Patterico's Pontifications

3/27/2009

Light Posting Until Tuesday — From Me, Anyway

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:01 am



When I say “light” I may mean “non-existent.” Hopefully Karl and Jack Dunphy will step into the breach, to the extent they can. In the meantime, I leave you with Barney Frank’s pathetic defense of his attack on Justice Scalia as a “homophobe,” and Ed Whelan’s explanation of why it’s B.S.

This is how the left has operated for eight years: foster a cartoonish view of someone based on a distortion of their words taken out of its proper context (in this case a legal one), and then level an inflammatory charge. In the legal context, the game is to judge every decision by its result rather than its reasoning.

Antonin Scalia is not a homophobe, he’s a justice who leaves matters from the culture war to the political realm. But making that argument requires an audience that can handle subtle distinctions, such as the distinction between policy preferences and legal results. More and more nowadays, such distinctions are bulldozed by demagogues out to make everything black and white, and demonize the other side for their political views. God help us if Barney Frank’s method of political discourse becomes the blueprint for the way Republicans speak.

101 Responses to “Light Posting Until Tuesday — From Me, Anyway”

  1. I’ve loathed Frank for years, but there is this small hope: my wife (who’s reliably left) had never actually heard the man speak, and when he was on a Sunday talker a few weeks ago, she asked me to turn off the volume immediately after listening to his voice from another room for a few minutes. Between him and Schumer, there’s not a worse tag team of awful diction and garbled syntax for the Dems these days.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  2. Dana Carvey says that Frank sounds like a cartoon voice…almost like he is putting everyone on.

    I’m waiting for one of these people he is grilling to respond, Three Stooges style, “I’m a victim of soy-cn-stance.”

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  3. You are right about the syntax of Schumer and Frank.

    Funny how we all heard how poor speaking skills meant the speaker was stupid for years and years.

    Except when the MSM likes the person garbling the speech.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  4. And have a good break, Patterico!

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  5. It is all about the “Narrative.” Who controls the narrative? Lately, it has been all lefty all the time with the aid of the MSM (“Dinosaur Media”) the Dems have had total control over the narrative and have been kicking conservative butt left and further left.

    We –conservatives– need to at least have some input into the narrative. Otherwise, we’re totally screwed! (As opposed to just being plain screwed).

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  6. A very graphic, non-homophobic reason to loathe Barney Frank can be seen right here.

    And Dr. Captain Mike K. found this wonderful comment at Gay Patriot:

    Everyday Barney Frank continues to serve in the public light, he drags down the public’s perception of gays, Democrats and overweight people.

    He’s a one-man PR nightmare. And could someone please tell him to swallow his spit before he talks? He’s starting to make old, lisping pedophiles look good by comparison. I can just hear him: “Come here little boy, Uncle Barney has an all day sucker for you”.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  7. Does anybody have a clip or quote of Frank accepting responsibility personally for anything that has gone wrong or he has done wrong during his tenure in Congress?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  8. Bradley – That is just so wrong! Who stole Barney’s teeth?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  9. Americans have a huge problem. Read the HuffPo comments to the Barney Frank post. I now know why the US is in the doldrums, and will remain there. Too many stupid people.

    Fred Z (f7d2b1)

  10. If Barney wasn’t gay he’d have precious little identity at all I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  11. It’s not that he’s old and losing his teeth – he’s sounded exactly the same way for years. Elmer Fudd with a bad lisp, or perhaps Snagglepuss with a bad overbite (“Heavens to Murgatroid, evennn!”).

    Does anybody have a clip or quote of Frank accepting responsibility personally

    It’s almost impossible to find the clip of the hearing where he and Raines basically congratulated themselves on their complete awesomeness over expanding Fannie to those poor renters yearning to break free and default on their home payments. He beclowned himself when he went on O’Reilly’s show, but the host didn’t help matters by starting out with his customary frothing at the screen – it quickly degenerated into a shout – fest. Unfortunate, because a less narcissistic person could’ve nailed him on the issue with aplomb.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  12. I think there should be a word between neutrality on sexual orientation issues and “homophobe.” Mainly because the word has become an epithet and been drained of its original meaning. I do not know Justice Scalia, but he seems like a charming guy. Further, he does not appear to me to be terrified or scared of gays. However, he clearly opposes, like most devout Catholics, public accommodation of gays.

