Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and 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? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting the a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?
My honest opinion? She did nothing wrong. She didn't actually equate the two. However, neither did Ben Carson. Yet, as per usual, liberal hypocrites hold every one else to different standards for their own agenda.
If you are among those attacking Carson, yet silent or defensive of Soto, you are a hypocrite
be clear, I do not believe Sotomayor compared homosexuality to anything. What she did is what Dr. Carson did: she played devil's advocate about the slippery-slope of what might come next if we open the Pandora's box of changing the definition of marriage. And to make that argument, like Dr. Carson, she used illegal and immoral relationships (not homosexuality) as slippery slope concerns should the definition of marriage be held to include gay marriage.
John Nolte
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-31-2013 at 05:45 PM..
Reason: copyright vioation
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked — and — and 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? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?
MR. OLSON: Well, you've said — you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you — if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status. It's selecting them
as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases, you're picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom that you've said is fundamental, important and vital in this society, and it has status and stature, as you pointed out in the VMI case. There's a — there's a different -*
My honest opinion? She did nothing wrong. She didn't actually equate the two. However, neither did Ben Carson. Yet, as per usual, liberal hypocrites hold every one else to different standards for their own agenda.
If you are among those attacking Carson, yet silent or defensive of Soto, you are a hypocrite
They think she is certain to vote their way. I think she may surprise them.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11
My honest opinion? She did nothing wrong. She didn't actually equate the two. However, neither did Ben Carson. Yet, as per usual, liberal hypocrites hold every one else to different standards for their own agenda.
If you are among those attacking Carson, yet silent or defensive of Soto, you are a hypocrite
She was not equating anything, she did not do the same thing as Carson, your own quote says that.
Carson actually did compare the 3, and he did it on more than one occasion .
Sotomayor was asking for an answer to a question asked by someone else, not by herself.
My favorite part of this breitbart article is this
Quote:
But that didn't matter to a CNN and NBC desperate to publicly destroy a man who "doesn't know his place." We've seen this media playbook before with Clarence Thomas, and most recently with Herman Cain. (In CNN's defense, they did not stoop as low as NBC News.)
There is also Mr.Olson's answer
Quote:
MR. OLSON:
Well, you've said -- you've said
21
in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy
22
issue, multiple marriages raises questions about
23
exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to
24
taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely
On a side note I find it appalling Justice Thomas can't even muster one question. Where is the intellectual curiosity? It's ironic he's against affirmative action since he appears to embody the epitome of an affirmative action hire, an underwhelming employee advanced because of race.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
