Your Questions About Law Schools In California Wiki
How do leftists feel that Bush appointed a g*y judge?
Walker was born in Watseka, Illinois in 1944, and graduated from the University of Michigan in 1966 and Stanford Law School in 1970. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Court for the Central District of California judge Robert J. Kelleher from 1971 to 1972, he practiced in San Francisco at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro from 1972 until his September 7, 1989, nomination by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams. Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989. Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay.
Are liberals shocked that President Bush, Sr. appointed a gay judge?
BTW, he happens to be the one who just struck down Prop 8 and allowed gay marriages.
Reagan, also a Republican, appointed the first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, to the Supreme Court.
So, Bush #41 appointed a gay judge? Seems like the Republicans are making all the “firsts” here, not the Dems. And you have demonized us. Ha. We’re more evolved than YOU.
What should the school’s response been to 15 year old Lawrence King who dressed effeminately to school?
This boy, Lawrence King, was murdered by Brandon McInerney. King was shot twice in the head, brutally mudered in a classroom in front of other students. According to Newsweek Brandon McInerney killed him because King was openly gay, and allegedly asked him to be his Valentine.
King’s family is angry with the school for “allowing” the boy to wear effeminate clothing, high heels, makeup etc. to school, which would have been discriminatory, according to the school.
Do you think the school was right or wrong?
In August 2008, King’s family filed a claim against E.O. Green School at Ventura County Superior Court, alleging that the school’s allowing King to wear makeup and feminine clothing was a factor leading to his death. According to the California Attorney General’s Office, however, the school could not legally have stopped King from wearing girls’ clothes because state law prevents gender discrimination.
According to a Newsweek article published on July 19, 2008, some teachers at E.O. Green also allege that assistant principal Joy Epstein was “encouraging King’s flamboyance to help further an ‘agenda’”.
His parents are wrong on two counts. The first is that the school could do nothing. The second is that there legal action suggests thay their son’s killer was something other than a bigot, even suggesting that they see why there son was killed, almost legitimizing it. But the boy who pulled the trigger is no less a bigot than those who voted for prop 8.
Would you vote for the Rhino Party?
I’m just curious. I think it would be awesome to bring it back.
For those who don’t know: The Rhinoceros Party was a registered political party in Canada from the 1960s to the 1990s. Operating within the Canadian tradition of political satire, the Rhinoceros Party’s basic credo, their so-called primal promise, was “a promise to keep none of our promises.” They then promised outlandishly impossible schemes designed to amuse and entertain the voting public. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_party)
Here are some of their platform promises:
* Repealing the law of gravity
* Paving Manitoba to create the world’s largest parking lot
* Providing higher education by building taller schools
* Instituting English, French and illiteracy as Canada’s three official languages
* Tearing down the Rocky Mountains so that Albertans could see the Pacific sunset
* Making Montreal the Venice of North America by damming the St. Lawrence River
* Abolishing the environment because it’s too hard to keep clean and it takes up so much space
* Annexing the United States, which would take its place as the third territory, after the Yukon and the Northwest Territories (Nunavut did not yet exist) in Canada’s backyard, in order to eliminate foreign control of Canada’s natural resources
* Ending crime by abolishing all laws
* Paving the Bay of Fundy to create more parking in the Maritimes
* Turning Montreal’s Saint Catherine Street into the world’s longest bowling alley
* Adopting the British system of driving on the left; this was to be gradually phased in over five years with large trucks and tractors first, then buses, eventually including small cars and bicycles last
* Selling the Canadian Senate at an antique auction in California
* Putting the national debt on Visa
* Declaring war on Belgium because a Belgian cartoon character, Tintin, killed a rhinoceros in one of the cartoons
* Offering to call off the proposed Belgium-Canada war if Belgium delivered a case of mussels and a case of Belgian beer to Rhinoceros “Hindquarters” in Montréal (the Belgian Embassy in Ottawa did, in fact, do this)
* Painting Canada’s coastal sea limits in watercolour so that Canadian fish would know where they were at all times
* Banning guns and butter, since both kill
* Banning lousy Canadian winters
* Renaming the country Nantucket
* Building a bridge spanning the country, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland.
* Making the Trans-Canada Highway one way only.
