Idealogues who would judge you. Or others, for they would if their intent had been fulfilled, have been top State judges, aka Justices. Little mini-Minnesota Tony Scalea clones. Reason, instead prevailed. As a start to understanding the bullet we dodged, Edwatch favored Hedlund and Tinglestead, see here. Edwatch promotes "the American Creed" and has ten commandments, principles, whatever they term then. If you get the idea they are a bunch of morons, please, don't be so hard on morons. Morons can be good people, and they are a bigger class than Edwatch members, whatever the extensive overlap. Screenshot time.
First the good news:
Now, knowing that Mark Twain said individuals should refer to themselves as "we" only if true royalty, pregnant, or people with tapeworms; there is this:
She probably designed that site herself, without putting the gavel down.
But can it be topped, sure, and this one you should go to because the screenshot does not do full justice to this would-be Justice:
Yes, Dogbert, you did well. They are out.
Now for something totally different and wholly unrelated, here is an Internet image of a pair of clowns.
_______UPDATE________
Some people need to understand that "freedom of religion" includes as an unavoidable sub-premise, freedom from religion. Those seeing no need to complicate their lives with mythologies of their own or of others, should be free from others wanting coercive powers that way. Whether the Palin family aborted a defective fetus is really neither national news, nor my concern, they should have a private choice to have done as they felt best - but stay out of the face and lives of others pregnant and not wanting to bring a zygote to life. It's the essence of freedom to have others (especially the government and its arms of power) simply leave us alone to make private decisions and to privately manage our life and lifestyle choices.
I see that fundamental notion of freedom and of wanting a minimally intrusive and minimally coercive government going to the drug laws, also, although I think it's a sad failure to try to stretch to justify personal lifestyle choice as an act of faith; see the tortured ineptness of judges pushed to it by an aggressive lawyer representing some bimbo arrested with half a kilo of marijuana in possession in an automobile in Chisago County, and not having been schooled in advance to not talk to the policeman as if he's your friend or the equivalent of some school principal who will slap your wrist less hard if you own up and tell the truth; State of Minnesota v. Ariel Suzette Pedersen, 679 N.W.2d 368 (Minn.App. 2004) (online here). That lady's actions were dumber than some behavior you'd see in a Cheech and Chong film.
Are there any reader thoughts on that BS in the opinion about "religion" to somehow have to be constrained to some "collective" thing, a denial of the personal as valid, in something as fundamental in whether you believe in something or not - always ultimately a personal thing?
It is a stupid doctrine, in my view, and it goes along with it being both mean and stupid to have drug laws to "regulate" behavior so that a control elite can criminalize something among the general populace that's clearly best regulated as an economic and medical issue of availability of goods, and consequent personal conduct.
It is the State having too heavy a boot, and no justification for it, and upon that flawed base they construct such absurdities as are blown around as pure smoke in that opinion.
Each of those three judges should be voted out.
Hatch should never have put his name to that case, in any capacity, even a totally nominal one.