frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
WASHINGTON (AP) - Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in a recent interview with the gay news Web site 365gay.com.
The Democratic lawmaker, who is gay, was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called upon to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government to deny recognition to same-sex marriages.
"I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court," said Frank. The video of the interview is available online.
Frank's office did not respond to a request Monday to expand on his remark. Scalia also had no comment.
Scalia dissented from the court's ruling in 2003 that struck down state laws banning consensual sodomy. He has complained about judges, rather than elected officials, deciding questions of morality about which the Constitution is silent.
Controversial topics like gay rights and abortion should not be in the hands of judges, he has said, calling on people to persuade their legislatures or amend the Constitution.
My Way News - Rep. Frank calls Scalia a 'homophobe' in interview
-----
Barney Frank - What a fine example of respect and class.
This is a fine example of leftist bullshit and how they do business. Scalia is a BIG time believer that on so many issues that are no part of the Constitution, not mentioned in the Constitution - it is the elected officials of the states who must decide those issues. Which would only require simply changing state law. Not having the Supreme Court rule on the issue and IMPOSE their will on all citizens or having the Supreme Court falsely declare the Justices miraculously "discovered" a previously unknown "right" that doesn't exist. It doesn't matter to him what elected officials might do about those issues -he has repeatedly argued those are the proper decision-makers on these issues. Not 9 people in a Court who cannot be held accountable for their decisions by the people. Having the courts create new law from the bench is an OLIGARCHY -the rule of the elite who cannot be held accountable by the people. Which was not created by our Constitution. So naturally to someone like Franks who thinks ramming unwanted law down the throats of the majority is fine and dandy -the fact Scalia opposes that notion makes him a HOMOPHOBE! See how the left is constantly changing the definition of what makes a "homophobe"? Now unless you fully support the gay activist, far leftwing agenda which includes bastardizing the Constitution and pretending it means whatever you need it to mean today and believe the proper role of the courts is to ram unwanted laws down the throats of the majority against their will -you are a "homophobe"!
In addition, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states it is the authority of state legislatures to decide the requirements for all permits and licenses -and that includes marriage licenses. So Scalia has far better grounds for his position than Franks and other gay activists intent on using the court system to bypass the will of the people. So typical of someone like Franks to insist the only possible reason Scalia believes what he does about which level and branch of government has what authorities is that he is a HOMOPHOBE! Can't possibly be because the man thinks he has an obligation to actually do his JOB and not try to expand the power of the Supreme Court to impose new law on all people of the nation who would have no recourse if they disagreed with it! The people of Massachusetts deserve having to deal with this guy since they elected him -but the rest of the nation certainly doesn't.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from politics because their job is to only take those cases that legitimately involve Constitutional issues and then rule on those cases in accordance with the Constitution -not in accordance with the personal political agenda of some politician or in accordance with current opinions or in accordance to their own personal whims and opinions. Franks pulled a very typical leftist stunt of relying on NAMECALLING and insulting a specific justice in order to try and make this PERSONAL -coming as close as he could to saying Scalia only rules the way he does because he is a HOMOPHOBE when in reality, Scalia rules the way he does because he is a constitutionalist and is on far sounder grounds than Franks is. And why single out Scalia anyway when there are other constitutionalists on the court who also believe their job is to rule on cases in accordance with the Constitution instead of pretending the Constitution says whatever they want it to mean at the moment?
Franks will never be accused of either having any class or of being an intellectual and his stupid stunt will only cause a backlash that can only offend moderates who may otherwise be sympathetic to some parts of his far leftwing agenda like gay marriage. Franks is already in trouble for his role in the collapse of Fannie and Freddie so maybe he's hoping making a personal and unjustified attack on a Supreme Court justice will divert the public's attention from that fact. It is impossible for me to have any lower opinion of Franks than I already had -but if it could have gotten any lower, it would have after this stupid statement of his.
Want to know what I find so scary about the far leftwing agenda? Our founders firmly believed in a nation whose citizens were free from state coercion and wrote a Constitution with that in mind. Liberals believe that is bullshit and that it is far more important to believe that people have a "right" to be free from want and even some kind of "right" of equal outcome. Which would REQUIRE state coercion. But which of these opposing beliefs actually made the US a unique nation in the world and provided the most good for the most people - and which has only repeatedly proven to be an utter failure that has only increased the level of human misery and at best, made people more "equally" miserable?