    As noted by Rep. Frank and Scott Lemieux among others, his dissent in Lawrence went beyond saying states should be able to make any law they want and delved into his belief that the law was correct (unlike Justice Thomas, for instance).

    So, while it’s unfair to classify him with the epithet, he IS hostile to public accommodation of homosexuals. I’m unsure any of you want the state telling who you can commit sodomy with and I know I do not (I mean, if it’s against the law, doesn’t that just give my wife one more reason to decline? I really don’t need any laws helping her arguments!). Justice Scalia does, however*.

    Thus, either Rep. Frank should have chosen his words more carefully or we should create a word or term for people who for political or religious grounds oppose “gay rights.” I nominate “straight rights.”

    *For God’s sake he uses the words the “homosexual agenda.” Outside of Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity and the Baptist church I used to attend, does anyone use that phrase? (Yes, it’s rhetorical, since I’m sure some of the posters here do)

    I mean, I favor same sex marriage and I support gay rights, yet I’m straight. Does that make me a member of this “homosexual agenda” or gay mafia (as Michael Savage calls it). That phrase seems as ridiculous as “homophobe” for anyone who is in political opposition to what I consider equal rights.

    Parse away, gents, but do remember, there should be a term to denote the difference between the sorts of people who are so offended Matthew Shepherd looked at them and a Supreme Court Justice who thinks public policy has moved too far toward equality.

    timb (a83d56)

  13. Racist

    JD (99248c)

  14. “….who thinks public policy has moved too far toward equality.”

    You mean like “Hate Crimes?” Which is about punishing certain crimes worse than others because of meanie words? What happened to freedom of speech?

    The law has become providence to narrow minded buffoons.

    “Idiocracy” is what we have become with the left being front and center in plowing the fields.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  15. Shame on Barney Frank. Doesn’t he know the PC term is “heteronormative”? “Homophobic” is soooooo judgmental, don’t ya know.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  16. timb! Where were you when Hax Vobiscum needed you to tell him how to express a valid viewpoint without irrelevant personal attacks?

    To tell the truth, today’s Barney Frank is not the Barney Frank I knew 20 years ago. He had perspective and a wry sense of humor, in a Democrat-controlled Congress with a Republican President.

    nk (c90ef8)

  17. […] a three-day respite from blogging, that sage Angeleno blogger offers this on Barney’s smearing an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court as a “homophobe”: This is how the left has operated for eight years: foster a […]

    GayPatriot » Patterico Puts Barney’s Name-Calling in Context (afb062)

  18. Patterico – enjoy your time away, you provide a very insightful point of view in many issues affecting all of us in this day and age.

    I don’t mean to toot my horn – I’ve relocated to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia last week to work for a contractor for at least the next year, and I’m blogging about being over here. If you’re interested in reading about my adventures here, just click on my name. Hopefully, I can get a camera soon and start posting pics from here….

    fmfnavydoc (44994c)

  19. I agree that Frank was wrong to claim that Scalia said that the Texas anti-sodomy law was a good law. He does not say this in his Lawrence vs. Texas dissent.

    Nonetheless, it doesn’t seem like a crazy inference to suspect that he did, in fact, approve of that law. Unlike Thomas, he declined to say that he thought the law was bad but constitutional. Now, one might argue that Scalia is not inclined to express his opinion on whether he thinks a law is a good law (which I agree is distinct from questions of constitutionality). Ah, but he is so inclined. He’s indicated in other situations that certain things are “bad but constitutional” and even fantasized about judges having a stamp that declared laws as such. Here’s an article about a talk he gave last year:

    Of torture, Scalia said: “It’s a bad thing to do. But not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.”

    He suggested that every federal judge “be issued a stamp pad … and a stamp, and you would whack it on the pad and stomp it on the paper, and it says, ‘Stupid but Constitutional.’ ”

    So he’s indicated that he’s inclined to express that kind of view (i.e. the “bad but nonetheless constitutional” view that Thomas expressed in his own dissent) if he actually believes it.

