March 27, 2009

Harry Reid just called Chief Justice John Roberts a liar.

"Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was. But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen."

***

1. Senator Reid, you need to quote the transcript of Roberts's confirmation hearings. What, exactly, are the lies you are talking about? I want citations, so I can check your assertion that Roberts was deceptive. Until I see the relevant quoates, my position is that you, Senator Reid, are the liar.

2. Apparently, the judges whose opinions track your political positions are, in your book, the "moderates." That is the lesson I think you are trying to teach people. It is a lesson that undermines the integrity of law. It goes right along with Barney Frank's recent, despicable assertion that Justice Scalia is a homophobe.

3. We're stuck with Harry Reid.

IN THE COMMENTS: Chip Ahoy said:
This post moves me to open Photoshop like a force of nature asserting itself as it does in Fargo, inexorably, ineluctably, unrelentingly, compellingly. Goth Reid:

139 comments:

Richard said...

Why on earth would that surprise you? I mean, come on, a lot worse has been said.

Big Mike said...

We're only stuck with Harry Reid until the next election, if we're willing to work.

JAL said...

Wonder if Reid thinks President Obama didn't tell us the truth, either? Wonder if he thinks he misrepresented himself?

Rorschach said...

Actually, we are NOT stuck with Reid. It is my understanding that there are a number of republicans AND democrats lining up to beat the snot out of him come election time. His approval ratings and poll numbers in Nevada are not exactly stellar.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-harry-reids-senate-seat-in-trouble.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/trouble_for_harry_reid.html

2010 might just be a very bad year for Democrats.....

Richard Fagin said...

Harry would be have been gone long ago if our fearless news media would heap the same opprobrium on him for statements like that as they do on every Republcan that mkes the slightest verbal slip, or investigated his genuinely shady real estate dealings with the same zeal as they did to Mark Foley's not-even-actual sexual misconduct.

SteveR said...

That the Senate comfirmation hearings did not provide the insight which Mr. Reid wanted can only be the result of the bloviating incompetents asking the questions (or rambling in most cases).

Mr. Reid being himself a bloviating incompetent is thus unable to recognize for whom the bell tolls.

Lem said...

I know this was HBO and so I take it with a grain of salt.

But in their movie Recount there is a scene where (again purportedly) Al Gore’s marching orders were that under no circumstances were the supremes to be attacked in the media.

Even if it was not true and they just put that in the movie to make Al look good, I like to think that there is an unwritten understanding that you don’t attack the supremes for political advantage.

The war is lost Harry is a despicable little man. That’s just about the kindest thing I can say about him.

Fen said...

As is typical of the Left, all this means is that Harry Reid is about to lie to us about something.

Fen said...

There is no oversight of Congress.

Its past time they were tossed out into the snow.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

It could have been worse.

Imagine if it was a Senator calling CJ Roberts a liar who had some idea what he was talking about.

Not that I can think of one off the top of my head, but lets just suppose there is one...

former law student said...

Whoa, harsh.

you need to quote the transcript of Roberts's confirmation hearings. What, exactly, are the lies you are talking about?

The professor's talkng about lies, not Reid. If I don't tell you the truth about what I am, that doesn't mean I lied to you - I might have omitted my ax-murdering history just to spare your feelings. We might part with you thinking, "What a nice young man!"

From the linked article, Roberts left Reid the impression he was a moderate.

Apparently, the judges whose opinions track your political positions are, in your book, the "moderates."

First, most people believe they are moderates. Few describe themselves as, say, right wing kooks, or "somewhere to the left of Angela Davis." Second, few, if any, of us are completely free of biases. Reid might perceive that Roberts has a systematic bias.

TMink said...

"Reid might perceive that Roberts has a systematic bias."

I have seen no evidence that the Senator's own bias would let him evaluate another person.

Trey

Lem said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don’t remember Bill Clinton attacking the supremes during his impeachment.

He attacked Ken Starr pretty good, but I don’t remember the Clintonistas going after SCOTUS.

I'm with Althouse on this one.

This is something that politicians just should not do!

Jim O said...

Dems never seem to have Reid's back when he says things like this. He's an embarrassment to them. Either that, or they secretly hate him because he's a Mormon.

former law student said...

I have seen no evidence that the Senator's own bias would let him evaluate another person.

True of virtually all of us.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:

I don’t remember Bill Clinton attacking the supremes during his impeachment.

Clinton didn't vote on any SC justices. Reid clearly has buyer's remorse.

Big Mike said...

@Fen, about to? Doesn't that imply that there was some point where they stopped, if only for a moment?

@Rorschach, if we merely take comfort from the polls then he'll win. Does anybody out there know how to make a video calling out his ridiculous statements and posting it on YouTube? I lack both the time and the knowledge, but somebody on this thread must have both.

@Edjamikated, you seem to be channeling Mark Twain. I see that people are being paid out of this stimulus package to teach folks how to contact the dead. He's a good ghost to contact. If only he were still around today to lay into modern politicians.

