Sissy-Panty-Buns-for-ADULT_WOMEN_ONLY_(please)

August 22nd, 2010 is National Go Topless Day. Last year it did not seem there was much prior notice about it but there were plenty of articles posted after the fact. Most of the articles, like the one in the Daily News titled: “Topless women march in Central Park for right to bare breasts” chickened out and did not publish the photos of female nipples (men have photos of their nipples in the media all the time).
Note: Baring Breasts Is Legal Here (and Should Be Everywhere).
On July 7th of 1992 New York State’s highest Court. the Court of Appeals ruled in NY v Santorelli (80 N.Y.2d 875 600 N.E.2d 232) that laws prohibiting exposure of breasts were unconstitutional as they were based on gender and were not substantially related to any important governmental objective. All laws prohibiting the public exposure of female breasts were struck down since they contained “clear gender-based classification, triggering scrutiny under equal protection principles (see Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397). This case is still the precedent in the State of New York. Bare Breasts are Legal.
GoTopless.org cites information provided by LegalFreedom.com as a source for its list of“10 successful cases recognizing women’s right to be topless in certain states or cities”

blog_HOME_page

United States District Court has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs are seven same sex couples married in Massachusetts and three survivors of same sex spouses, also married in Massachusetts. The Defendents included United States Attorney General Eric Holder.

In last two sentences immediately preceding the Conclusion of the ruling, wherein the Defendent’s (Justice Department’s) Motion to Dismiss was Denied and the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgement was Allowed, the ruling reads as follows:
“And, where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different in relevant respects from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The Court’s ruling (MEMORANDUM) issued today, July 8, 2010 (PDF file) was uploaded by glad.org

The decision came to my attention both on the “crawl” at the bottom of a screen on a television station and in article at Salon.com by Alex Pareene titled: Section of Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional.

Vivienne Foley of CNN wrote an article titled: Judge rules same sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler is quoted as saying of the ruling: “We are reviewing the decision.”

In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan had stated that as Soliciter General she supported the government’s (Defendent’s) side of the case which defended DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act). She could have declined to answer because it is a matter which may make its way to the Supreme Court, but she chose to answer. How does one interpret that?

blog_HOME_page

Could Elena Kagan Be A Closet Neocon?
i watched the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan. At first i had the impression that she would be an open-minded jurist. Perhaps she still will be. There were parts of the hearing that were, of course, laughable, i.e.: Senator Charles Grassly having his first round of questioning on a paper she had written before she ever went to law school. She gave the impression the she was merely doing the best job she could for whomever she was working. Going into the hearings, having read some of her papers i thought she would be pro-privacy and was concerned about her views with respect Habeas Corpus. Did i hear right that she supports the Defense Of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.)? i hope not. What REALLY CONCERNED ME GREATLY was that she said that as a Supreme Court Justice, she wouldn’t take into account “natural law” or the part of the Declaration of Independence that says that our inalienable rights, among others, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Steven recognized the correlation between the liberty clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the liberty clause in the Declaration of independence. I was ABSOLUTELY AGHAST when Elena Kagan said that there had to be a textual basis for rights. This TREATS THE NINTH AMENDMENT LIKE IT NEVER EXISTED. Without the promise of the Ninth Amendment the Constitution never would have been ratified. The fear was that if rights weren’t listed they would be gone. The Ninth Amendment states that: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words people’s rights aren’t limited to those that are listed (i.e.: The pursuit of happiness). The view Elena Kagan espoused of a textual basis being required would give State and Local governments the ability to take away every conceivable right which wasn’t spelled out in text with impunity . To me, that is not being a Progressive. That is being a Neocon. The ONLY positives i saw were that she believed in equal rights for women, and that she would think about things with an open mind before deciding them. Joe Biden would have pressed her about natural law and the Ninth Amendment had he been on the Judiciary Committee. No, Elena Kagan is not a “liberal”. She will probably get confirmed. Will we ever get our Bill of Rights back? Will i live long enough to see it?

blog_HOME_page