    Scalia was and is welcome (either in his dissent or at some point in the future) to put his proverbial “stupid but constitutional” stamp on that Texas anti-sodomy law.

    Foo Bar (fdb176)

  20. Foo Bar, I think Scalia’s point is and always has been that whether he agrees with a law is meaningless when it comes to the question of constitutionality.

    He’s said as much about abortion: he is personally opposed to it, but he would have no trouble with a state allowing it, simply because the US Constitution is silent on the matter.

    Steverino (69d941)

  21. Foo Bar, I think Scalia’s point is and always has been that whether he agrees with a law is meaningless when it comes to the question of constitutionality.

    Yes, I understand that. Regardless, Barney Frank is arguing that Scalia thought the Texas anti-sodomy law is not only constitutional but is also a good law. I acknowledge that whether Scalia thinks it’s a good law is not relevant to the question of its constitutionality. Whether or not Scalia thinks it was a good law is nonetheless of interest to many people.

    I agree that, contrary to what Frank claimed, there is no direct evidence that Scalia thought that law was a good law. I do, however, think there is circumstantial evidence that points to a plausible (not indisputable, but plausible) inference that he may actually think it was a good law.

    Foo Bar (fdb176)

  22. Bahnee forgot racist, misogynistic xenophobic jingoistic mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging imperialistic war monger.

    JD (454fb4)

  23. […] violent, reactionary post against gay marriage.  The gauntlet is down, alea jacta est!  Let the outraged caterwauling […]

    The Notorious OMC [Dan Collins] (7a2640)

  24. I’m quite confident that if Mr. Justice Scalia had wanted, in any forum, to say that the TX law in Lawrence was a “good” law, he would have.
    Criticism of him for not doing something says more about the critics than it does about the Justice.

    AD - RtR/OS (0053b8)

  25. timb @12 – I would be interested in how you reached some of your conclusions.

    “*For God’s sake he uses the words the “homosexual agenda.””

    timmah – I believe Barney actually used these or very similar words in the video interview he gave to the reporter for the gay publication in which he first called Scalia a homophobe over the weekend as he was ticking off what items of progress they might see over the next year or so. Barney doubled down on the smear the next day. You might actually want to check it out. Seriously.

    With respect to Lawrence, I agree with Foo Bar that Scalia did not say it was a good law and I’m interested in where you say you saw his personal beliefs, apart from saying he had nothing against homosexuals, injected into the opinion. I’ve pasted a few paragraphs from the end of his dissent, which curiously few people on the left ever seem to reference, for your delectation.

    The link is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

    Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

    One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple’s Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

    The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  26. HOMOPHOBE !!!!!!!!

    JD (454fb4)

  27. I’m quite confident that if Mr. Justice Scalia had wanted, in any forum, to say that the TX law in Lawrence was a “good” law, he would have.

    If you’re confident that if he wanted to say the law was a good law that he would have, aren’t you also confident that if he wanted to say the law was a bad law, he would have?

    So I’m certainly not confident that he believes the law was a bad law.

    He’s under no obligation to comment one way or the other about the merits of the law, of course, Nonetheless, he’s happy in other situations to express his own value judgments when they are contrary to his ruling (e.g. “I don’t like people who burn the flag”). It’s not such a leap to suspect that he approved of that Texas law.

    Foo Bar (fdb176)

  28. Patterico – maybe you should bump some of the posts from The Jury Talks Back onto the main page to fill some of the thread-void. It would be interesting to get comments on those posts from the more extensive commenting population on the main site.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  29. timb –

    I don’t see anything per se prejudiced about the phrase “homosexual agenda”. An agenda is a plan of action, a set of goals one wishes to accomplish. Those working to get homosexual marriage recognized as legal & valid in America would be trying to advance the homosexual agenda, just as the Republicans in Congress trying to offer alternative’s to Obama’s economic plan would be trying to advance the conservative agenda: it’s just a phrase. Saying “the _______ agenda” implies nothing, positive or negative, about your feelings on the matter.