Meanwhile, I noted that the Democrats and their boot-licking lackeys in the MSM are pushing the meme that the drug wars in Mexico are being fought with arms purchased in gun stores in the US. As proof they've shown pictures that include fully automatic assault rifles, mortars and LAWs. My question is this. Can anybody tell me which gun stores might carry LAWs? I've got a pesky ground hog that I need to chase off.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

From the linked article, Roberts left Reid the impression he was a moderate.

Reid clearly has buyer's remorse.

Reid voted against Roberts. That rules out "buyer's remorse".

It also means that either Reid is lying about having the impression Roberts was a moderate, or he's lying about wanting moderates on the court. There were no concerns over Roberts' academic or judicial qualifications, after all; the ABA gave him unanimous approval.

Maguro said...

The funny thing is that Reid voted against Roberts's confirmation, so apparently he and 21 others saw through the lies all along. The rest of the rest of the Democratic senators weren't as perceptive as our Harry, though, and were tricked, bamboozled and led astray by the wily Chief Justice.

Score another point for the VRWC.

AllenS said...

"Reid clearly has buyer's remorse."

Not so much.

former law student said...

Good point: If Reid believed Roberts to be a moderate, why did he not vote to confirm him? Roberts was otherwise acceptable as commenters have pointed out.

Reid definitely sounds fishy here.

rhhardin said...

The shock of Abscam was not that congressmen could be bought, but how little money it took.

Once you have that idea, nothing surprises you.

garage mahal said...

Maybe Reid is basing it off what Roberts offered Congress in his 4 days of testimony at his confirmation hearings? I know that's totally out of left field and I'm really just throwing something out there.

Bissage said...

Senator Reid knew he had to throw some gratuitous sex and violence into the deal or else he’d never persuade the media to transmit his base-galvanizing message.

It’s a kind of commerce.

Satan, himself, collects the sales tax.

Scott Colom said...

There is an important difference between calling someone a liar and stating that they did not tell you the truth. For instance, during his confirmation hearings Justice Roberts claimed to support Brown v. BD of Education; however, he did not state his interpretation of that opinion, even though he surely came to it prior to becoming an Justice. Ignoring the claim that judges can not state their positions on these issues because of possible conflicts of interest, this is why Reid claims Roberts was not honest. Had Roberts stated his interpretation of Brown, I submit he would have had a much tougher fight.
language in that same opinion

PJ said...

The professor's talkng about lies, not Reid. If I don't tell you the truth about what I am, that doesn't mean I lied to you - I might have omitted my ax-murdering history just to spare your feelings.

OMG!!1! FLS is an axe murderer!

I get the distinction you're making, but if someone has sworn to tell the truth, and then someone makes the accusation, "He didn't tell us the truth," the blurring of such fine distinctions is being perpetrated by the accuser, and in this case it's undoubtedly being perpetrated intentionally. I do not think the Professor's paraphrase exaggerates the spirit of the Senator's remarks.

gregq said...

Oh, Ann, you've got it all wrong. We simply need to take Harry at his word.

So, let's see, what the court system needs are "moderates". Great!

No members of the ACLU. No fans of SSM (if it can't win in CA, it's clearly not a "moderate" position). No death penalty opponents. No gun control fans. No one who favors allowing live-birth abortions.

I look forward to every Republican Senator joining with Senator Reid in his insistence that only moderates be appointed by President Obama to the courts.

traditionalguy said...

The message Reid is sending is to all concerned to start now to buy his vote and power of Senate Majority leader in the soon to be nominated Supreme court Justice confirmation hearings. They don't sell things like a Justice for life cheap. Blago is caught on tapes, but the stinking sale of offices for cash is only getting revved up in Congress.

MayBee said...

Flashback to more wisdom from Harry Reid on Supreme Court Justices:
Monday, December 6, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Sunday had harsh words for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

When asked to comment on Thomas as a possible replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Reid told NBC's "Meet the Press": "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.

"I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

jasperjava said...

Dems never seem to have Reid's back when he says things like this. He's an embarrassment to them. Either that, or they secretly hate him because he's a Mormon.

There's one "m" too many in that last word. Probably a typo.

Revenant said...

Maybe Reid is basing it off what Roberts offered Congress in his 4 days of testimony at his confirmation hearings?

I can't recall any lies Roberts told during those hearings. Could you be more specific about what you're referring to? :)

David said...

P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N!

bearbee said...

...why did he not vote to confirm him?

Reid Will Vote Against Roberts

Is there a history of congress critters attacking members of the Supreme Court or is this unusual?

Is Reid attempting to create political pressure on the court, or just running off at the mouth?

David said...

"Is Reid attempting to create political pressure on the court, or just running off at the mouth?"

They have to make nice with the bankers for a while, so he needs a target.

Jim O said...

Roflmao, Jaspervava!!

Michael Hasenstab said...

Look at the big picture. Ginsburg is quite ill, and it's a safe bet she won't remain on the SCOTUS much longer.

