Miller & Johnson knew the rules. Being a judge is neither an entitlement nor a cradle to grave job.

By the way, the log cabin blogger doesn’t publish comments not in agreement with his single issue existence.

I admit I took the opportunity to ask a loaded question:

“The Indiana Constitution says that no privilege or immunity will be extended to one class of citizen that isn’t extended to every class of citizen. Why would that not include gay citizens? Why for instance would the legislative ban on same sex marriage not be unconstitutional and why would the attempt to ban it in the Constitution not conflict with that clause?”

Some very interesting results.

One who pronounced social conservatism as a guiding philosophy by the end of the conversation had found (him or herself) so flat-footed, so unaware of the Constitution’s language, so unaware of the impact of current law on same sex couples, as to acknowledge a need seriously to rethink the issue.

Two said it was not the position of the “judiciary to legislate”, only to interpret law. They did not feel that it was the place of the judiciary to serve as a check on the legislative encroachments, although they both suddenly seemed uncertain of themselves when pressed. (What in Heaven’s name is the point of the Bill of Rights if not as the individual’s check on democratic government and who if not the Judiciary enforces the check?)

Two said that it was not impossible to imagine that I was right.

3 of 5 Republican candidates or sitting judges acknowledged, and indeed hinted at a full understanding of, the potentially un-Constitutional injustice to gay citizens.

The two remaining were least conversant on law. Of those two, one was aggressively promoted in the political process by partisans in slating. It is painfully clear, then to me, that what some want is a Judiciary that will serve as lapdog to the legislative.

What goes around comes around. If judiciary is to become utterly compliant in the imposition of political power of the majority over the minority, what is to happen when those now in the majority find themselves in the minority on any given issue in the legislature and a right at stake?

How conservatives view this question is fundamental to what kind of conservative you are… To many of us, there is nothing conservative about handing over our Constitutional rights to any majority, no matter who that majority is.

There were more than that. There were 6 candidates for Mayor.

David Moscrip (now running for Treasurer)
Larry Shouse (perrenial ballot filler)
James Black (another ballot filler)
Michael Simpson (unemployed salesman)
Darrell Morris (Warren Twp firefighter, now retired)
and of course Mayor Greg Ballard.

At first, as I recall the Chairman wanted to bypass the Mayor’s election in 2007 and concentrate on the Council, possibly flipping or holding our 1 vote minority.

Black and the now Mayor went to the “special slating” held a few weeks after the county slating. The slating fee there was $950 and a promissory note for the remainder of the $9500 out of your campaign contributions. Of course we know the result of that slating and election.

For what its worth slating isn’t what its cracked up to be. Ask one who lost in the 2007 primary fiasco to someone who didn’t even campaign and is really a Democrat in Republican clothing. It’ll be interesting to see if Miller and Johnson can buck the slate and who exactly they will boot off.

There are frankly many precinct committee people, wards, and long time party activists who find it distasteful, yet they participate because they don’t want ridiculous results to occur. And in part that’s what happened last weekend.

In case you don’t recall or weren’t even around politics a mere 2 years ago, Eric Dickerson was NOT the slated Republican candidate for the 7th CD. The laughable Marion Co Republican Party slating process slated everyone’s favorite cocaine-snorting, criminally-convicted former CCCounselor, Ron Franklin.

Also, if you’ll recall Greg Ballard wasn’t slated for mayor either. The party actually said no one of the 3 R candidates for Mayor was worthy of slating.

There are plenty of involved party activists who think slating is a joke, and, based on the results of judicial slating, where politics should be minimal, I think they’re right.