    As evidence that “the _________ agenda” is not prima facie evidence of bias, I offer links 4 and 5 from the Google search I just did for “conservative agenda”:

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/econmavin/2009/01/the-conservative-agenda.php
    http://usapartisan.blogspot.com/2009/01/serious-conservative-agenda.html

    Now, Talking Points Memo is a well-known liberal site. I had not heard of USA Partisan before, but their “News … from the ObamaNation Resistance” makes it clear that they’re a conservative-leaning site. Both use the phrase “conservative agenda” to describe the same thing; if “the __________ agenda” were a loaded term, you’d think USA Partisan would avoid it.

    Your case that Justice Scalia is “hostile to public accomodation of homosexuals” would be much stronger if you could quote anything in his many opinions that suggest that he would ever let his personal moral beliefs influence his Constitutional reading. Note, for instance, how in his Lawrence dissent he explicitly states that he wouldn’t want the court to either require or forbid criminalization of homosexual acts. To make the case you’re trying to make, you need to argue that he’s inconsistent in applying that principle; and inconsistent is one thing I have not found Justice Scalia ever to be.

    Robin Munn (2bdf77)

  30. “It’s not such a leap to suspect that he approved of that Texas law.”

    Foo Bar – Particularly if you are a suspicious person. But unless you have something specific to hang your hat on, you do agree that it is pure speculation, right?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  31. Daley – it is easier for them to maintain their charicature by use of their assumptions.

    JD (454fb4)

  32. you do agree that it is pure speculation, right?

    Reasonably informed speculation. This is roughly what has happened:

    Q: Justice Scalia, what do you think of flag burning?

    I don’t like people who burn flags, but flag burning is constitutional.

    Q: What do you think of torture?

    Bad, bud constitional.

    Q: What do you think of that Texas anti-sodomy law?

    It’s constitutional.

    and…

    Q: Justice Thomas, what do you think of the Texas anti-sodomy law?

    It’s a silly law, but it’s constitutional.

    Q: Justice Scalia, what do you think of it?

    It’s constitutional

    Foo Bar (fdb176)

  33. I do have to say Foo Bar is aptly named, as he is definitely snafubar.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  34. Foo Bar – Did all that happen in one conversation? I think not. Why not trace through your actual train of thought apart from the standard lefty meme of conservatives are a bunch of knuckle-dragging racist homophobic assholes, unless that’s what you’re going with? I’m not seeing evidence, only it’s absence.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  35. FUBAR admits that this has absolutely no relevance, and then sets out to argue a point based on it speculating about the thing it admitted was not relevant. Just so it can maintain the charicature in its head. Homophobe and racist.

    JD (454fb4)

  36. I think we can all agree that Barney Frank is an asshole. I also think we can all agree that if he were a Republican, he would have been savaged by the media and the political class for his actions, but the Dems promote him.

    JD (454fb4)

  37. Reasonably informed speculation. This is roughly what has happened:

    Q: Justice Scalia, what do you think of flag burning?

    I don’t like people who burn flags, but flag burning is constitutional.

    I don’t think you’re proving your point with this one. By your logic, Scalia could have said, “I don’t like homosexuality, but the law is constitutional,” and the fact that he didn’t could be inferred to mean he approves of homosexuality. So your informed speculation leads you to the exact middle of the road: we cannot say one way or the other that Scalia approves or disapproves of homosexuality.

    Steverino (69d941)

  38. Scalia could have said, “I don’t like homosexuality, but the law is constitutional,”

    In the flag burning case, Scalia is forced to allow behavior he doesn’t like because his interpretation of the Constitution compels him to do so.

    In his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, he voted to uphold the law banning private gay sex between adults. Under the assumption that he doesn’t like homosexuality, his vote in the Lawrence v. Texas case is consistent with that (i.e. his vote restricts this behavior that he doesn’t like), so it wouldn’t make sense for him to say “I don’t like homosexuality, but the law is constitutional”. However, if he has no problem with homosexuality, then a statement that would be analogous to his flag burning statement would be something like, “I have no problem with homosexuality, but the Texas law is constitutional”.

    Foo Bar (fdb176)

  39. fubar, are you limber enough to stretch that far? Aren’t you in danger of tearing a muscle?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  40. Foo Bar,

    Good point. The fact that all he says is that it’s Constitutional can (not necessarily does) imply he disapproves of homosexuality. When juxtaposed with your flag-burning example, doesn’t it also imply that his decisions are based solely on the Constitutional issues and not his personal beliefs? That’s exactly what I want to see in a Supreme Court Justice. Decisions shouldn’t be based on the personal preferences of court members, but on the Constitution.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  41. “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.”

