All Posts Tagged With: "Court"
Survey of NRA, Supreme Court, Offshore and ANWR Oil Drilling
Over half of Americans (56%) express a favorable view of the National Rifle Association,
although only 17% of voters say they are more likely to vote for John McCain if he is endorsed by the pro-gun lobbying group.
But, 21% of all voters say an NRA endorsement will make them more likely they’ll vote for a non-endorsee.
Six of ten says an NRA endorsements means nothing to their vote.
Sixty-five percents (65%) of men view the NRA favorably, only 47% of women agree, with nearly as many (42%) rating the group unfavorably. Proof men and women are different.
Seventy percent (80%) of Republicans give the group favorable marks as opposed to 39% of Democrats. Both the NRA’s favorable and unfavorably ratings are up since the Virginia Tech shootings.
In an elated matter following the Supreme Court decision decision which upholds the right of citizens to bear arms, 34% of voters say the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job. That’s an eight-point improvement in just a few days.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) support offshore drilling, a figure that is unchanged from a previous Rasmussen survey. By a 60% to 31% margin, voters also support drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Republicans favor ANWR drilling by an 85% to 10% margin and Alaska’s Republican Governor Sarah Palin has written to the United States Senate demanding that such drilling be allowed.
Democrats are evenly divided on ANWR drilling-46% are opposed while 41% are in favor. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 61% favor drilling in the Wildlife Refuge while 29% are opposed.
“Gun Grabbing God Nuts” Expected to “Win” In Supreme Court
The Supreme Court returns to the bench Monday with 17 cases still unresolved, including its first-ever comprehensive look at the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
The guns case - including Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns _ is widely expected to be a victory for supporters of gun rights. Top officials of a national gun control organization said this week that they expect the handgun ban to be struck down, but they are hopeful other gun regulations will survive
Second Ammendment opponents say they expect 32-year-old handgun ban to fall but believe that background checks, limits on large-volume gun sales and prohibitions on certain categories of weapons can survive. If that happens it will reload Obama opponents to renew their attacks on his gun grabbing –God nuts comments.
Court Says Texas Wrong to Seize Children of FLDS Sect
A Texas Court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect’s ranch but did not immediately order the children’s return to their parents. In another ruling a majority of the mothers arrested and placed in foster care were declared adults – one is 27 years of age. Charges of religious persecution, always almost inevitable, are being increasingly lodged against Texas officials. Regardless about how you feel about the polygamist sect the actions of Texas CPS will result in gigantic civil settlements and years of litigation.The California Supreme Court got it right!
We’ve got them surrounded. Same-sex marriage is now legal on both the right and left coasts (Massachusetts and now California). Chief Justice Ronald George authored the landmark 4-3 ruling that was handed down today in San Francisco. “The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” stated the court in a 121-page ruling. As with Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court got it right when it referred to marriage as a ‘basic civil right.’
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
Contrary to what the right-wingers and the Christian Evangelicals would have you believe, we’re not looking for ‘special’ rights. We misguided gay folk are simply looking for the same rights afforded to our supposedly correct-thinking counterparts (read: heterosexuals). This is a topic I can write on extemporaneously because I’ve lived it every day for just about 54 years.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
My wife and I are in our sixteenth year together. We were legally married in Massachusetts on May 4, 2006 in a private ceremony in the office of the head of the Unitarian Church in Newburyport. The only other people at the ceremony were our children, now eleven and seven years old. Our children were not the product of a failed heterosexual marriage brought into a lesbian relationship. We had intended to have children from the beginning and our family was carefully planned. After the children were born, I adopted them so that my name could appear on their birth certificates.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
When we met, same-sex marriage was barely on the radar. In what was undoubtedly a symbolic event, we had a commitment ceremony in December 1992; we registered as a couple in Provincetown, Massachusetts the same year. We were married in a civil union in a gazebo in Brattleboro, Vermont, in 2002 (civil unions were recognized there in 2000). As a family, we have been through incredibly good and incredibly bad times together. Ultimately, that’s what same-sex couples are fighting for: The right to legitimately go through life’s ups and downs together.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
Now that this decision has gone in favor of same-sex marriage, those opposed to it will argue that this issue belongs on the ballot, not in the courts. They are wrong. It is not up to the public to arbitrarily vote whether or not to extend the basic civil rights guaranteed in each state constitution. On the other hand, however, it is the job of the court to interpret such laws should a challenge arise.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>