Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
quote:
Originally posted by IronDragon:
quote:
Magik said:
there is at least one person on that bench that just reversed her previous opinions and ovtes...she caved in to social pressure from gay rights activists
|
I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE]By the same token, IronDragon, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria. 
[/QUOTE]A. Like "affirmative action," "racial profiling" is something that serves a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. And, it is legal. Your gripe falls on deaf ears. Now, if Congress outlaws it, then that is LEGISLATIVE, but the courts have upheld racial profiling.
B. Everyone selectively labels. It's called bias, and we all have it.
C. O'Connor, like other justices, notably Kennedy, has had her opinion change over time, becoming more conservative in certain areas and more mainstream in others. People are dynamic, thankfully. She is still a Repug showcase item, and was on the latest cover of NRO's magazine I believe.
D. With all of the beatings the right to privacy has taken in the past 2 years, we should all rejoice at any decision limiting the government playing nanny in our bedrooms. I may not be gay, and I may find the notion that one male can find another male's hairy smelly body attractive personally offensive to my senses, but I will NOT tell other people how to live their lives. I should be allowed to stick it in my wife's arse or mouth ("sodomy" = both of these, btw), and they should be allowed to do likewise with whomever they choose.