    Foo Bar – Ignoring Scalia’s statement above and then starting off your analysis with “under the assumption……” is very weak tea indeed. Perhaps you’d like to make a list of all the issues on which Scalia has rule and see if he has commented favorably or unfavorably upon them. We could then construct a smear list using your logic based on the issues upon which he has rule but not commented. Whaddya say? Are you game?

    Couldn’t we go through the same exercise for the other Justices who make public comments on cases?

    Foo Bar, your “logic” is ridiculous and based on a caricature of conservative thinking.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  42. John Hitchcock,

    No offense intended, but I see his reasoning. I just think he’s drawing a conclusion that isn’t warranted. I’m just glad to see the civil tone after the recent nonsense (not that Foo Bar was a part of it). As I mentioned to daleyrocks, it’s good to see less aggression and more discussion from people. I’d like to encourage it. 🙂

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  43. They don’t call him FUBAR Foo Bar for nothing.

    AD - RtR/OS (0053b8)

  44. John – FUBAR knows that he is a knuckle dragging mouth breathing racist homophobe, and dangnabbit, it is going to prove it, by making assumptions.

    JD (454fb4)

  45. “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.”

    Foo Bar – Ignoring Scalia’s statement…

    I’m not ignoring that statement. That statement tells us nothing about whether he thinks the Texas sodomy law is a good law, i.e., how he would vote if he were in the Texas legislature. “Homosexuals, or any other group” means he also has nothing against supporters of that sodomy law promoting their agenda, either. He’s just expressing support for the democratic process. I guess it’s good to know that he’s not so anti-gay that he thinks gays should be excluded from democracy, but that’s not saying that much.

    Perhaps you’d like to make a list of all the issues on which Scalia has rule and see if he has commented favorably or unfavorably upon them. We could then construct a smear list using your logic based on the issues upon which he has rule but not commented. Whaddya say? Are you game?

    I’m not smearing him. I’m not saying he definitely did agree with that law. I’ll put it a little more gently than before, if you prefer. Here is my claim:

    “We cannot be confident that Scalia thought the Texas anti-sodomy law was a bad law”.

    Is that a smear? Am I wrong? I would be glad to be proven wrong, i.e., glad to know that he surely did think it was a bad (yet constitutional) law.

    Foo Bar (fdb176)

  46. In the flag burning case, Scalia is forced to allow behavior he doesn’t like because his interpretation of the Constitution compels him to do so.

    In his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, he voted to uphold the law banning private gay sex between adults.

    Right, he voted the way his interpretation of the Constitution compelled him to. But from that, it is impossible to infer whether he approves of homosexuality.

    From a single drop of water, it is reasonable to infer the ocean. But from dead silence, it’s not reasonable to infer anything.

    Steverino (69d941)

  47. I guess I’m wondering why we care if a Justice thinks a law is “good” or not. That’s not their job. Nor does supporting or opposing a law on Constitutional grounds make one a “homophobe” or any other silly thing.

    carlitos (cfbec1)

  48. “We cannot be confident that Scalia thought the Texas anti-sodomy law was a bad law”.

    Is that a smear? Am I wrong?

    No, it’s not a smear. Yes, you are wrong, in the sense that your sentence is incomplete. More correctly, it is:

    “We cannot say with any confidence what Scalia thought of the Texas anti-sodomy law, aside from its constitutionality”

    Steverino (69d941)

  49. “Is that a smear? Am I wrong? I would be glad to be proven wrong, i.e., glad to know that he surely did think it was a bad (yet constitutional) law.”

    Foo Bar – How about admitting you are making wild assed guesses based upon public comments on two cases above, hardly a statistically significant sample upon which to draw a conclusion over whether Scalia would have said anything regarding his personal beliefs about the merits of the law upon which he had ruled. It’s a little tough for me to see how you are doing anything else than coloring your conclusions by your cartoon views of conservatives as pro-life, racist, sexist, warmongering, homophobes. I’d be very interested in being convinced otherwise, but you’re just not selling anything I’m buying. I know Scalia has commented on more than two cases publicly, bur all you have presented as supporting evidence is two.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  50. Carlitos – This construct, and FUBAR’s speculation allows him to claim that he is an anti-gay homophobe that would deny democracy to teh ghey.

    JD (454fb4)

  51. “I’m not smearing him.”

    Foo Bar – I didn’t say you were smearing him. I will say that stating we can be reasinbly confident that he thought it was good law comes close in my book when the conclusion appears to be so far firmly supported by thin air.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  52. Our esteemed host said:

    When I say “light” I may mean “non-existent.”

    So, what are the chances of getting Jeff Goldstein to guest post here while you’re off? 🙂

    The snarky Dana (3e4784)

  53. Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

    Anonymous (5fa9a5)

  54. So, what are the chances of getting Jeff Goldstein to guest post here while you’re off?

    Dana – Posting or whining?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  55. So, no suggestion for a word to use for the “in between” position, but tons of good conservative gents who know the mind of Justice Scalia.

    Here in Romer, the fair-minded jurist equates murder with homos

    The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite….This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that “animosity” toward homosexuality, is evil…The Court’s opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of “animus” or “animosity” toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even “animus” toward such conduct.

    Yes, Justice Scalia one can exhibit animus toward conduct one finds reprehensible, whether it’s sodomy or murder (nice comparison, BTW), and we need a word to describe that animus that is not the word “homophobe,” which is a ridiculous thing to call Scalia.

    PS And, don’t think I don’t some well-meaning commenter (or all of them) will refuse to impute Scalia’s “society’s justifiable opprobrium” into his having personal animus toward the political agenda. It’s sure a convenient way to argue. “Hey, that guy never said he liked BBQ…he just ate four sandwiches and said ‘yum.’ But, until I hear him say it, I can’t prove he likes BBQ.”

    Still, like I said convenient.

    timb (8f04c0)

  56. HOMOPHOBIC RACISTS !!!!!

    I shall return after the creepy one departs. See ya.

    JD (454fb4)

  57. whether it’s sodomy or murder (nice comparison, BTW)

    Nice comparison by whom? Where did Scalia compare murder and sodomy? Certainly not in the paragraph you quoted.

    I chose not to suggest a word for your ‘in between’ position because it’s a ridiculous construct.

    carlitos (cfbec1)

  58. “So, no suggestion for a word to use for the “in between” position, but tons of good conservative gents who know the mind of Justice Scalia.”

    timb – Read more closely and try again. I don’t think people here are suggesting they know the mind of Scalia, which is why they have a problem with inferences such as Franks’ and Foo Bar’s. Why suggest a middle word when there’s no need to suggest a word at all. He hasn’t expressed neutrality because he hasn’t expressed any opinion. End of story.

    Can you provide a link to the Roemer opinion so we can examine the context at our leisure?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  59. I think Foo Bar and timb may have left the building.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  60. If Scalia is right on the law, what the fuck do his personal views matter? All of this is nothing but an excuse for the Leftists to call, or insinuate, that some evil conservative is a homophobe.

    JD (454fb4)

  61. Funny, but I don’t remember any mind reading of Justice Ginsberg or Souter over their tenures – can’t imagine why that is.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  62. Dmac wrote:

    Funny, but I don’t remember any mind reading of Justice Ginsberg or Souter over their tenures – can’t imagine why that is.

    Some of us were not persuaded that there was anything there to read.

    The always polite Dana (3fe2b0)

  63. Perhaps our esteemed host could promote some of the articles on the Jury during his hiatus — if he’s still around to read this, that is. Karl? Jack?

    The Dana with helpful suggestions (3fe2b0)

  64. Don’t really know where to put this link, with our esteemed host out vacationating — a Picoism, not a typo — but this link to hilarity from The Los Angeles Times should brighten everyone’s day. Hat tip to Cassandra of the Delaware Liberal.

    The Dana who doesn't read the Los Angeles Times (3fe2b0)

  65. Good point, TAPD.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  66. Comment by timb — 3/27/2009 @ 2:26 pm

    Wow, timmah is still an ignorant asshelmet.

