RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM president: Marriage ruling is 'Dred Scott decision of our time' » Episcopalians approve ceremonies for all legally-qualified couples » NOM's wishful (and disrespectful) thinking: SCOTUS ruling is 'illegitimate' » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/22/2010

Video: 'Terry Branstad can't have it both ways'

by Jeremy Hooper

Yes! Finally. An apt articulation of law, the role of the independent judiciary in determining the constitutionality of said law, and the reason why the conversation between a unanimous high court decision vs. a public vote on minority rights is not an equally merited tête-à-tête.

***

*Reminder: Branstad sure liked Chief Justice Marsha Ternus when he appointed her back in '93:

July 29, 1993 -- Associated Press
Screen Shot 2010-09-14 At 10.15.43 Am

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails