Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Egg Drama Everywhere | Reading Tonight: Totem Pole Fantasy… »

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

News What? No Cries of Judicial Tyranny?

Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:15 AM

It's not judicial tyranny when it goes their way.

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Is that judge heterosexual? If so, he should have recused himself from this case. He can't possibly be unbiased when deciding on reproductive matters.

Posted by patrick66 on August 24, 2010 at 10:23 AM

He's undoubtedly a papist.

Posted by Vince on August 24, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Ummm, isn't it the role of the judicial branch to mediate disputes between the executive and legislative branches? In this case there is a law that might apply and to some degree Obama was trying to find a loophole. Even though I agree with Obama's position and hate that the NOP will block repealing the law, I can see this as a reasonable decision on the judges part.

One of the most frustrating and hopeful things I about this presidency is that they feel they are bound by the rule of law.

Posted by darkmane on August 24, 2010 at 10:58 AM

There is nothing in the constitution about allowing scientific advancement and human progress to flourish if it means violating the rights of embryos. We need to protect these life forms, allow them to sprout into fully formed human beings who can then become wealthy, have their taxes reduced, and make unlimited donations to life-protecting liberty- loving patriotic candidates at all levels of government, which, remember, is the problem not the solution. But if any of these embryonic forms choose a gay lifestyle, then we can't allow them to marry, because that would lead to man on dog.

Posted by Vadt on August 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

reagan appointee. in 1987. that's twenty-three years ago. time to retire.

Posted by Max Solomon on August 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM

@4: But how is babby formed in the first place?

Posted by venomlash on August 24, 2010 at 12:30 PM

The judge sort of looks like what I expect Right Wingers envision when they think of a stem cell, namely, a big round blob of protoplasm with a human face in the center.

Posted by COMTE

on August 24, 2010 at 1:51 PM

@3- Judicial interprets the law, legislative makes the law and executive enforces the law. It makes no difference how the law comes into being.

Posted by OutInBumF on August 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM

How DARE our government fund something that's perfectly legal and likely to be helpful to millions of people?!

Clearly we need to repeal the ban on federally-funding abortion (and YOU thought I was talking about stem cell research).

Plus, you can get embryos for stem-cell research from all of those potential government-funded abortions, which could also help millions of people.

Why can they get funding for shit that helps people live better lives banned because they disagree with it, while I'm stuck paying half my federal tax dollars to support illegal, immoral, never-ending wars? Why is funding one form of killing (clumps of a hundred or so cells that have around a 1-in-4 chance of developing into) people NOT OKAY while funding another form of killing (actual, extant, full-grown) people perfectly fine?

*POP* [head explodes]

Posted by John Horstman on August 24, 2010 at 3:18 PM