Harry Reid is preparing the battlefield for the next nomination and hearing.

He is suggesting that a 'moderate' is needed, which gives the administration cover to nominate a loonbat leftie, whom Reid (and others) will describe as being 'moderate', and the kind of thinker needed on the court to counteract that liar Roberts.

It's all a game.

Pogo said...

Not content with destroying the American economy, Reid hopes to shred the Constitution into tiny little "living" bits.

Mormon authoritarian that he is, he knows damn well what's good for us. Yet there stand Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, thwarting and mocking his plans for an American socialist utopia.

Bugger Reid.

hdhouse said...

ditit ditit ditit

Sacred Cows (Bulls perhaps) sworded ... film at 11.

In a related incident, a matador was stoned to death by a vengful crowd of zealots.....

rcocean said...

How can you tell when Harry Reid is lying?

His lips move.

Rose said...

It's very clear that they are amping up for something to do with the Supreme Court - and it has to mean an appointment. They're setting the stage, "controlling the debate," setting up the narrative, however you want to categorize it.

It's no accident Barney Frank calling a Justice a homophobe, and now this. They're giggling with glee and unable to keep a secret.

They are signaling and projecting - and if you look closely you will see it emerge from the "progressive ooze" Think Tanks.

RR Ryan said...

I'm willing to be flip here. Does anyone think English is Harry Reid's native language? Because I don't think those words mean what he thinks they mean.

Peter V. Bella said...

Harry Reid does not mean moderates will be appointed. He means extreme agenda driven liberals will be appointed.

Reid should have been impeached for using his office and the power of his office to abridge the First Amendment. He interfered with the making of a movie and threatened Disney. He demanded that a radio talk host be censured by management when said host angered him. Maybe he has never read the Constitution. Maybe the only thing he ever read was the Book of Mormon.

What he did was worse than what he has accused Bush of doing. Reid actually violated the constitution and his oath of office. He is dishonest, evil, and an enemy of freedom. He is not fit to serve. He also never met a mobster he never liked; or at least their money.

blake said...

First, most people believe they are moderates.

I am not moderate.

RR Ryan said...

My point, exactly.

Quayle said...

Maybe he has never read the Constitution. Maybe the only thing he ever read was the Book of Mormon.

Let's see, from the Book of Mormon:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

Well, Reid clearly believes in enforcing by the SCOTUS things that a majority wouldn't support, so he isn't following this scripture from the Book of Mormon.

How about: And again I say unto you, is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions? Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved!

Well, doesn't seem to really be following this one either.

How about: And seeing the people in a state of such awful wickedness, and those ... robbers filling the judgment-seats—having usurped the power and authority of the land; laying aside the commandments of God, and not in the least aright before him; doing no justice unto the children of men;

Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills—

Hummmmm, that sounds a lot like our current government is starting to act.

I'd say Reid hasn't been reading his Book of Mormon enough, if indeed he has been reading it all.

TRundgren said...

If Reid got an ounce of serious scrutiny, he'd be gone.


Alas, no media.

SMGalbraith said...

If this is prepping the confirmation battlefield you have to assume it's not a liberal Justice like Ginsburg. Reid wouldn't use the "moderate" label if she was retiring.

It must be the "moderate" Souter.

Reportedly, he didn't interview/hire clerks for the next session.

Lots of ifs in that.

If I'm right, I want - no demand -credit. This is the internet where everyone is brave and smart and handsome.

If not, never mind.

Quayle said...

...if indeed he has been reading it [at] all [lately.]

EnigmatiCore said...

Demonizing justices has been a tradition for a while, and will continue to be until voters punish it.

PatCA said...

The Dems must be really, really scared. But of what? Can popular opinion on the spending frenzy be collapsing this quickly?

Chip Ahoy said...

This post moves me to open Photoshop like a force of nature asserting itself as it does in Fargo, inexorably, ineluctably, unrelentingly, compellingly. Goth Reid.

This is too easy. I feel bad.

Revenant said...

First, most people believe they are moderates.

I am not moderate.

Me neither. But he's right that most people think they are.

Lem said...

Reid is an unusually good liar.

An instant classic Chip.

blake said...

Chip, that is brilliant. Sometimes the easy ones are the most genius.

Mark said...

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Yep, someone isn't coming back to the bench. And like Pinky and the Brain, the Left does the same thing it does every day; demonize the Evil Conservatives. (That's what the Left does, of course; I'm pretty sure The Brain votes straight Republican, and I have Pinky pegged as a Green voter, when he bothers.)

Personally, I'm praying the current court stays intact for four more years; considering the One's track record with appointments, we'd probably be lucky if Pinky was selected.

fcai said...

Chip Ahoy - well done. That needs to be published. You have captured the spirit of Grant Wood's original and added a top notch piece of work to the long history of American Gothic parodies.

madawaskan said...

By the time Obama, Reid and Pelosi are done-

Justice John Roberts might end up like Justice Owen Roberts.

