PDA

View Full Version : WSJ: Notable & Quotable 03/27/2013


Peaceful John
03-27-2013, 8:10 AM
From the oral argument in the Supreme Court case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, March 26:

Justice Sotomayor: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and that it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? (emphasis added)

Cross-posted to MdShooters

CDFingers
03-27-2013, 8:16 AM
That's gonna leave a mark...

CDFingers

DannyInSoCal
03-27-2013, 8:21 AM
Liberals are pro choice when it comes to same sex marriage and abortion -

But not when it comes to guns, union dues, religion, health care, light bulbs, what size soda you can buy, or if you can be tortured and murdered in Bengazi.

Typical delusional brainwashed hypocrites.....

CDFingers
03-27-2013, 8:35 AM
I agree that Republicans want a government so small it can fit inside a woman's uterus, but big enough to prevent a private business from allowing union representation.

Is it any wonder that such a schitzo set of ideas loses voters? Not to me.

CDFingers

Marxman
03-27-2013, 8:37 AM
Stay classy CD. Stay classy.

Marxman
03-27-2013, 8:41 AM
Second post since mobile doesn't edit: the hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. I sincerely hope this quote is repeated ad nauseum in any issues relating to gun control. It will be a joy to hear that her comment is taken out of context or that the second isn't a fundamental right.

ZombieTactics
03-27-2013, 8:42 AM
In case anyone isn't paying attention, this thread really isn't about abortion.

... just saying.

OleCuss
03-27-2013, 8:54 AM
Still trying to figure out how CDFingers' post makes sense.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Kagan's comment will make it into a final ruling or even into a concurring opinion or dissent.

penguin0123
03-27-2013, 8:54 AM
Before we celebrate, we need to read the ruling. But I see potential precedence that could be very useful for us.

speedrrracer
03-27-2013, 10:05 AM
Anyone who thinks anything that might be said in this case will benefit us in a 2A sense is being overly optimistic. Past Courts have clearly shown that they will pick and choose any meaning or precedent which suits them, and ignore those which don't.

Bottom line: they will rationalize each decision independently of all others, to suit their personal desires, and your rights never enter into their thinking.

CDFingers
03-27-2013, 10:47 AM
The Justice said (my interpretation) that fundamental rights should not be restricted. She set up the defense lawyer with the "fundamental right" statement from his brief, and she turned it around on him.

I would claim that the 2A also is a fundamental right, and it should not be restricted.

That's the relationship.

CDFingers

Scarecrow Repair
03-27-2013, 2:50 PM
I agree that Republicans want a government so small it can fit inside a woman's uterus, but big enough to prevent a private business from allowing union representation.

Is it any wonder that such a schitzo set of ideas loses voters? Not to me.

CDFingers

Nice one :-) I bet, with an attitude like that, that I've been upset by others of your posts, but this is a good one. Me likey!

Scarecrow Repair
03-27-2013, 3:07 PM
I am a weird combination of cynical long term optimist and short term pessimist.

The cospiracy theory part of all that thinks of Gene bringing up abortions during his public appearances and Kagan (?) going shooting with Scalia and wondering if this is an unexpected hiint of things to come, whether there's some odd synergy going on here and Obama et al might be in for an unpleasant surprise in the next year or two.

KC, where are you to bring me back to reality?