CapitolFax.com: Forward, forever forward, no matter what
anon
· 3 years ago
What is the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund?
HoosierDaddy
· 3 years ago
In answer to anon's question, it's a gay rights legal organization, sort of a gay-CLU.
In answer to Rich's question, yep. We don't like activist judges (unless they are on our side).
Whatever.
Lovie's Leather
· 3 years ago
Don't care. Don't expect this to be on the ballot.
Be Activist Only for Me
· 3 years ago
Oh, no, it’s better!!
The federal judge in Chicago has already turned them down. They, in turn, have excoriated the judge for not being ACTIVIST ENOUGH to rewrite the referendum election rules in Illinois, just so PMI can be on the ballot! LOL!!!! It's turning into a reality TV comedy show.
For all their fanfare, preaching, moralizing, mud-slinging, self-righteousness and self-flattery, Illinois Family Institute (and now Family Taxpayers Network, which is running around saying that they did all the work) simply SCREWED UP on getting signatures. Their chances in court are slim and none.
A klutz by any other name . . . will still trip and fall.
annon.
· 3 years ago
You might guess !??? Strange days indeed !!
HH312
· 3 years ago
I'm always on the lookout for people with enough principle to call BS on their own side when it's deserved. Not seeing any in this foxhole!
Larry McKeon
· 3 years ago
It's not going to happen. Their argument was already rejected by a Federal District Court. They are shopping for an activist Federal judge. It is a rare event that a new judge will rehear the same argument made and lost in another district court.
bored now
· 3 years ago
Gay marriage opponents are worried that an activist judge will find some reason to overturn state law and allow gays to wed. Yet by filing a lawsuit, aren’t they hoping that an activist judge will overturn long established law and allow their measure onto the ballot?
and this brilliant observation after a beer (or two?)! damn! you're good...
Rich Miller
· 3 years ago
Just one, Bored. For now
Way Northsider
· 3 years ago
Gay marriage is a bogus issue. People should worry about their own marriages - gay or straight - and not meddle in other people's private business. This is politicking pure and simple. It shouldn't be put to referendum - civil rights and human rights are civil rights and human rights - a majority of people shouldn't decide to take away rights from others. The fact that a majority may or may not agree with something is irrelevant here - slavery was wrong even if a majority of the voters at that time in the South thought it was just dandy. I hope the courts throw this out.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
Gay marriage opponents are worried that an activist judge will find some reason to overturn state law and allow gays to wed.
Get rid of the activists judges, and let voters decide in a referendum, if their should be a referendum.
...after two beers.
HANKSTER
· 3 years ago
Its time we stop attacking the judiciary just because someone disagrees with their decision. It is a very dangerous and shameful trend being set.
Justice
· 3 years ago
Whats the problem?? Gay, straight, neutural....who cares. Life is way too short and we need to live our individual lives the best each of us can. All of us should be so lucky to find some other that cares about us, be they straight or gay. And who says gays arn't really the straight ones. Where did that rule come from. Really, people need to get a life.
doubtful
· 3 years ago
Well, since it's currently not legal, Bill, I doubt equal marriage opponents need that referendum. What they really need is a way to motivate people to vote, which is all they are shopping for. Keep the polls off the ballot.
Hankster, you're right on. We should especially be wary of any thinly veiled threats against the judiciary. Illinois has witnessed first hand violence against judges.
ChicagoCynic
· 3 years ago
Rich,
Are you really shocked, shocked to find hypocrisy in the right wing's pronouncements on acticist judges? According to a recent study, the biggest activist judges in the country now are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Lovie's Leather
· 3 years ago
"Its time we stop attacking the judiciary just because someone disagrees with their decision. It is a very dangerous and shameful trend being set."
Hankster, I think it is the exact opposite. I think we should criticize any judge that makes radical decisions whether they are to the left or right. It would be shameful not to.
HoosierDaddy
· 3 years ago
Thomas and Scalia.... only if by "activist" you mean reversing the whacked out decisions of previous courts counts as activism.
HH312: depends on whose foxhole you mean. I signed the petition when it was proposed and when its supporters were trying to get it on the ballot the old fashioned way. If you'll note, I was the FIRST one on this board to call BS.
HH312
· 3 years ago
HoosierDaddy: glad to hear it. Nice to meetcha.
