You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Land of the Free
Left To State Supreme Court Candidate: You Can't Be A Good Judge Because You're A Christian
2019-02-19
[The Federalist] With six weeks left until election day in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race, several far-left organizations are using media outlets to amplify a smear campaign against a judge based on his Christianity. Brian Hagedorn, a current Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge and former Scott Walker legal counsel, is being publicly trashed for being on the board of a small Christian school, and for blog posts when he was in law school discussing court cases about abortion and gay sex.

In considering a run for the state Supreme Court, the father of five children says, "I expected to be attacked here because that’s what’s happening all across the country‐you know, ’Are you now or have you ever been associated with the Knights of Columbus?'" he said, chuckling. "Interrogating people [nominated for office] if they went to a Bible study or the Knights of Columbus, that’s where we are as a country."

The media characterization of his writing is often misleading. For example, a ThinkProgress hit piece claims that, in a blog post paraphrasing former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent on a case about Texas sodomy laws, Hagedorn "compared homosexuality to bestiality." In fact, his post simply notes the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about any supposed rights to sex with anyone or anything, then essentially paraphrases Scalia’s dissent, which two other justices joined.

That dissent said striking a law against sodomy on the grounds that states are constitutionally forbidden from banning any sexual activity citizens consider "immoral and unacceptable" also eliminates the legal basis for "criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity." Scalia instead invited LGBT activists to persuade their fellow citizens that sodomy bans were wrong and change the laws, rather than using courts to eliminate the legal basis on which states criminalize socially disapproved sexual behaviors.

While a law student in 2005, Hagedorn simply wrote he agreed with this legal analysis. It doesn’t compare bestiality and homosexuality in anything except the basis for former laws against them. That both were illegal on this basis until relatively recently is simply a fact. Yet like ThinkProgress, several Wisconsin outlets quoted context-free snippets of Hagedorn’s post in a rush to paint him as a bigot.
Posted by:Besoeker

#3  Re #2: Then I would hope your training in casuistry would tie your questioners in knots.
Posted by: Spairt Hatrack1612   2019-02-19 09:00  

#2  What if one is a Jesuit?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-02-19 07:28  

#1  his post simply notes the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about any supposed rights to sex with anyone or anything, then essentially paraphrases Scalia’s dissent, which two other justices joined.

Which means, that the Federal government has/had no say in the issue. That thus by the 10th Amendment reverts to the states.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-02-19 07:09  

00:00