stats for wordpress
<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


Carly Fiorina: ‘Self-Appointed Judges’ Should Not Decide Gay Marriage

by David Badash on March 19, 2013

in Civil Rights,Discrimination,Marriage,News,Politics

Post image for Carly Fiorina: ‘Self-Appointed Judges’ Should Not Decide Gay Marriage

Carly Fiorina believes that “self-appointed judges” should not be allowed to decide important issues like same-sex marriage. Let’s repeat that:

Carly Fiorina believes that “self-appointed judges” should not be allowed to decide important issues like same-sex marriage.

Specifically, Carly Fiorina, while on ABC News’ “This Week,” told journalist Martha Radditz that “a bunch of self-important, self-appointed judges” should not be allowed to decide on “very personal issues” like same-sex marriage.

Fiorina, you’ll remember, was the Republican challenger to U.S. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California. Fiorina, you’ll remember, lost, 52.2 percent to 42.2 percent. Which of course makes her opinion totally valid.

On Sunday, ABC discussed the news that Republican U.S. Senator Rob Portman announced his support of same-sex marriage.

Republican Matthew Dowd, talking about marriage equality and Rob Portman, told the group:

I think Republicans, any Republicans that stand in the way of this, are standing in the way of march of history on this.

Rob Portman I know well. I did debate prep with Rob Portman in years past. He’s a good person. And the people that I think that have criticized him and said, oh, by the way, hHe only did it was a personal thing that affected him personally, he wasn’t going to do it otherwise. To me, why do we criticize people for that? The person that started MADD, it was a personal thing. The people that — many people who have come out against gun control have been personally affected by it. If somebody’s path to the truth, or somebody’s path to a place where we actually think they’re open and compassionate is a personal decision, god be wtih them.

Apparently, Fiorina actually believed that required a response.

Fiorina, direct from the ABC News transcript:

I think we have to be careful, because John Boehner’s views, which are different from Rob Portman’s views, are equally sincere. And I think when we get into trouble on this debate when we assume that people who support gay marriage are open and compassion and people who don’t are not. It’s why I believe the right way to solve these very personal issues is to let people vote on them, don’t have judges decide it, don’t even have representative government decide it, let people vote on it in the states.

I think people of both points of view, accept the democratic process. What they don’t always accept is a bunch of self-important, self-appointed judges saying this is culturally the new norm.

 

Now, let’s remember this is John Boehner, who on the very same show on Sunday, had said, he cannot imagine supporting a gay child’s same-sex marriage:

“I believe that marriage is the union of one man, one woman. It’s what I grew up with, it’s what I believe, it’s what my church teaches me. And I can’t imagine that position would ever change.”

I don’t care how “sincere” John Boehner — who has made Robert P. George, the co-founder of the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), a government employee — is in his anti-gay hate.

I don’t care how sincere anyone is about their hate. Hate is hate, sincere or otherwise.

“Fiorina is typical of America-hating, and gay-hating, Republicans,” John Aravosis writes:

They hate our democratic system of government, they hate the separation of powers, and they hate that the third branch of government, the courts, have this penchant for doing the right thing, unencumbered by politics.  So, they’ve been undercutting the courts’ authority for decades.

In the same way that the Republicans have systematically tried to destroy the media’s credibility for years, because the media was a gatekeeper of the truth, Republicans have been doing the same to judges for the exact same reason. To a Republican, a judge who can’t be controlled, a judge who adheres to the truth, must be destroyed.

The truth, you see, has a liberal bias. As does freedom. So both must be curtailed, as Republicans can’t win if the truth wins out.

Carly Fiorina believe that somehow, “self-important” people appoint themselves and magically become judges.

Carly Fiorina, you’ll also remember, is the woman who was fired from Hewlett-Packard after computer maker’s stock lost half its value.

She was then given $20 million.

Thinking you deserve $20 million for sinking a top ten Fortune 100 corporation pretty much is the definition of “self-important.”

But let’s think about the crux of Fiorina’s argument: Important civil rights issues should be decided by the majority.

You know where this is going.

Women would not have be allowed to vote when they were.

Slavery would have existed far longer than it did.

Black people would not have been allowed to marry white people.

The list goes on and on.

Civil rights, Carly, are inherent in our DNA, to paraphrase an important, but not self-important woman, Hillary Clinton.

You don’t vote on civil rights because the majority will — studies prove — almost always vote against the rights of the minority.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 9 comments }

Huntercgo March 19, 2013 at 8:54 am

"It’s why I believe the right way to solve these very personal issues is to let people vote on them. . . ."

You have to wonder if people like Carly Fiorina ever actually hear what they're saying — so we should ask a few million total strangers for permission to get married? Tell me, do they also get to decide whether we should have a colonoscopy?

And she actually got 42% of the vote?

BearFlagCitizen March 19, 2013 at 9:56 am

Ms. Fiorina, I don't recall being given the right to vote on your marriage. You see this is a really personal issue for me that I should get to decide if your marriage is valid or not. So all those in favor of relegating this woman to second class status and nullifying here marriage vote 'Aye!'

Aye!

yorknow March 19, 2013 at 5:40 pm

Aye.

kbg351 March 19, 2013 at 10:13 am

Only when these reactionary republican bigots don't like the results of the…. "people's vote" .. They ignore it, disclaim it, vilify the winner ( see presidential election 2012), or get their newscaster whore parrots to make up lies about what transpired!
Oh …. I forgot… Self important people like… Uh ,uh, Carly fiorina?

BJLincoln March 19, 2013 at 10:42 am

I believe every word of John's piece. I think he nailed it.
She is a perfect example.
I find it interesting that they claim to believe in the constitution and the Bible while saying and doing the exact opposite of what they both say and stand for.
All the while, they preach their twisted self-serving lies in the name of truth.
They are about to hear and see the truth. If they like it or not, they will have to live the truth..at least in public.

david0296 March 19, 2013 at 12:18 pm

Self-appointed judges? I had no idea the Supreme Court justices were just taking one of those Washington D.C. tours and happened to walk into the judge's chambers by accident, put on a robe, filled out an employment application and instantly became a judge! Impressive! — Yeah, she's a total idiot.

yorknow March 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm

Ah, the old 'activist judges' belief, slightly paraphrased. And yes, the majority does vote against the right of minority groups. Haven't we seen that time and again? Lies and propaganda are powerful tools. .

JacksonHeit March 20, 2013 at 9:41 am

I wanted to add one thing — not only do judges not appoint themselves to the bench, most judges don't get to pick which cases they will hear. At the trial court level and at the intermediate appeal level, judges are assigned to a case. Even when an appeals court sits en banc, if there are a large number of judges it is only a subset that hears the case. At the highest level, the court does get to decide what cases it will hear — but that is usually based on a need to settle a split among lower courts or because the case deals with a particularly important issue.

James_M_Martin March 21, 2013 at 12:45 am

That horrid woman, who almost ran HP into the ground, acquiring the Compaq computer company at a time for an inflated price when PC sales began to slump and when any executive at HP knew or should hve known that the secret to HP'S success was its superior printers, and the expensive ink cartridges needed to run them. The board had to run her off and, naturally, she left with a golden parachute. A failure as a CEO, she now wants to try punditry, but so far she has failed at that too. Why doesn't she just STFU.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post:

<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>