Elder
· 3 years ago
I will start being shocked at right wing hypocrisy on the "activist judges" issue, after I get over my shock at conservative R's in bed with the "gaming" (GAMBLING) industry!
ChicagoCynic
· 3 years ago
HoosierDaddy, yeah, hate those whacked out decisions like desegregation, declaring mixed marriage statues unconstitutional, declaring the right of an accused to counsel and the right to have illegally seized evidence thrown out. Yeah, hate that whacked out leftist court...
Da Guy
· 3 years ago
If everyone would just be reasonable, the world would be a better place. (By the way I get to define "reasonable.")
Who cares, why shouldn't gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. (or Happy, my wife just walked in.)
Cal Skinner
· 3 years ago
And no one has made the Pat Quinn connection that I made over on Illinoize and McHenryCountyBlog.com.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
What they really need is a way to motivate people to vote, which is all they are shopping for. Keep the polls off the ballot.
Well, does taking it off, demotivate? Or just make them more angry?
I think it does a diservice to people on both sides. I think it will happen in the future and the outcome on this one not as dire as same sex marriage advocates think.
What does need to be sorted out are how things like what happened with Catholic Charities getting kicked out of the adoption business can be avoided.
If redefining marriage means forcing Churches to violate doctrine and creed, few would support this. (Definition is discrimination by the way).
The people behind this referendum, really believe in it; just as the supporters of same sex marriage really believe in it.
That there will be no debate on it is not good because that's how consensus is formed.
Who is This....
· 3 years ago
Hey Folks, I just received an email about Angel Rivera as a Write In Candidate for Illinois Governor. Frankly, I don't have a clue who this guy is but he's worth a look into if you aren't happy with the current candidates.
Maybe Rich could do a write up or something about Write In Candidates as I am sure quite a few would consider writing in someone other than "Mickey Mouse".
ZC
· 3 years ago
For some conservatives (not all), the lexicon goes as follows:
1. A judge who overturns a law conservatives like is being "activist."
2. A judge who refuses to overturn a law conservatives dislike is "refusing to uphold the Constitution."
All Comments
In answer to Rich's question, yep. We don't like activist judges (unless they are on our side).
Whatever.
The federal judge in Chicago has already turned them down. They, in turn, have excoriated the judge for not being ACTIVIST ENOUGH to rewrite the referendum election rules in Illinois, just so PMI can be on the ballot! LOL!!!! It's turning into a reality TV comedy show.
For all their fanfare, preaching, moralizing, mud-slinging, self-righteousness and self-flattery, Illinois Family Institute (and now Family Taxpayers Network, which is running around saying that they did all the work) simply SCREWED UP on getting signatures. Their chances in court are slim and none.
A klutz by any other name . . . will still trip and fall.
and this brilliant observation after a beer (or two?)! damn! you're good...
Get rid of the activists judges, and let voters decide in a referendum, if their should be a referendum.
...after two beers.
Hankster, you're right on. We should especially be wary of any thinly veiled threats against the judiciary. Illinois has witnessed first hand violence against judges.
Are you really shocked, shocked to find hypocrisy in the right wing's pronouncements on acticist judges? According to a recent study, the biggest activist judges in the country now are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Hankster, I think it is the exact opposite. I think we should criticize any judge that makes radical decisions whether they are to the left or right. It would be shameful not to.
HH312: depends on whose foxhole you mean. I signed the petition when it was proposed and when its supporters were trying to get it on the ballot the old fashioned way. If you'll note, I was the FIRST one on this board to call BS.
Who cares, why shouldn't gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. (or Happy, my wife just walked in.)
Well, does taking it off, demotivate? Or just make them more angry?
I think it does a diservice to people on both sides. I think it will happen in the future and the outcome on this one not as dire as same sex marriage advocates think.
What does need to be sorted out are how things like what happened with Catholic Charities getting kicked out of the adoption business can be avoided.
If redefining marriage means forcing Churches to violate doctrine and creed, few would support this. (Definition is discrimination by the way).
The people behind this referendum, really believe in it; just as the supporters of same sex marriage really believe in it.
That there will be no debate on it is not good because that's how consensus is formed.
Maybe Rich could do a write up or something about Write In Candidates as I am sure quite a few would consider writing in someone other than "Mickey Mouse".
1. A judge who overturns a law conservatives like is being "activist."
2. A judge who refuses to overturn a law conservatives dislike is "refusing to uphold the Constitution."
Neat trick, no?