Barney Frank Calls Scalia a "Homophobe"

[frazzledgear]

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?

 

[Chris]

I though Scalia and Cheney were lovers.

My mistake...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I thought

No you didn't. Never have.

 

[Chris]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia traveled as an official guest of Vice President Dick Cheney on a small government jet that served as Air Force Two when the pair came here last month to hunt ducks.

The revelation cast further doubts about whether Scalia can be an impartial judge in Cheney's upcoming case before the Supreme Court, legal ethics experts said. The hunting trip took place just weeks after the high court agreed to take up Cheney's bid to keep secret the details of his energy policy task force.

According to those who met them at the small airstrip here, the justice and the vice president flew from Washington on Jan. 5 and were accompanied by a second, backup Air Force jet that carried staff and security aides to the vice president.

Two military Black Hawk helicopters were brought in and hovered nearby as Cheney and Scalia were whisked away in a heavily guarded motorcade to a secluded, private hunting camp owned by an oil industry businessman.

Scalia Was Cheney Hunt Trip Guest; Ethics Concern Grows - Los Angeles Times

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia traveled as an official guest of Vice President Dick Cheney on a small government jet that served as Air Force Two when the pair came here last month to hunt ducks.

The revelation cast further doubts about whether Scalia can be an impartial judge in Cheney's upcoming case before the Supreme Court, legal ethics experts said. The hunting trip took place just weeks after the high court agreed to take up Cheney's bid to keep secret the details of his energy policy task force.

According to those who met them at the small airstrip here, the justice and the vice president flew from Washington on Jan. 5 and were accompanied by a second, backup Air Force jet that carried staff and security aides to the vice president.

Two military Black Hawk helicopters were brought in and hovered nearby as Cheney and Scalia were whisked away in a heavily guarded motorcade to a secluded, private hunting camp owned by an oil industry businessman.

Scalia Was Cheney Hunt Trip Guest; Ethics Concern Grows - Los Angeles Times

That was 2004. Have you any idea what happened on that case? The far-left Times got it wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I had no idea Scallia was anti-gay.

So it's true because Barney said so?

I have no idea if it's true. We know so little about these people on the Supreme Court. They're the only people who actually create laws who we don't vote for. I think we need to vote for the people who are going to write laws for us obey.

RETARD ALERT. Judges do NOT write laws. They have no authority to legislate at all. But being a good Liberal you are aware your Liberal Judges do JUST that so expect the same from Conservative Judges.

 

[DiveCon]

So it's true because Barney said so?

I have no idea if it's true. We know so little about these people on the Supreme Court. They're the only people who actually create laws who we don't vote for. I think we need to vote for the people who are going to write laws for us obey.

RETARD ALERT. Judges do NOT write laws. They have no authority to legislate at all. But being a good Liberal you are aware your Liberal Judges do JUST that so expect the same from Conservative Judges.

i think it shows how few in this country know how our government is supposed to function, under the constitution

 

[frazzledgear]

So it's true because Barney said so?

I have no idea if it's true. We know so little about these people on the Supreme Court. They're the only people who actually create laws who we don't vote for. I think we need to vote for the people who are going to write laws for us obey.

RETARD ALERT. Judges do NOT write laws. They have no authority to legislate at all. But being a good Liberal you are aware your Liberal Judges do JUST that so expect the same from Conservative Judges.

Let me add my own RETARD ALERT to that David! Only the legislative branch of government is supposed to write and pass laws -whether talking about state law or federal law, it is the sole province of the legislative branch. And it is ELECTED PEOPLE who fill the legislative branch in both state and federal government. Filled with elected people who will be held accountable for how they do their job by the people and thrown out of office and replaced with others if people dislike the laws they wrote and passed and want them changed or discarded. We live in a democratic republic -which means WE THE PEOPLE get to decide -through our elected representatives -what laws we CHOOSE to be governed by. Judges are the interpreters of the LAW and are expected to interpret laws in accordance with the actual INTENT of those laws, not bastardize the interpretation so that application of that law means something totally different.