The only one not appointed by a Democrat.

madawaskan said...

Chip-

Where's Obama?

mishu said...

Reid is just an insufferable little prick. I can't imagine anyone wanting to socialize with this guy.

madawaskan said...

If you animated Reid-

You could make it look like he was doing something to Pamela Anderson...

American Liberal Elite said...

Chip, Great work, both in the conception and the execution! I think I'll just uninstall Photoshop now.

John Cunningham said...

Great Photoshop, Chip Ahoy! I think Reid's blast, along with Barney Frank blasting Scalia as a homophobe, is the start of a campaign to demonize the 4 conservatives on the court, kind of working the refs in a basketball game.

Revenant said...

Nice work on the picture, Chip. :)

RR Ryan said...

But Reid isn't a good liar. He's a slow, inarticulate version of Eddie Haskell. Without the charm.

kcom said...

"It also means that either Reid is lying about having the impression Roberts was a moderate, or he's lying about wanting moderates on the court. There were no concerns over Roberts' academic or judicial qualifications, after all; the ABA gave him unanimous approval."

Excellent, excellent point, Revenant. Harry Reid is either a bald-faced liar or completely lacking in integrity. Either way, he's a loser. How did we ever get stuck with him?

Fen said...

Chip, powerline has your photoshop up with a hat tip to you.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023178.php

Randy said...

How did we ever get stuck with him?

Even curdled cream rises to the top? (Consider the other possibilities.)

Nathan Hall said...

What exactly is a homophobe? Is Frank suggesting that Justice Scalia experiences some kind of gibbering panic attack when in the presence of homosexuals? There's no reason to believe this about Scalia or most of the people labeled with this hate word.

The Orwellian word "homophobe," now used routinely throughout our culture to describe anyone who opposes gay marriage, is the worst kind of straw man--an underhanded attempt to reduce not just an idea, but also all the people who hold it, to mere caricatures of themselves. I don't care one way or another about gay marriage, but I certainly resent the notion that my more conservative parents have some kind of mental condition! This is an evil word.

AST said...

After reading this post, I checked to see when his current term is up. He has to run again in 2010.

But the interesting bit is a rumor published at http://www.newsreview.com/reno/content?oid=921991
to the effect that Mitt Romney is considering moving to Nevada to run against him. That would certainly make religion a non-issue between the two. Romney doesn't have a campaign committee, but he does have a PAC at http://www.freestrongamerica.com/

I hope 2010 will be the end of the road for "Searchlight's dim bulb" as James Taranto calls him.

The Republicans have been a big disappointment to me in their failure to practice what they preach and the courage of a herd of cats they've displayed, but we can't afford four years of trillion dollar deficits.

As far as Reid's legal opinion goes, well his statement stands for itself. He's a nitwit.

TMink said...

My father was a true homophobe. We were discussing gays in the military whilst I was a liberal. During the discussion, he got a little agitated and said something like "But they would be looking at you in the shower."

I was struck by his fear, and totally confused by it. I had only seen my father afraid when my mother was close to death.

On his own death bed, dad told be about being sexually abused by a man when he was 11.

Certainly I cannot say that this is where all or most true homophobia comes from, and that is not my point. But for dad, it was trauma related.

Trey

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Maybe the Reps should tear a page from Reid's playbook and declare surrender in Afghanistan. If that doesn't work, they should do everything in their power to undermine O's war effort. This should be OK since the Dems have make it clear that when it comes to politics, wars are fair game.

daredevil-66 said...

Sometimes I just feel sorry for Harry, he's not very good at his job and it shows. He always looks tired and agitated and even when the MSM is on his side, they snicker behind his back. It wouldn't surprise me to see him pack it in before 2010. His internal polling is already telling him he's going to have an uphill fight just to keep his seat.

Daryl said...

Democrats are the liars.

Look at how they slandered Justice Roberts by lying about the Lilly Ledbetter case.

Ledbetter testified that she knew about the wage discrimination all along. Democrats ran commercials saying that she didn't know, and that the Roberts court made a terrible, unfair ruling against her. It was disgusting.

And McCain was disgusting, too, in that he didn't stick up for Roberts.

Democrats will slander anyone for political advantage.

Hector Owen said...

Chip, I've re-posted your image here. The more the merrier. Hope that's OK with you.

Revenant said...

The Orwellian word "homophobe," now used routinely throughout our culture to describe anyone who opposes gay marriage, is the worst kind of straw man

That's like arguing that a person can't be anti-semitic unless he hates Arabs. You're confusing the etymology of a word with its modern definition.

"Homophobia" means "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality". It does not refer to any form of mental illness.

dave in boca said...

I can remember when Sandra Day O'C was still on the Court, Nancy Pill-osi called the SCOTUS "the voice of God" because it was attacking the U.S. Constitution with its frivolous decisions.

Guess the mini-Pill-osi from NV is having his ischemic strokes in public.

