tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4531248303954963098.post2211566520806744227..comments2024-01-16T18:30:41.436-06:00Comments on The Badger Catholic: Abp Listecki on Crabb decision: "One judge takes it upon herself to challenge the will of the state"Badger Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05389147035157025445noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4531248303954963098.post-10175232128651883592014-06-17T14:14:22.523-05:002014-06-17T14:14:22.523-05:00Typical progressive. Resort to race-baiting. Fact ...Typical progressive. Resort to race-baiting. Fact that most aborted babies are black doesn't mean anything to you. Because the USA isn't a "whatever the majority says is law" country, then how was slavery overturned? Whatever happened to that Supreme Court decision called Dredd Scott? Or Plessy? Or Korematsu? You do realize that the Brown decision had NO effect. It was legislators, yes, elected legislators who ended segregatory laws. Oh, and Republican legislators. The courts have consistently gotten social decisions wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4531248303954963098.post-42224263000551829212014-06-17T14:06:14.862-05:002014-06-17T14:06:14.862-05:00Your understanding of history is poor or at least ...Your understanding of history is poor or at least your argument is, although you do seem to understand race-baiting. I don't think that I have ever argued with a progressive with the progressive NOT resorting to race-baiting. Will progressives refer to race in another hundred years? How about a hundred years after that? The fact that most aborted babies are black is apparently inadmissible in any argument with a progressive. There was a Supreme Court decision; it was called Dredd Scott. Then there was an election; it was 1860 and it effectively overturned the Supreme Court decision. The voters did that. What is legal and a constitutional right WAS determined by majority vote. You do understand that the courts have mostly gotten social decisions wrong, right? Dredd Scott, Korematsu, Plessy, etc. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4531248303954963098.post-29640624556419147262014-06-16T10:15:17.928-05:002014-06-16T10:15:17.928-05:00Well yes, hopefully we don't have to go to war...Well yes, hopefully we don't have to go to <b>war</b> to resolve the issue. "Religious people" still constitute a vast majority of Americans so I assume you mean religious ideas. The philosophy of Natural Law exists outside of any particular religious expression. Badger Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05389147035157025445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4531248303954963098.post-50887407657042578842014-06-14T15:14:38.232-05:002014-06-14T15:14:38.232-05:00fortunately the USA is not a "whatever the ma...fortunately the USA is not a "whatever the majority says is law" democracy, we also have a constitution to interrpret and to guide us. If we were a majority rules democracy I suspect slavery and no inter-racial marriage might still be the law of the land and and Wisconson voters saying "no" to same sex marrige would be the law.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4531248303954963098.post-18296890172959779232014-06-13T22:09:31.269-05:002014-06-13T22:09:31.269-05:00Have a problem with governmental authority, Archbi...Have a problem with governmental authority, Archbishop? Sheesh. You're just like those folks who oppose Common Core.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4531248303954963098.post-87871649444984247952014-06-13T12:46:29.440-05:002014-06-13T12:46:29.440-05:00Fortunately, in this case as in others in our hist...Fortunately, in this case as in others in our history (slavery, inter-racial marriage to mention two) what is legal and a constitutional right is not determined by majority vote (referendum, state constitutional amendment).<br />Religious people can have other determinations for themselves but not for the public domain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com