    N. O'Brain (453dd2)

  67. This is just a rumor I heard. Is the light posting have anything to with making a big big post what will be hurtful to anyone? Maybe it’s just have to do with tooling on our dirty socialist George Soros handmaiden president? I think that would be neat.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  68. This is just a rumor I heard. Is the light posting have anything to with making a big big post what will be hurtful to anyone?

    Has to do with relaxing with family.

    Patterico (921be1)

  69. Heh, even when Patterico unplugs, he can’t unplug. 😛

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  70. Let’s all have a great weekend!

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  71. Time to P A R T Y !!!!!!!

    AD - RtR/OS (545a5d)

  72. Antonin Scalia is not a homophobe

    I think most people, certainly deepdown, are homophobes (or “homophobes”), if you will, in that how many people will sincerely and truly proclaim “I’m just as happy, I’m just as content, I’m just as satisified, to know that my son (or my daughter) is a homosexual instead of heterosexual!”?

    Even among much of the anything-goes left of Hollywood there still is a tendency to treat the issue of a celebrity’s possible (or potential) homo- or bi- sexuality as a rather controversial matter and something that has a bit of awkwardness or oddness (eg, no one wanting to ask quite openly to, say, actress Jody Foster, “hey, how is your homelife, with you and your main squeeze — your girlfriend — right now!!?”)

    Mark (411533)

  73. Patterico – How’s that big post coming?

    Oops, missed number 67! Sorry.

    I’ve got no idea who’s spreading those rumors.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  74. Light posting deserves to see this polite dig at the dinosaur media, from Mark Steyn.

    carlitos (cfbec1)

  75. I’ve got no idea who’s spreading those rumors.

    Where have you seen these rumors, daleyrocks?

    Patterico (921be1)

  76. It was an insubstantial rumor, how I heard it. More of a whisper of a rumor. Just, it’s better to knock these things down before they become irksome. Like weeds, if the vegetables what talk are to be believed I think.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  77. “Where have you seen these rumors, daleyrocks?”

    I’ll defer to feets and his talented vegetables.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  78. Well, I heard the rumor here, Pat, from happyfeet, so it must be true! 🙂

    The gossipy Dana (03e259)

  79. Eighty people in the house, forty of them kids, ponies, puppet show, pinata, catered Greek food, pizza, ouzo, grappa, wine, beer. It will take me two days to sober up.

    nk (c90ef8)

  80. Dana has a good idea that I don’t know how to execute. I’ll have something fresh in a moment.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  81. Karl wrote:

    Dana has a good idea

    [Pats self on back.] 🙂

    The humble Dana (03e259)

  82. Don’t believe everything you read, Dana.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  83. nk wrote:

    Eighty people in the house, forty of them kids, ponies, puppet show, pinata, catered Greek food, pizza, ouzo, grappa, wine, beer. It will take me two days to sober up.

    And our babelicious ABC meteorologist told us you were getting snowed on today, so you’ll just have to stay inside and help Mrs nk clean.

    The snarky Dana (03e259)

  84. Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    Don’t believe everything you read, Dana.

    [Crashes back to earth, and reality; sinks into a Jimmy Carteresque malaise.] 🙁

    The depressed Dana (03e259)

  85. And our babelicious ABC meteorologist told us you were getting snowed on today, so you’ll just have to stay inside and help Mrs nk clean.

    Comment by The snarky Dana — 3/29/2009 @ 9:32 am

    The house is clean. Just what kind of people do you think I invite to my house, anyway? And the snow is beautiful. It will all be gone by the end of the day, but I managed to snap some picures. If Mrs. nk can find the USB cable for the camera, I might even post one.;

    nk (c90ef8)

  86. I sort of basically agree with you, Pat. Or rather, your point of view is fairly reasonable. I have no idea of Scalia is a homophobe – the evidence is not sufficient to judge.

    But then again, there’s this:

    This is how the left has operated for eight years: foster a cartoonish view of someone based on a distortion of their words taken out of its proper context (in this case a legal one), and then level an inflammatory charge. In the legal context, the game is to judge every decision by its result rather than its reasoning.