Fen said...

Okay, I've figured out what this is all about. Reid has an ultra-liberal nominee in the pipeline. That nominee will have to lie to Congress to get approved. Reid is working from the Lefts typical playbook - accuse the other side of doing what you're about to do, and when you get caught doing it, defend yourself by saying "but they do it too!". So this is just Reid shaping the battlefield.

Mark said...

Hey, I'd bet $10 if someone would give me 50 to 1 odds that Bernadette Dorn would be Obama's first choice for Supreme Court.

All things considered, it would only be the dumbest thing he's done so far.

Spread Eagle said...

"Homophobia" means "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality". It does not refer to any form of mental illness.

You're oversimplifying that a skosh. The phobia part of homophobia was purloined from abnormal psychology, specifically the various phobic neurosises (claustrophobia, agoraphobia, etc). With the word homophobe the implication is definitely being made that those who don't buy into the whole homosexual thing are in some manner mentally ill.

downtownlad said...

It goes right along with Barney Frank's recent, despicable assertion that Justice Scalia is a homophobe.

Um - Except that Justice Scalia is a homophobe. And its quite obvious and there is plenty of proof for it.

This post sums it up nicely.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/24/scalia-is-homophobic/

Scalia is a practicing Catholic. What further proof do you need that he's a homophobe? He thinks that ALL gay people are intrinsically evil. He has never once used the word "gay", instead always using the insulting and deaming "homosexual".

Sorry, but anyone who refers to gay rights as part of the "homosexual agenda" is a homophobe.

Ann - Why don't you provide one piece of evidence that Scalia is NOT a homophobe. Until then, we can consider you a liar.

downtownlad said...

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. - Justice Scalia

How anyone could possibily read that statement and not see the mind of a homophobe is mind-boggling.

He puts the word "discrimination" in quotes for Christ's sake!

downtownlad said...

"Gays really need to change their agnomen. Of the homosexuals I know, not a single one is actually gay. They must be known as bitters, or hostiles, or angries, pissed offs." - Chip Ahoy

downtownlad said...

I didn't dump all my gay friends either, I simply chose not to comport with anybody unlovely. Got that, Stupid? I have no reason to put myself in the presence of undelightful people. I don't allow it. Having made that decision, nearly all my gay friends have dismissed themselves and my social circle had diminished considerably, and I'm altogether better off because of it. - Chip Ahoy

downtownlad said...

Just thought it would be helpeful to put a few posts of comments by a commenter that Ann thinks is absolutely NOT a homophobe.

When he obviously is.

Close Danger said...

Reid, you are an Abomination of man and a wart on the system of government evermore you punk assed fool.

Roberts is four times the MAN you are. If I see you personally, you shall fall. Leach and bastard and crook and simpleton and partisan and liar, and scumbag, and hemorrhoid, syphilis, you rogue S C U M B U C K E T.

Reid, it is your lifes sole purpose to avoid my self no matter where you are BY GOD.

downtownlad said...

Roberts is not homophobic. The proper term is self-loathing.

He adopted his two kids. There is not one iota of evidence that he's actually ever had sex with a woman.

John said...

Scalia is a practicing Catholic. What further proof do you need that he's a homophobe?

You are a master of persuasive argument. Don't tell me -- you were on your college debate team, right?

Mark said...

Scalia is a practicing Catholic. What further proof do you need that he's a homophobe? He thinks that ALL gay people are intrinsically evil. He has never once used the word "gay", instead always using the insulting and deaming "homosexual".

No bigotry in that argument, nosireebob.

Seriously, DTL, there are a shitload of us on the "right" who are positively disposed toward your core argument, and then you lay this kind of stinkbomb that causes us to take a quick reality check.

Bottom line, why should we find Scalia's let-society-protect-society argument any less valid than your "screw the religious nutjobs" thesis?

Do better.

downtownlad said...

Oh Really - Are you saying the Catholic Church looks positively on gay people?????

I'm pretty sure Benedict would find that assertion offensive.

I don't think the Catholic Church minds being called homophobic. Because they are. Proudly so. That's why they put out statements that say that gay people are intrinsically evil. That's why they ban gay people from accepting communion. It's why they ban even celibate gays from becoming priests. Because the Catholic Church is a vehemently anti-gay institution, as are all practicing Catholics.

I'm pretty sure Scalia would have the same attitude. He's obviously anti-gay. He's obviously proudly anti-gay. As is his right.

What is astonishing are those who claim that Scalia is not homophobic. Of course he is.

Chip Ahoy said...

Downtown lad, you're truly pathetic. You're so dense and mean-spirited and not gay that in your haste to provoke, you can not even see how you're demonstrating my point.

For the last time, I have dozens of friends who are actually gay, in all senses of the word, and a dozen more I've purposefully distanced because since Bush was elected, they've indulged their dark side and become, well, like you.

Now stop begging me to top you because it's not going to happen. And no, you can not blow me either.

downtownlad said...

