

In short legly means legislation and the consitiution, not common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009090)

Then I suggest that you move to France, because it's what "legly" may mean THERE, but not HERE.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009099)

I have yet to see any legal argument as to have this case is legally correct under the constitution especially an originalist view of the constitution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009172)

EDIT: I'm not even saying that common law is very much an originalist idea, as common law PRE-DATES constitution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009209)

See, your problem is that you think that Congress is always right, and courts are always wrong, probably because you think that Congressmen are "elected" and judges are not "elected." It doesn't seem to occur to you that the judges may be right, and the Congressmen may be wrong.

"While recent history has the court using the constitution as a weapon to destroy popularly passed laws that was much less common in the earlier history of the court."

The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect people from their own government and to protect minorities from the "popularly passed laws." I'm sorry, but that "popularly passed laws" piece was so stupid, it's hard not to die laughing.

Majority can take very good care of itself, and most "popularly passed laws" remain in place as constitutional. Few are striken down as unconstitutional, and rightfully so. You can make an argument that in the fields not explicitly mentioned by the constitution, "popularly passed laws" cannot be adjudged "unconstitutional." If you want to stick to that point, think about that in your favorite public policy argument which was the first argument you advanced (and, incidentally, called it "legal[ly]"). It is indeed necessary to provide protection to ragheads against the likes of you, and to fags against the likes of you, and to women against the likes of you, since our official doctrine is "live and let live." So, we want to be able to strike down laws "popularly passed" by likes of you, just like we need to be able to strike down laws passed by fags or ragheads or women in the jurisdictions where these segments of population become majority. So, whatever approach you use, you get to the same outcome - the minoritarian theory of the constitution.

As to your argument about maintaining status quo, it's one thing to suggest to abolish dont ask dont tell, and quite another - to abolish all common law altogether. But then again, I wont be surprised if you cannot distinguish between the two.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009304)

That's where advocates like you usually start arguing that public policy dictates that "judeo-christian" majority must always has its way instead of being honest and saying - we don't give a shit about constitution, we just don't like fags/ragheads/blacks/women, and we'll use whatever arguments necessary to win.

So, please don't act like you're all that concerned that some activist judge will read something into the constitution that is not there. Under YOUR own theory of constitution, most of the gun control legislation would be legal, as even though constitution says there is a right to bear arms, it doesn't say that such right is unrestricted or absolute, it doesnt specify whether it's an individual right or collective one, and it doesn't spell out the term "arms" (and strangely enough, I don't see many Retardicans like you using your own "originalist" approach consistently and arguing that they have a right to use only muskets and other implements existing at the time of the constituitonal convention).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009359)

Now to address your points. The founders intended it to be an individual right so it is. In fact the concept of a collective right is pretty bizarre just as it would be a collective right to free speech. Now the muskets thing is the funniest of them all. It says arms. Arms means more or less I

Plume ts of war. To limit it as of the 18th century would make no more sense than limiting speech to thoughts and ideas of he 18th century.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009364)

Really? You can "go back and look at what those who passed it though it encompassed"? Once you do so, please drop by to share bits of wisdom, and on your way out don't forget to claim your Nobel Prize for invention of a time machine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009372)

Your views are extremely simplistic - "let's abolish common law", "let's always defer to the legislature," "let's just follow the Framers' intent - it so easy." You will call it a personal attack, but all this does leave a certain impression.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009384)

"Defer to the legislature" basically means - always let the majority have its way, except in the few areas explicitly mentioned in the constitution. That strikes me as neither a good public policy nor a sound legal policy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009362)

Don't get me wrong, I am all for people being permitted to do what they want wig whom etc. But I am not for judges giving people those rights.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009419)

and even if it was, who cares? the constitution is for and by the people; it ought to mean what a contemporary reader thinks it means. the meaning should not be antidemocratically known only to the select few lawyers trained in the history and ways of the law like priests studying dogma.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16013392)