    Cross out “the left”, and insert “douchebags and demagogues”. Your party is full of it as well, and you know it. You spent the last month arguging with a prime example. But it’s worse than just a conflation of a collective body with the individual failures of discernment on parts of its members, because you clearly frame this here as a methodology, a deliberate, self-aware tactic.

    A non-demagogue would probably recognize that a simpler, more likely, less paranoiac explanation is that Barney Frank just thinks that Scalia is a homophobe. The same kind of snap character judgement made a billion times a day in various non-political settings. Not insightful, but not a master plan.

    So, long story short, congradulations on using “the methods of left” in a post b*tching about the methods of the left. Why do you bother?

    glasnost (8b129f)

  87. I sort of basically agree with you, Pat.

    The author of the post is Patterico. Not Pat. You may have had something to say after that, but that’s where I stopped reading.

    nk a/k/a Patterrico's Resident Hammer (c90ef8)

  88. Patterico just has the one r, nk.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  89. “So, long story short, congradulations on using “the methods of left” in a post b*tching about the methods of the left. Why do you bother?”

    glasnost – You basically ignored the post again, didn’t you? Patterico referred people to Barney Frank’s ridiculous defense of his remarks about Scalia on Huffington Post and then referred people to Ed Whelan’s first round takedown of Frank elsewhere. You of course innaccurately attribute any substantive content to Patterico.

    Why not point out any factual basis to point out Frank’s contention from the opinions Frant cites in his post at Huffington or any other comments on which Scalia is on record which qualifies him as a homophobe in your mind? Too difficult? You would rather just continue the tactics of the left?

    Whelan actually takes apart Franks defense as others have on rhis thread and it doesn’t take much or the tactics of the left. Pitiful try, glasnost. Up your game next time.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  90. feets – Where are all those rumors over at PW coming from that Patterico is going to produce a “nuclear” post?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  91. Tahnks, Ahppy Efet. And I’m nor teally Patterrico’s resdient hammer, either.

    nk (c90ef8)

  92. Did you ever read how to say Patterico, nk? It’s fun to say out loud.

    It’s on a thread on a different blog not this one, daley. I don’t want to get into the two sides of the fence thing so I’m just going to hope for the best and stay in my quiet place for awhile. I really don’t want this to get damaging to people. So far it all seems no harm no foul to me, relatively speaking anyway.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  93. There was a gosh darn lot of it that was a healthy exchange of views. That part’s getting lost.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  94. feeeeeeets!

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  95. nk wrote:

    The house is clean. Just what kind of people do you think I invite to my house, anyway?

    People neater than me, obviously! 🙂

    If Mrs. nk can find the USB cable for the camera, I might even post one.

    That was a problem for me, too, until I bought a computer in which I can just insert the camera’s memory card. Believe me, it’s worth the money.

    The messy Dana (03e259)

  96. Hey, if it isn’t snowing in Pennsyltucky, aren’t we having catastrophic planetary overheating?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  97. Hey, if it isn’t snowing in Pennsyltucky, aren’t we having catastrophic planetary overheating?
    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/29/2009 @ 2:35 pm

    Trick question, right? Depends on if Al Gore is visiting.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  98. Hey, we had about two minutes of a hail storm an hour ago; does that count?

    Heck, it was over so fast, I didn’t even have time to blame our own Al Gort.

    The non-meterorologist Dana (03e259)

  99. […] who would use whatever tactics they can, no matter how dishonest, no matter how mean-spirited, to destroy […]

    GayPatriot » Of Rush Limbaugh & the Conservative “Pantheon” (afb062)

  100. However, he clearly opposes, like most devout Catholics, public accommodation of gays.

    I wasn’t following the thread and missed the exchanges about Scalia in the middle. This is a dishonest interpretation. The issue in the Lawrence case was the fact that it was a Texas law and the best place to fix the problem was the Texas legislature. A similar situation applied in Griswald v Connecticut, if I remember correctly, and the result was a broad change in the law, just as Roe v Wade resulted in a very broad change. The Lawrence decision may have invalidated laws concerning polygamy, for example. Scalia was objecting to this fly swatting with sledge hammers that the USSC does from time to time.

    Leave it to the left to purposely misunderstand.

    MIke K (8df289)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1939 secs.