Scalia compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest.

Would he be offended if I called him an anti-pedophile?

Would he be offended if I called him anti-incest?

So who are you to presume that he would be offended by being called anti-gay?

That's where Ann is clueless. She really can't fathom that some people are anti-gay rights (just as they are anti-incest rights and anti-pedophile rights) because they really really really just don't like gay people.

downtownlad said...

I just quoted you verbatim Chip. Why so defensive?

Mark said...

And of course, a lot of us are old enough to remember when "gay" was the demeaning term. ("Black" too, come to think of it, although truthfully I only know that because I'm not totally historically illiterate.)

Oddly, I no longer trust the inherent righteousness of the outraged. I get the feeling I'm not alone.

downtownlad said...

"Gays really need to change their agnomen. Of the homosexuals I know, not a single one is actually gay. They must be known as bitters, or hostiles, or angries, pissed offs." - Chip Ahoy


I didn't dump all my gay friends either, I simply chose not to comport with anybody unlovely. Got that, Stupid? I have no reason to put myself in the presence of undelightful people. I don't allow it. Having made that decision, nearly all my gay friends have dismissed themselves and my social circle had diminished considerably, and I'm altogether better off because of it. - Chip Ahoy

jeff said...

I have no kids either. I must be gay. OTOH, a friend of mine who is gay was married and fathered a child. Must not be gay. Or DTL is a dumbass. Occam's razor.

downtownlad said...

Chip Ahoy brags about how "nearly all of his gay friends" have dismissed themselves.

And now he claims to have "dozens" of gay friends.

I smell a liar.

downtownlad said...

No Jeff - You're just stupid. Because the Roberts comment was sarcasm.

Mark said...

"No Jeff - You're just stupid. Because the Roberts comment was sarcasm."

Sounded more like character assassination. Which is odd, from someone who thinks gayness (won't catch me in the "'homosexual'=denigration" trap, although you might look at your feet next time you try to spring it) is at worst morally neutral.

downtownlad said...

And Mark - I am not outraged. I really couldn't give a shit if someone like Chip Ahoy is a homophobe. We know from Proposition 8, that even in very liberal states, a majority of the population are homophobes.

Shocker.

It's just annoying when these homophobes try to insist that they're not. I have zero tolerance for that.

It's like when someone calls me "anti-Catholic". My response, is usually something like "Duh!". You will never see me protesting if I'm called anti-Catholic. Because I am. It is a hateful religion and I have no qualms saying so.

So why are all of the anti-gay people, like Chip Ahoy, so defensive when we point out quotes of theirs that prove they are anti-gay?

ColumEx said...

We're not "stuck" with Harry Reid. Vote his ass the f*ck out.

downtownlad said...

Character assassination? For implying that John Roberts is gay?

Only an anti-gay bigot would imply it's "character assassination" to to say someone is gay.

downtownlad said...

And there is plenty of evidence that Roberts is indeed gay.

Like here:

http://www.wonkette.com/images/couldn%27t%20be%20gayer%20if%20they%20were%20in%20chaps.jpg

I rest my case.

Mark said...

It's like when someone calls me "anti-Catholic". My response, is usually something like "Duh!". You will never see me protesting if I'm called anti-Catholic. Because I am. It is a hateful religion and I have no qualms saying so.

And this is why you are a bigot.

Odd thing is, I'd bet you don't get so wound up by Islam. Only the safe bigotry for our lad.

Since we can no longer call a spade a spade, let's call a jackass a jackass. Meaning you.

From my libertarian perspective, I'm all for allowing marriage between anyone who thinks its a good idea. With all the rights and responsibilities that come with it.

But from my democratic perspective, I want to see that outcome happen as a result of popular acceptance, instead of some kind of judicial fiat. Because, you know, Roe v. Wade just totally ended the whole abortion debate, like totally.

So consider this a friendly bitch-slap. You're on the side of the angels, but you're acting like a frickin' idiot. If your side frames the question as "accept Christianity or accept a good ass reaming" well, you're setting your side up to lose.

downtownlad said...

Catholicism a choice. A hateful choice, and frankly a stupid and ignorant choice. Jesus Christ never even existed, let alone walked on water and was raised from the dead.

Yes I'm an anti-Catholic bigot in the same sense that I am an anti-astrology bigot, in that I believe in science and reason and not made up fairy tales. Boo hoo.

I have criticized Islam dozens of times. It's just as stupid a religion as Catholicism and just as bigoted.

Care to retract your false charge?

Seven Machos said...

Ever notice how the harder core leftists here are so filled with vitriol. I speak of Downtown, but others would fit the bill fine.

You can hear that little, unspoken voice, just like Whittaker Chambers said: To a gas chamber. Go!

downtownlad said...

And a real libertarian wouldn't let essential rights and freedoms and privacy be overturned by a majority vote.

It's fine to have that view of the Constitution, but it's certainly not a libertarian view.