Your second point is nonsense. So if the average reader now thinks "bear arms" means wear tank tops that is the law. Lulz

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16013472)

And if by "nonsense" you mean "the only rational way to approach a constitution," then yeah, you're right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16016287)

you and all your redneck buddies can amass en masse and attempt to overthrow ARE nuclear-armed govt.

the 2nd amendment became anachronistic about the same time as the pony express. and furthermore why did the founders include a mechanism to amend the Constitution if their original meaning was to be forever and evermore official? so this original meaning stuff is shit, pure shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009363)

That may be one definition of the term, but it's certainly not the only one, and I doubt even the one most liberals would subscribe to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009309)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009200)

Your posts very much suggest otherwise.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009077)

One is a noun, one is an adverb!!!!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16017130)

*assignes entire 85 page decision over the weekend*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16008993)

Now I know otherwise.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009680)

Also, this opinion is shit, pure shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009768)

But today, a federal judge has held that it's demoralizing to the rest of the military to exclude gays and demand their inclusion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16009693)

Anyway, I hope the military just completely ignores this stupid bitch.

And Drunkard is right about that ridiculous Loving ruling too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16013488)

we're dealing with faggots who are not a suspect class, so unless you could make a Romer type argument and say that this law/policy was enacted specifically with animus toward gays, it is probably fine under the Fifth Amendment due process clause (with the equal protection components; don't remember the case name).

plus we're dealing with Congress power over the raising and supporting of the military. my understanding was that this similar to immigration and the fed pretty much has unbridled control as to what goes and doesn't go in these situations. the original poaster was right; the fact that a judge challenged this authority is pretty balls if you ask me.

there is possibly the first amendment argument i guess. again, it seems like there is the competing interest the government has in not wanting to know the fag status of gays in the military, with the right of gays to talk about it and be open about it. it probably just falls on how sufficient of an interest the government has in not knowing the fag status of gays. i mean certainly the military could exclude anybody for what they say which they believe is averse to their interests. i don't know. the first amendment argument is kind of weak in my opinion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16016350)

Also, apparently gays get intermediate scrutiny in CA9 or something? I didn't follow that part of the opinion and haven't read the cited CA9 case on point.

i think the 1A argument is bunk; it's perfectly OK under 1A for the military to ban all visible signs of religious adherence, including yarmulkes, etc. i don't see how banning all visible signs of the gay is any different constitutionally, and given the different standards of review, it's arguably a fortiori that they can ban visible gayness.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16017038)

I haven't read the whole thing, but it seems like the opinion is predicated on the individual rights infringed: speech, association, etc. Since a priori restraints on speech such as 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(3) get a higher level of scrutiny, it's not a bad way to get around the rational basis (plus?) limitation that discrimination against gays usually gets.

The problem with this, of course, is that speech and association rights are widely acknowledged to be limited in a military context. Anti-fraternization rules, prohibitions on speaking to the press, etc. There are issues WAY more important to military order than the DADT thing that could be impacted if this decision stands.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16017165)

Haha ok

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, law school, called the decision "stunning in its thoroughness,"

LOL @ legal scholarship

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us/politics/11judge.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16017103)

I'm getting sick of the New York Slimes and other liberal newspapers writing hagiographies of judges who advance the homosexual agenda. The liberal media always and without exception depicts these judges as "moderates" and "pragmatists." Conversely, Scalia, et al. are "extremists" who torture puppies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16017149)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16017734)

i mean, just because one circuit does not recognize the constitutionality of a federal statute or interpret a statute differently, doesn't bind the whole system. so, i would say, it is binding in the Ninth Circuit and that is it, unless the government appeals and gets it overturned.

again, i might be retarded.

that raises my question too. who brought this suit? somebody on a military base in California?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16018497)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional-ruled-judge_n_711508.html

not according to government attorneys.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1419233&forum_id=2#16018572)