* Changing Canada’s currency to bubble gum, so it could be inflated or deflated at will.
* Donate a free rhinoceros to every aspiring artist in Canada
I listed them all just for a good laugh. I know that it was Canadian. But would you vote for a party similar to them? I ask this because of the upcoming elections. Or are you planning on voting for one of the main parties?
Domestic Partnership is fair…right?
California Domestic Partnership
As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
* Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
* Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
* Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
* Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
* Sick care and similar family leave
* Stepparent adoption procedures
* Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
* Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
* Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservator-ships and trusts
* The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
* Access to some survivor pension benefits
* Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
* The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
* The right for either partner to take the other partner’s surname after registration
* Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
* The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
* The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage
In my opinion:
Looks to me like domestic partnership is pretty much the same. Domestic partnership is a term used to describe same sex marriage in my eyes. Just like bigamy is the unlawful act of having two or more wives or husbands at the same time, usually with the second not knowing about the first. Polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives based on religious beliefs, with all wives aware of, and agreeable to, the husband having several wives. Civil unions, common law marriages, etc. are among these various terms used to describe different types of marriages.
In essence the comparison used with the Brown vs. Board of education “separate but equal” plight that gays try to use to compare their argument is not a fair comparison. Were gays being kept from attending the school of their chose just because they are gay? Were gays demanded to sit at the back of the bus or give up their seat because they are gay? Were gays hung on trees, blown up in churches, unable to vote just because they are gay? Were gays ever unable to drink from the “whites only” water fountain just because they are gay? Were gays forced to work as slaves because they are gay? The list goes on…THERE IS NO COMPARISON! Boundaries have to be created in order to establish some form of limit that keeps chaos from ensuing. The vote has been cast for a second time to establish what the majority wants (not just one race, but all walks of life were included in this vote). America doesn’t make it legal for genders of the opposite sex to commit bigamy, incest, statutory rape, etc. All these are acts that the members of the opposite sex can “want” to do, but can be arrested for doing. Are gays being arrest for their lifestyle? Looks like they have many rights granted to their situation already to suit much of what they want. Demanding the term marriage to include same sex marriage is forcing society to give a mile when many inches of fairness have already been granted.
It’s not marriage.
It’s not the same.
It’s not equality.
No, it is not fair.
What is the difference between a DEPARTMENT of GOVERMENT and an AGENCY of the government.?
I recall back in grade school the difference between the two concepts were very clear…
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency .
See also http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070415182438AAhAqyJ
If I may adapt this very good answer… think of a ‘Department’ as an office of government RUN by the government – on it’s own payroll, that is, and an ‘Agency’ as an independent company contracted and funded by the government, but with a Sep-a-rate accounting “department”, if you will, and a payroll somewhat more independent of government regulation.
A search of the California State Constitution and the California Government Code revealed no clear definition or comparison of the terminology. It seems that the definitions have blurred or even been DELETED by “Operation of Law!”
The joint-powers run State ‘Job Service’ office which morphed out of the California State Employment Development Department ["EDD" ...one of the Agencies and/or Departments comprising the joint-powers committee and/or operation] when a California State referendum [The "Work Investment Act"] caused the dominion of the State’s “EDD” offices to be re-classified under the control of the Health and Human Services Agency, which used to be a separate Department of State government that ran the State’s welfare programs – as opposed to “Unemployment INSURANCE”, which is a jointly employee/employer sponsored INSURANCE program answering to the State’s DEPARTMENT of Insurance and the Governor’s Office.
The functions of the two government functions seem to have blurred as the welfare-oriented employees continue their obsession with denial in the name of conservation as the insurance-oriented employees address the opportunistic goals of the ‘employment’ function and its genuine needs as such.
In order to for someone who does not earn enough to maintain their own computer equipment or has experienced equipment malfunctions of their OWN at ‘home’ has to put up with when looking for income-producing work through the State’s Job Service Office, a little background is in order.
Gone are the days when you could run down to the Unemployment office scan the bulletin board, pick out the right parameters (location, hours, income level, type of work, qualifications – not necessarily in that order), take the printout up to the window, and expect to be on your way in a few minutes to a few hours. What used to take a few hours can sometimes take WEEKS anymore!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers