|
Election Projection cannot screen all advertisements appearing here. Therefore, I do not necessarily endorse the products and/or services shown.
|
| Archives |
|---|
May, 2012
April, 2012
March, 2012
February, 2012
January, 2012
December, 2011
November, 2011
October, 2011
September, 2011
August, 2011
July, 2011
June, 2011
April, 2011
March, 2011
February, 2011
January, 2011
November, 2010
October, 2010
September, 2010
August, 2010
July, 2010
June, 2010
May, 2010
April, 2010
March, 2010
February, 2010
January, 2010
December, 2009
November, 2009
October, 2009
September, 2009
August, 2009
June, 2009
May, 2009
April, 2009
March, 2009
November, 2008
October, 2008
September, 2008
August, 2008
June, 2008
May, 2008
April, 2008
March, 2008
February, 2008
January, 2008
December, 2007
November, 2007
October, 2007
September, 2007
July, 2007
June, 2007
May, 2007
April, 2007
March, 2007
February, 2007
January, 2007
November, 2006
October, 2006
September, 2006
August, 2006
July, 2006
June, 2006
May, 2006
April, 2006
March, 2006
February, 2006
January, 2006
December, 2005
November, 2005
August, 2005
July, 2005
June, 2005
May, 2005
April, 2005
March, 2005
February, 2005
January, 2005
November, 2004
October, 2004
September, 2004
August, 2004
July, 2004
June, 2004
May, 2004
April, 2004
March, 2004
February, 2004
January, 2004
December, 2003
|
|
| |
|---|
| Thursday, August 5, 2010 |
|---|
| Not "We, the people," but "I, the Judge" |
|---|
Yesterday, one man thwarted the will of the people of California and decided for himself that they have no right to confirm the true definition of marriage. Today, I received an
email from the American Family Association describing this betrayal of the rule of law in this country.
|
Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state
constitution.
In doing so, he frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.
Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.
Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."
In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.
|
I hope the case reaches the Supreme Court before President Obama gets the chance to add one more liberal vote to the bench. Otherwise, this wrong will stand.
Filed under:
The courts
Marriage
posted by Scott Elliott at 1:16pm 08/05/10::
link |
|
|
|
|
| Election Projection Resources |
|---|
EP's RSS Feed |
RSS
|
| 2010 Projection Results |
|
| 2008 Projection Results |
|
| 2006 Projection Results |
|
| 2004 Projection Results |
|
| Search this site |
provided by Google
|
| Contact Me |
e-mail Scott at:
thebloggingcaesar
-at- yahoo.com
|
|
|
