At 10:56 PM 2/24/2004 -0500 David Hobby wrote:
>"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>>
>> For whatever it is worth, I would just like to point out that one of the
>> oldest tools of tyrants on the books is to rely upon technicalities to
>> frustrate and thwart their democratic opposition.
>
>Tyrants are often not that subtle. I would hazard that using
>technicalities is one of the oldest tools of politicians, instead.
>
>> It is precisely because of this kind of reliance upon red-tape and
>> technicalities to frustrate minorities, opposition viewpoints, and any
>> other "undesirables" that a "due process" clause was added to our Bill of
>> Rights.
>
>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?
>> Thus, the City of San Francisco is still handing out faux marriage
>> certificates in direct contravention of the Laws of the State of California
>> - as was passed by *popular*referendum* all because a judge found a
>> misplaced semicolon in a hastily prepared legal document to be grounds for
>> a multiday delay in judicial proceedings.
>
>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?
>The marriage certificates shouldn't be legally valid, but issuing
>them seems a fair way to dramatize the issue. It's getting you
>steamed up, so it's having an effect. : )
>
>> I state again, this kind of action is cycnical, craven, crass, and is
>> unbecoming of a constitutional republic.
>
>Where were you when Texas was gerrymandered? This stuff does happen
>all the time, AND this one is harmless.
Actually, I have stated before that I strongly support handing
redistricting to non-partisan commissions. Indeed, in the current case
before the USSC regarding pro-Republican redistricting in GA and PA, I've
often wondered if the USSC might be able to find legitimate equal
protection grounds to hand that redistricting over to a non-partisan
commission. (My current conclusion is probably not, but I have not yet
seen the formal arguments.)
>> 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.
But seriously, what gives here? Why is it that *I* have to constantly
prove my "bona fide" intellectual credentials around here? Look back
through the List Archives, how many times are the Left-Wingers on this List
badgered into demonstrating that they have occasionally disagreed with
Leftists and supported Republicans? When has anyone else been pestered
into providing a 15-point list of disagreements they have had with those
who normally share their beliefs?
To me it seems like yet another double-standard.
But I'm just "running with the pack" on this one.....
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