And I'm not "setting my side up to lose". My side has already lost. Gay people are now second class citizens in the United States, and I am allowed to point that out.

Ann thinks it is "despicable" for gay people to call out anti-gay bigots for what they are. She is living in a fairy tale world where gays are not discriminated against and anti-gay bigots don't exist. But that's easy for her to have that imaginary view, because she's straight and anti-gay discrimination will never affect her.

downtownlad said...

Someone should remind Seven Machos that gays WERE sent to the gas chamber.

Mark said...

I guess "real libertarians" are those who want to live in the wilderness eating squirrels and writing long letters-to-the-editor.

"Your side" has made incredible strides in my lifetime. My wife and I just gave some nice stuff to a couple of guys who adopted a daughter from a surrogate mother. Dads and baby girl are doing fine. That wouldn't have happened in 1980. So I see progress, although as I've said, I wish the guys were accorded the same right to marry as my wife and I. I think that will come in time.

Are you a second-class citizen? Are they? They don't want to be, I'm not so sure about you.

As to Roberts: what's your view on outing? Is it good? Bad? And in either case, why? Because that's what your sly comments about Roberts are all about. Be a righteous hominid. Make an argument.

Revenant said...

The phobia part of homophobia was purloined from abnormal psychology, specifically the various phobic neurosises (claustrophobia, agoraphobia, etc).

Like I said already, you shouldn't confuse etymology with definition.

Mark said...

Personally, I hope I would have merited a black triangle.

But I would have had to work for it, since I look like a good German peasant.

Mark said...

And riffing on self-hatred: why is that worse than hatred of 60 million Americans?

In the first case, there's one object of hatred. In the second case, well, the best you can say is that it's spread around.

Pop psychology: when in doubt, just say "me, me, me."

Nathan Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nathan Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nathan Hall said...

Suppose I make a new word:

"axemurdereresque"

Definition: Having the quality of being an axe murderer or of going by the name Revenant.

Now every time you say something, I can just dismiss it as an axemurdereresque thing to say. Would you be altogether comfortable with that?

Nathan Hall said...

downtownlad,

You quote Justice Scalia at some length, then declare that his comments are obviously homophobic. Do you mean that they show antipathy toward homosexuality, or that they demonstrate an unreasoning fear of homosexuality? Do you find it a) confusing or b) convenient that when you call somebody a homophobe nobody can tell right away which of these you mean?

The word "homophobia" is almost invariably used to mock and dismiss the other side's argument, not engage it.

Peter V. Bella said...

DTL puked:
Sorry, but anyone who refers to gay rights as part of the "homosexual agenda" is a homophobe.

You are a charlatan and a fraud. You are uneducated and have the intellectual capacity of a cretin. You also spew toxic lies and venomous misinformation. You are also a cancerous hypocrite.

What further proof do we need.

Next you will be telling us that homosexuals were sold into slavery and the Civil War was fought to free the Queers. Maybe Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation was a cal to free the fags. Then you will tell us all about segregation and Jim Blow laws. I’ll bet you even believe that Milk was a famous civil rights activist and we should have a national holiday for him. May name some streets across the nation too.

You know DTL, you are a twisted, distorted person. You really should just do the honorable thing and spare society your evil.

Peter V. Bella said...

Hey, I'd bet $10 if someone would give me 50 to 1 odds that Bernadette Dorn would be Obama's first choice for Supreme Court.

He probably would, except for one teensy, weensy, little problem. She is not a licensed attorney. I doubt with her criminal record, she would be able to get a license to practice law; unless they change the rules to benefit her someplace.

Peter V. Bella said...

Someone should remind Seven Machos that gays WERE sent to the gas chamber.

Well, if you or your “people” had any real guts, you would grab some land, fight off some armed people- backed by a major European power, defeat them and start your own damn country. Maybe an island in Greece.

TMink said...

dtl wrote: "Only an anti-gay bigot would imply it's "character assassination" to to say someone is gay."

Exactly. That is precisely what I said to YOU when you tried to insult me by calling me TWINK. YOU used a gay term to try to insult me.

The most homophobic poster on this board is you.

You are a mess and should get a few years of hard work in therapy under your belt before posting. You need it.

Trey - who is much more like a bear than a twink Mr. homophobe DTL

dbp said...

Peter V. Bella said...

"He probably would, except for one teensy, weensy, little problem. She is not a licensed attorney. I doubt with her criminal record, she would be able to get a license to practice law; unless they change the rules to benefit her someplace."

There is no requirement in the constitution that a Supreme Court Justice have a law degree or be a member of the bar.

Elliott A said...

what rights are gays seeking that they already do not have? or the rest of us do not have?

Nahanni said...

Mr. Cause meets Ms. Effect...

Isn't it amazing that all of a sudden you have Harry Reid and Barney Frank howling like stuck pigs about Supreme Court justices?

Could it be because they are trying to intimidate the court because Chief Justice Roberts accepted the documents for requesting a proof of Obama's eligibility to be President?

Mr. Smoke meets Ms. Fire...