Judges are not the people who write or pass the laws -they ONLY interpret the law. Justices of the Supreme Court are ONLY interpreters of the Constitution AS WRITTEN and are supposed to interpret the Constitution in accordance with the INTENT of the relevant portion of the Constitution and not bastardize it to mean something totally different or whatever they wish it would mean. They are not the authors or modifiers of the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution requires the consent of the governed -you know, that WE THE PEOPLE part again. Government works for WE THE PEOPLE and WE THE PEOPLE get to decide what laws we will be governed by -not the other way around. Which is why a whole lot of people get really pissed off when courts decide to create new law from the bench which is NOT in their power to do and bypasses the will of WE THE PEOPLE.

Anyone who doesn't know the different functions of each branch of government and understand what is meant by "checks and balance" or even why the founders wrote the kind of Constitution they did -oh, please take a remedial US Constitution class or something, ok? Ignorance isn't bliss -its dangerous. How can you possibly understand or place any real value on the unique system of government you have, comprehend the INCREDIBLE difference in your system compared to all others in the world or even understand what you would lose by turning it into one more copy of an historically failed system -when you choose to be IGNORANT about how it even works?

 

[Sarah G]

I though Scalia and Cheney were lovers.

My mistake...

Now THAT picture is painful.

Scalia doesn't seem to enjoy much adulation anymore now that Repubs are out. Maybe now he understands how Ruth Bader Ginsberg felt while the wingnuts were in power.

Suck it up Scalia, nobody cares about you feeling offended.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I had no idea Scallia was anti-gay.

I haven't read the opinion in question, but it sounds like he dissented to striking down the anti-sodomy laws because he's a strict constructionist, i.e. he felt it was an issue to be decided individually by states. While this doesn't make Scalia a homophobe, it does make it true that he would likely side with States banning gay marriage.

 

[Ravi]

I had no idea Scallia was anti-gay.

So it's true because Barney said so?

I have no idea if it's true. We know so little about these people on the Supreme Court. They're the only people who actually create laws who we don't vote for. I think we need to vote for the people who are going to write laws for us obey.

They don't write laws or create them. They interpret them. Jebus. You're as bad as Scalia...how the hell did he get on the court if he doesn't even understand his job?

 

[FactFinder]

Old Barney trying to change the subject from his back door dealing with banks.

 

[Gunny]

I wonder what would happen if Scalia called Frank a queer.

Are you kidding? There'd be 20 threads on it -- 10 here and 10 in current events.

 

[Gunny]

I had no idea Scallia was anti-gay.

To anyone's actual knowledge he is not. This is just another case of Barney Frank talking out his ass and the left giving him a pass.

 

[Gunny]

It's okay for Barney Frank to be a total idiot, but what about the people who voted for him???

BINGO! We have a winner.

Dems don't hold their own accountable and they'll vote blindly for anything with a "D" behind it.

 

[Gunny]

I had no idea Scallia was anti-gay.

I haven't read the opinion in question, but it sounds like he dissented to striking down the anti-sodomy laws because he's a strict constructionist, i.e. he felt it was an issue to be decided individually by states. While this doesn't make Scalia a homophobe, it does make it true that he would likely side with States banning gay marriage.

It makes it likely he would side with states deciding their own laws per the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Gunny]

So it's true because Barney said so?

I have no idea if it's true. We know so little about these people on the Supreme Court. They're the only people who actually create laws who we don't vote for. I think we need to vote for the people who are going to write laws for us obey.

They don't write laws or create them. They interpret them. Jebus. You're as bad as Scalia...how the hell did he get on the court if he doesn't even understand his job?

He understands his job. It's not his job to rule in accordance with what Ravi does and does not consider Constitutional.

 

[Sarah G]

I don't vote blindly for my Reps and Senators and I believe Frank's constituents find him tough and very capable of representing them in Washington.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't vote blindly for my Reps and Senators and I believe Frank's constituents find him tough and very capable of representing them in Washington.

BULLSHIT. You have been here long enough for us to know you are a koolaid drinking Liberal that Fawns at the feet of Obama.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I had no idea Scallia was anti-gay.

So it's true because Barney said so?

I have no idea if it's true. We know so little about these people on the Supreme Court. They're the only people who actually create laws who we don't vote for. I think we need to vote for the people who are going to write laws for us obey.

Well, why the hell do you liberal morons keep encouraging them to illegally write laws from the bench, then, if you're so damned worried about it? The solution isn't to politicize the Justices further by making it an elected position. The solution is for leftist numbskulls to read the Constitution and start abiding by it.