This is Bob talking about the recent ruling from the Federal District Court, in which the court overruled California's Proposition 8:
Bob makes 3 points:
1) The will of the people is the final determination of what is "constitutional."Did you notice that Bob provided absolutely no evidence for any of his claims?
2) Judge Walker, placed on the Federal bench by George H. W. Bush, isn't a proper Republican because he is "liberal."
3) Finally, because Judge Walker is a homosexual, he has an inherent conflict of interest.
Beyond the fact that Bob provided no evidence for any of his points, he's also wrong on all three points. Let's examine them in order:
First, Bob asserts that the will of the people is the final word on what is Constitutional. If this is true, then all rights are determined by mob rule. Think about it: Could a popular vote revoke your First Amendment right to Free Speech? Could slavery be reinstated by a majority that votes to revoke the Thirteenth Amendment? Could a majority of Americans pass a Constitutional amendment that requires the death penalty for all red-headed people?
If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then human rights are not determined by popular vote. Bob provides no reasons why it's proper for rights to be determined by the mob.
Second, how does Bob know that Judge Walker is not a proper Republican? And, more importantly, what authority does Bob have to determine what the correct Republican position's is? What standards does he apply? Apparently, it's as simple as Bob not approving your point-of-view. If Bob doesn't like your position on a particular issue, you don't get to be in his club. This puts Bob on a witch hunt for the party disloyal, and he gets to play judge, jury and executioner.
Finally, why does Bob assume that because Judge Walker is homosexual he is incapable of properly applying the law? Why does sexual orientation give rise to a conflict of interest? Further, has Bob presented any evidence to support his accusation of a conflict of interest? No, Bob provides no answers. He just makes accusations and draws wild conclusions.
And note the rhetorical trick that Bob is using: Bob doesn't comment on the substance of the ruling. Bob doesn't examine the Court's finding of facts or legal conclusions. In fact, Bob fails to take up the actual issues that the parties to the suit presented. Bob would rather convince you that Judge Walker is corrupt, and, that because "the people" voted on Proposition 8, it is now sacrosanct.
Conspiracy theories work in a particular way: The proponent of the theory laces a few facts with unprovable conclusions to convince you of some absurdity. For a guy who insists that he provides scads of evidence, Bob's reasoning is sloppy, worthy of an uneducated, paranoid mind.