Considering the fact that Obama and the Democrats have gone to excruciatingly extraordinary lengths to keep just about every ordinary record of Obama's past out of the sight of the public makes me wonder what they are so afraid of if those records came to light? What are Obama and the Democrats afraid of?

In a place like Illinois Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could get elected to the US Senate as long as he was in the Chicago Democratic party machine pocket.

The fact that Obama and the Democrats have resorted to intimidation and spent a fortune on lawsuits to avoid producing his birth certificate speaks volumes. They would not have to publish it if there is something embarrassing on it, only produce it to satisfy the court and then ask to have the records sealed.

garage mahal said...

Good point.

fcai said...

DTL is the new Michael.

Nahanni said...

Elliott A,

what rights are gays seeking that they already do not have? or the rest of us do not have?

They want to get married. I say let them, then they can learn the hard way why so many hetero couples choose to just live together instead of bothering with the paperwork.

We can all have fun watching TV during the three ring media circus of the first lesbian divorce case when one of them refuses to pay child support for their "turkey baster baby" because she is not the "biological father".

sonicfrog said...

Chip, you are a jewel!!!!!

Peter V. Bella said...

There is no requirement in the constitution that a Supreme Court Justice have a law degree or be a member of the bar.

While that may be true, when was the last time a Supreme Court Justice was appointed who was not a lawyer or a judge? No one is allowed to read for the law and get a law license anymore. And only a few states or small counties in the United States allow non-lawyers to become judges.

Her chances are slim and none. Unless of course the rules are changed to benefit her personally. With this administration anything is possible.

Peter V. Bella said...

In a place like Illinois Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could get elected to the US Senate as long as he was in the Chicago Democratic party machine pocket.

That is one of the truest statements ever made here. But a Chicago Alderman is more powerful than an Illinois U.S. Senator. BTW, Bobby Rush, a former terrorist is a U.S. Rep from Illinois. Luis Guiterrez, a former member of the Puerto Rican Terrorist group FALN is also a U.S. Rep from Chicago. No one is questioning Rham Emanuel's ties to organized crime via Jimmy DeLeo, the real power behind the Illinois Fifth Congressional District.

Yep, just about any Democrat from Chicago can get elected to office; even terrorists and organized crime associates.

Peter V. Bella said...

Who benefits if gays are alowed to get married?





Divorce lawyers!!!!!!!!!!!!

former law student said...

Who benefits if gays are alowed to get married?

And caterers, cake bakers, tuxedo rental places, banguet halls, Waterford/Wedgewood, Oneida Silver, all-inclusive resorts, etc. etc.

Jon Sandor said...

For instance, during his confirmation hearings Justice Roberts claimed to support Brown v. BD of Education

I must have missed the ruling where Roberts voted to overturn Brown.

Jon Sandor said...

Is it homophobic of me to note that it's very gay for a grown man to call himself a "lad"? I hope so.

Frodo Potter said...

DTL, as Mark very aptly pointed out, you are not helping those who are neutral towards--or even sympathetic with--your feelings. Please stop with the ad hominem attacks.

Also, I believe you stated that Jesus Christ did not even exist. Umm . . . there is actually fairly widespread consensus that a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua (whose name has been anglicized to Jesus) did indeed live approximately 2000 years ago and was indeed crucified by Roman authorities.

You need to be able to separate the *historical* from the *religious and cultural.* I do not remotely feel the reverence and loyalty towards Joan of Arc that even the most jaded French person does, but I would be embarrassed to argue that she never existed. We have only one person who has written about Socrates, namely Plato, but no one would argue that Socrates never existed. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan has been quoted many times: “You have the right to your own opinion; you do not have the right to your own facts.”

Others have called you on this, and in a much cruder fashion, but please DTL, work on your reasoning skills.

Peter V. Bella said...

DTL is a hater. He is a heterophobe and and has an unnatural fear of heterosexuals and a toxic hatred of them based upon his fear. He is the equivalent of the KKK or other such organizations only he swings left.

Methadras said...

And DTL, the one trick Strap-on Polo Pony poisons the well with his deranged insanity once again. He isn't the new Michael, he's the original Michael.

TMink said...

KKK, or GayGayGay.

Trey

ken in sc said...

DTL spends as lot more time, energy, and thought being queer than I do being straight. It seems like a job of work to me. Doesn't it get tiring?

downtownlad said...

Funny how the homophobes on this board can only respond to reason and valid arguments by myself with more anti-gay attacks.

Shocker.

And sorry. But there is plenty of evidence that the mythical fairy-tale character called Jesus Christ never existed.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

It is not intolerant to look at actual evidence, and use reason and logic to come to the belief that Jesus is just as made up as Santa Claus.

Go ahead and believe in fairy tales all you want. But don't expect me to respect your idiotic beliefs, which have zero basis in logic.

Your "God" doesn't exist. In that I am certain.

downtownlad said...

More evidence that Jesus did not exist.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html