View Single Post
Old May 18th, 2013 (10:28 AM).
ANARCHit3cht ANARCHit3cht is offline
Call me Archie!
    Join Date: Sep 2008
    Posts: 2,143
    Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
    Misleading article is misleading.

    Judicial offices are nonpartisan.
    The offices themselves might be nonpartisan, but it would far more difficult to ensure that the judges are, actually. Obviously they can't start pulling a bunch of partisan warfare out of their ass, but a Republican-minded, Conservative judge would far more likely to bring up the "morality" clause than a liberal-minded Democratic judge would. Bringing it up shows no inclination towards any party officially, but it definitely shows us with which party his thought process lines up with. Although, s to some extent, I do agree that the title is misleading. They most likely put Republican in there as a way to get more people offended with the GOP and its unsavory choices.

    That being said... I honestly feel for these two. They are in quite a bind here, when we all know that such a situation should not be able to arise--legally, nonetheless-- in the country that is supposed to be the "leader of the Free world." If I was them, I would simply find a loophole such as placing a trailer in the yard and having one of the ladies rent it out.. saying that it is not her home, but an additional housing unit that she acquiring rent from. I don't the technicalities of the law, so when it says "home" they might mean entire property, but I'm sure that there is some simple way it could be worked around.
    Reply With Quote