Lady With Boner About College Paper Sex Column For Montana Supreme Court!

Kristen Juras is running for Montana Supreme Court. She is a law professor and a woman, so if Montana Cowgirl hadn't hepped us to her, we probably would have just voted for her like a bunch of idiots.

Which would probably have been a mistake ! Not only did Juras, as a law professor at the University of Montana, go on a tear trying to force the student paper to ax its mild sex column, but she made up a whole bunch of stuff about it after the fact, like that it was "discontinued after UofM's sex assault investigations," when it was really discontinued three years before Missoula was a rapey sparkle in Jon Krakauer's eye, because its author graduated. 

(Here is Juras's harassment of the student paper's editor as hosted on her own website.)

So, sure, Kristen Juras is as logical and truthy as a common Alito. But is she super awful and creepy in other ways? Let's ask the Great Falls Tribune! 

As to religious freedom, along with Juras’ duties as a law professor, she also served as faculty advisor for the Christian Legal Society (CLS-UM), a group of law students who signed a mandatory covenant in order to join, pledging to oppose gay rights, extramarital sex and a woman’s right to choose. She was such a champion of the group that she instigated a lawsuit against the University of Montana and specifically Edwin Eck, who was, at the time, dean of the UM School of Law, because earlier Eck had refused to disburse student activity money to the CLS on the grounds that the membership was restrictive and that such disbursement would be a breach of the separation of church and state.

She also is pretty sure that maybe religious freedom means you are allowed to not dispense the Pill to a harlot because you are an idiot who thinks the Pill makes dead uterus babies, despite it being your fucking job, and maybe also means you don't have to sign a marriage certificate for a couple of homos even though that is also your fucking job. Unclear, because she uses a lot of words! Let's look at this interview with some wingnuts who do not seem to know what "freedom" means:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against traditional marriage, invoking the Constitution. It has also denied the unborn their right to life. Here in Montana, what can you do on the Supreme Court to protect the dignity of the person and all life while still respecting the rule of law?

So under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution the courts of Montana are bound to apply the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in areas where the Court has jurisdiction. Now, just a few comments on the gay marriage ruling. Until this case, most scholars would have stated that the laws of marriage are primarily a matter of state law. Since the inception of our country, states have been the jurisdiction where laws regarding marriage are defined.

We're gonna let you finish, Kristen Juras, but we feel like you might be forgetting a really important decision, probably because it's not in Texas home-law-school texts: It is a little ditty we like to call "states have to let white people marry the blacks even if they really don't want to," and it was a SUPREME COURT DECISION that you should probably remember once in a while, because #relevant, and even though you're a professor of agricultural law (and definitely not First Amendment law, as should be obvious to anyone), it might behoovest you to know some laws besides "how much Montana land can I give away to these oil and gas companies."

Please proceed, professor!

And we do have laws defining marriage like laws of sanguinity (can’t marry within a certain relationship), you can’t have more than one spouse, and the age at which you can marry. There are also laws governing the requirements to support your spouse and children, so states have been very active in this area. The U.S. Supreme Court determined it was appropriate for the Court to address marriage [ahem, not for the first time, Kristen Juras might be surprised to learn!] and they did determine — even though there is not an express right of marriage for same-sex people in the Constitution— that it does exist. I am bound to apply that law whether I personally agree with it or not.

That is pretty big of Kristen Juras. Got any more Bibledy-boo for us? Oh, you DO???

My biggest concern about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is its effect on religious liberties. In the U.S. Constitution there is a right to the free exercise of your religion. Where I believe the courts now have an important role is as various issues come up from this ruling like the right of a pharmacist, a Catholic pharmacist to refuse to sell birth control to the rights of ministers not to perform marriages they believe are not biblical — how are we going to address the conflict between the right of the free exercise of religion and the right determined by the US Supreme Court of marriage of same-sex spouses. That is where courts are going to have a very important role in the next ten or twenty years in developing these rights. It’s going to be up to the courts to protect the exercise of religious freedom, as well as the legislators. The legislators should be trying to face this conflict and establish parameters and grant exemptions based on religious beliefs.

They already did, wingnut woman. No minister is being put on a FEMA train for refusing to bless a legal marriage. That is only happening inside Sean Hannity's fever-wet-dreams (and pants).

ANYWAY. Thanks again for the heads-up, Montana Cowgirl, how embarrassing would that Kristen Juras vote have been when she used "natural law" to fuck Planned Parenthood without a condom or a kiss?

[ MontanaCowgirl ]