PEOPLE, LETS MOVE ON. WE HAVE A CAMPAIGN TO CONTINUE RUNNING. THE STORY HAS BEEN TOLD, GET OFF THE BANDWAGON OF BASHING OBAMA FOR HIS PASTOR'S WORDS.

THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG W/AMERICA. WE CONCENTRATE ON TOO MANY THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER, and we cannot change.

LETS CONCENTRATE ON ELECTING A DEMONCRATIC NOMINEE, AND LEAVE THE OTHER "PETTY STUFF BEHIND."

You're dealing with left-wing loons. But hey, if you enjoy it, keep whackin' 'em.

But one caveat, King.

You risk growing complacent by dealing with those two or three puff-cakes that respond to you here. This could throw your sharpness & timing off if/when you run into a lib or Dim with real intelligence & knowledge.

A bit of advise.

A wise man does not argure with a fool because it makes him look foolish, too.

The judge's ruling IS new. That's what I was talking about. The case was in court NOW. The reason the judge made the NEW ruling is because SOMEONE CHALLENGED IT.

Duh, dude. How inane.

My point, for about the 10th time, is that I DISAGREE with the law, and I disagree with the judge when he says parents don't have a constitutional right to homeschool their kids. They most certainly do. The Constitution does not grant the sole right to the government, therefore the people retain the right, and further, parents most definitely should have a say over their own children's education.

And you sound like a freaking idiot talking about my boy AH-NOLD without knowing my opinion of him. I'm not even a fan of his. You must be under the mistaken impression that I agree with everyone who has that R next to his name. You couldn't be more wrong.

Now, unless you want to make up some more imaginary arguments, I think I'll move on.

"Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level.

"California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue."

SF Chronicle

It's the state of the law in California. He merely enforced it as is. You remember that judges can't make law, right? Tell your boy AH-NOLD to change it if it needs to be changed. The judge was absolutely right.

Amen, bro!

And again, "the public schools are the reproductive organ of the godless Left."

Now that they've passed legislation to provide homosexual "awareness" to younger children, it is evident what is transpiring.

This is an all out war to brainwash the children of America and adjust them to the diseases of liberalism. Parents can be the only source of defense. Home schooling seems like a good defense.

I don't know if libs railed, I railed yes, because those rulings violated the state of the law at the time they were issued. I never called Rs scumbags; please either read my posts or cite to the evidence you have against me when posting.

King, I don't care who you follow on home schooling. However, what did the judge do that is out of line with the state of the law in his state? He did nothing out of line. Which is my point. Your thinking on this particular point was stereotypical.

This judge followed the state of the law of his jurisdiction. This is the type of thing conservatives insist judges do. Yet when one does so in with a ruling you don't like, you blasted him. That is hypocritical. He didn't change any policy in California away from what it already is. If you have a problem with the home school situation in California, you need to attack the lawmakers there in the 1950s who made it so, not a judge who is following his oath to uphold the state of the law as it is.

As for my "liberal judge" comment, you know exactly what I mean. You Rs constantly attack what you call "liberal judges" when they rule in ways that you don't like. You say that they should not be setting policy, they should be interpreting law. Well, this judge did that.

AC, you must be new here, because anyone who knows my history posting on this blog knows I couldn't care less what you label something. Perhaps you can show me where I compared these so-called two schools of thought you mention. And also, please show me how the Rs don't constantly bash judges when a judge rules in a way that you Rs think doesn't favor you. I'll abandon my search for the truth as I see it someday, but as long as people like you and Vince walk the earth I can't imagine that will be anytime soon.

You call me hypocritical even though you agree with me that parents DO have the right to home school their kids. Are you calling yourself a hypocrite as well ?

But I think I get it now. You aren't arguing with me at all, you are arguing with some negative Republican stereotype you have set in your mind.

Thank god, lol.

I fail to see any hypocrisy. I never even mentioned the word 'democrat' in this story, and I don't know the political affiliation of the judge who made the ruling. What I care about here is the idea that this ruling says the state reigns supreme over a parent's wishes for their own child. That IS the issue, and what you are talking about has nothing to do with the issue.