Connect with us

archive

Kagan Refuses to Answer Whether Marriage is a State Issue

Kagan just said she wouldn’t answer whether marriage was a state issue … wait for it … because there’s a case coming down the pike.  This is a load of horsepucky.  It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed’s human lover is filing a case.
Then she said she wasn’t going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value — a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution — and she followed that whopper up by saying "there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition … what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don’t get the full weight."  
Unreal.  Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972.  She doesn’t answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument.
In other words, she’s pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.
Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING NOW:

Dunkin Donuts Refuses to Get Woke: ‘We Are Not Starbucks’

CULTURE

‘Reaganesque’: Economist Tells CNBC Trump Could Shift Global Order In China Trade War

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Does ‘Impeach Trump’ Amash Have Financial Interests in China?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Judge Who Ruled on Trump’s Finances is an Obama Donor.

U.S. POLITICS

Kagan just said she wouldn't answer whether marriage was a state issue ... wait for it ... because there's a case coming down the pike. This is a load of horsepucky. It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed's human lover is filing a case. Then she said she wasn't going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value -- a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution -- and she followed that whopper up by saying "there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition ... what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don't get the full weight." Unreal. Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972. She doesn't answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument. In other words, she's pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.

archive

Kagan Refuses to Answer Whether Marriage is a State Issue

Kagan just said she wouldn’t answer whether marriage was a state issue … wait for it … because there’s a case coming down the pike. This is a load of horsepucky. It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed’s human lover is filing a case.

Then she said she wasn’t going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value — a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution — and she followed that whopper up by saying “there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition … what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don’t get the full weight.”

Unreal. Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972. She doesn’t answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument.

In other words, she’s pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.

Kagan just said she wouldn’t answer whether marriage was a state issue … wait for it … because there’s a case coming down the pike.  This is a load of horsepucky.  It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed’s human lover is filing a case.

Then she said she wasn’t going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value — a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution — and she followed that whopper up by saying "there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition … what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don’t get the full weight."  

Unreal.  Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972.  She doesn’t answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument.

In other words, she’s pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.
Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

TRENDING NOW:

Dunkin Donuts Refuses to Get Woke: ‘We Are Not Starbucks’

CULTURE

‘Reaganesque’: Economist Tells CNBC Trump Could Shift Global Order In China Trade War

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Does ‘Impeach Trump’ Amash Have Financial Interests in China?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Judge Who Ruled on Trump’s Finances is an Obama Donor.

U.S. POLITICS

Connect
Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter