Gay Patriot Header Image

NGLTF Outraged at Roberts’ Confirmation, Favors a Nominee like Clarence Thomas

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:01 pm - September 29, 2005.
Filed under: Constitutional Issues,Gay Politics

It seems that the folks over at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are easily outraged. While exactly half of the Senate’s Democratic caucus (including such “blue state” liberals as Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and Connecticut’s Christopher Dodd) voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice, the Task Force calls his “confirmation ‘beyond disappointing — outrageous’

In a release filled with more vitriol than sense, Eleanor D. Acheson, NGLTF’s Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs faulted the Senate for failing to “stand up to the administration and effectively relinquished its constitutional ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities.” It seems she believes that “advice and consent” means delay and obstruct as she subsequently takes the Senate to task for “not holding Roberts’ nomination until he fully answered all the questions asked.” I wonder if she’s also upset that the Senate confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with a higher percentage of Republicans supporting that one-time ACLU activist) even though she had failed to fully answer all the questions asked. Or maybe it’s just that she interprets the Senate’s “advise and consent” role differently when a Republican is in the White House.

In the penultimate paragraph of her statement, she seems to be asking the president to follow his father’s lead and appoint another justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas. She demands that “The next nominee must be a person whose life experience includes some real exposure to and understanding of the disadvantaged and marginalized in our society and of the diversity of our population in myriad respects.

A black man born in the segregated South, the future justice grew up in a small town without paved roads or sewers. His father abandoned the family when he was two. That sounds pretty disadvantaged and marginalized. And he’s been aware of the diversity of our population since he was very young, living with his grandmother who was an “ardent Democrat” and attending a school run by white nuns.

Although I agree that another Justice like Thomas would be an asset to the court, I disagree with the NGLTF about John Roberts’ confirmation. The president respected the Constitution’s advice and consent clause (for such appointments) by consulting with Senators before he announced his pick and providing enough information for the Senators to make an informed evaluation of the nominee. It speaks well of those twenty-two Senate Democrats who were not swayed by the attacks of left-wing interest groups on Roberts. These men and women well fulfilled their constitutional responsibility, judging Roberts on his accomplishments and judicial temperament.

Once again, NGLTF has overboard in making its point. Even when I agree with them, their statements put me off. The group seems more interested in attacking their adversaries, religious as well as political, than in engaging them with thoughtful criticism and rational argument.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE–Just like NGLTF, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is no slouch when it comes to name-calling. Its press release on John Robert’s confirmation begins with a statement from organization president, Joe Solmonese, saying the new Chief Justice has been given the “a stamp of approval by the extreme right-wing.” Well, Joe, he’s also been given the stamp of approval of the entire Republican caucus in the Senate, half the Democratic caucus, including such liberals as Washington State’s Patty Murray and Wisconsin’s Feingold.

Share

27 Comments

  1. So, I guess the 78 senators who voted to confirm him are all out-of-the-mainstream radical right-wingers.

    Comment by V the K — September 29, 2005 @ 5:28 pm - September 29, 2005

  2. GPW,

    NGLTF view of Robert’s lack of answers vs. Ginsburg’s is all based upon their view of the court.

    In order for them to get their liberal ‘legislation from the bench’, they need a steady stream of liberal activists to maintain their efforts, otherwise it collapses. So to maintain this machine they have created, they must do whatever is needed to keep activists on the bench.

    Ginsburg had a very liberal pre-confirmation paper trail, so they knew her leanings. They needed information on Roberts in order to defeat him, so they played the ‘we know nothing about him’ routine, knowing full well his views of being an umpire, and looking to destroy the machine.

    The NGLTF, and other liberal groups, are fixated on a system that needs constant energy and requires a lot of energy (in the form of distortions, name-calling, exageration) to get a little bit of work. Think of the second law of thermodynamics and friction. As soon as they let one ‘original intent’ justics through, the friction grinds their efforts to a halt.

    Which can be a good thing 🙂

    Comment by Wendy — September 29, 2005 @ 5:29 pm - September 29, 2005

  3. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    We will never get anything closer to a gay-neutral or gay-tolerant Chief Justice from the Bush Administration than we got this time, with Roberts. Not to mention a great legal mind and someone whose “heart”, by all appearances, is well big enough or perfectly sized for the job. I am relieved that he’s in!

    Now maybe on the next one, I’ll worry a little. (Bush has appointed a couple of truly anti-gay people, here and there.) But having seen how poorly NGLTF, HRC, etc. did with Roberts, I’ll be sure to take all their comments with a VERY large grain of salt.

    Comment by joe — September 29, 2005 @ 5:36 pm - September 29, 2005

  4. Wait until Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown as O’Connor’s replacement to SCOTUS. Will the MSM/HRC/XYZPDQ crowd be called “racist” and “sexist” for opposing the nomination of a female African-American circuit court judge?

    To paraphrase Ann Coulter, I hope they have the cameras ready so we can watch George Soros’ head explode when Brown is nominated.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2005 @ 5:47 pm - September 29, 2005

  5. Is Brown pro- or anti-gay? I know I like her stand on property rights.

    Comment by Radical4Capitalism — September 29, 2005 @ 6:09 pm - September 29, 2005

  6. I wonder if she’s also upset that the Senate confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with a higher percentage of Republicans supporting that one-time ACLU activist) even though she had failed to fully answer all the questions asked. Or maybe it’s just that she interprets the Senate’s “advise and consent” role differently when a Republican is in the White House.

    While Ginsburg did not answer all questions fully, she did however provide a great deal more information about her views than Roberts has. I don’t have a problem with Roberts, but you are not making an entirely equal and fair comparison. And would you really want someone as unqualified as say Robert Bork on the court? More to the point, like a good and clever politician would, President Clinton negotiated and consulted with both Democrats and Republicans on the nomination of Ginsburg before sending her to the court. It was more or less a done deal before she even testified.

    George W. Bush is sometimes in the same room as someone else when they are speaking, but so far no one has ever actually caught him listening to that person if his preconceived views are in the way. Is he a uniter or a divider? Or maybe just an inept politician, no matter the Party?

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 29, 2005 @ 6:17 pm - September 29, 2005

  7. Radical, Judge Brown is great on property rights. But, Patrick, I disagree strongly with your characterization of the president. I just read a piece on Newsday where Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the president had consulted her on the next nominee. He consulted with Senators of both parties for the Roberts appointment and is buy consulting them for the next appointment.

    Roberts should have been as much (if not more) a “done deal” than Ginsburg. Ginsburg had a long track record as being a liberal jurist and an advocate of liberal causes and she was replacing a judge known for his conservative views. Roberts was as forthcoming as she in the Senate hearings.

    Finally, Robert was not unqualified for the court, indeed, was perhaps the most qualified man for the court at the time.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 29, 2005 @ 6:24 pm - September 29, 2005

  8. Most inept. After all, in 2004, Bush only got a bigger percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat for President got in 40 years.

    Comment by Radical4Capitalism — September 29, 2005 @ 6:25 pm - September 29, 2005

  9. Is Janice Rogers Brown anti-gay?

    This from Indegayforum:

    Want an example of how gay media distorts everything through the ideological lens of gay-left activists? Here’s an excerpt from the popular gay news site 365gay.com:

    Another Bush [federal appeals court] nominee, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, also holds a radical record of anti-gay judicial activism. In 2003, Brown was the only justice on the California Supreme Court to rule against recognizing the right of gay Californians to legally adopt their children. Brown argued that allowing a gay parent to legally adopt the biological child of their partner “trivializes family bonds.”

    Now here are some facts. In Sharon S. v. Superior Court, a convoluted case in which the biological mother and her partner broke up during the adoption proceedings and opposed each other in court, what Brown actually argued is that second-parent adoptions ought to require “a legal relationship between the birth and second parent,” or else it would “trivialize family bonds.” And, in fact, California’s 2001 law affords registered domestic partners the same streamlined adoption process as stepparents. What Brown was saying is that the state need not create another right to adopt for two individuals with no such legal bond.

    Just to make the point, here’s what California’s Contra Costa Times reported:

    Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her partial dissent that second-parent adoptions are not a “universal option” and legislators recognized this when they allowed registered domestic partners to have the same adoption rights as stepparents.

    And here’s what the lawyers on the other side were arguing, as reported by the American Bar Association Journal: “There’s a demand for second-parent adoption,” says Charles A. Bird, a San Diego lawyer who represents Annette F. “Some of that demand is for same-sex couples who for whatever reason don’t want to register as domestic partners, some of it is for heterosexual couples who don’t want to marry and some of the demand is for families where adoptions are done across generational lines.” (emphasis added)

    The 365gay.com site is not alone in mischaracterizing Justice Brown as a “radical” anti-gay extremist; a quick Google search showed the same spin throughout the activist community and its lapdog media.

    Comment by PatC — September 29, 2005 @ 7:21 pm - September 29, 2005

  10. Indeed, only two Democrats in the twentieth century (FDR & LBJ) exceeded the president’s popular vote percentage in 2004.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 29, 2005 @ 7:42 pm - September 29, 2005

  11. “Is he a uniter or a divider?” Can we please lay this red herring to rest? It’s just code for, “Does he please me or not?”

    Comment by EssEm — September 29, 2005 @ 7:42 pm - September 29, 2005

  12. “Most inept. After all, in 2004, Bush only got a bigger percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat for President got in 40 years.”

    He aint’ doin so good latetly though is he. But go ahead and just knock it up to yet another vast liberal media plot out to get the President.

    And here is someone George W. Bush should be listening too. Do you think he will? Don’t hold your breath.

    http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=41349360&url_num=1&url=http://www.nathanielfick.com/more/NYT9-20-05.pdf

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 29, 2005 @ 10:01 pm - September 29, 2005

  13. Only elections count.

    But if polls are what you value – some came out today showing how he is bouncing back up.

    Comment by Radical4Capitalism — September 29, 2005 @ 10:33 pm - September 29, 2005

  14. Your Iraq article – 2 reactions:

    – Very nice to see someone criticize Bush / Iraq from the standpoint of wanting us to win.

    – If personally you believe our prospects are that bad, you are not getting all the news. Fourth Rail (billroggio.com) has lots of good stuff.

    Comment by Radical4Capitalism — September 29, 2005 @ 10:45 pm - September 29, 2005

  15. Good post Dan and thanks for once again proving that leaders in the GayLeft are, at best, marginalized, fringe radicals clearly out of step with most voters, most policy leaders, most elected officals, and even the majority of the gay community. When Patrick-leaker-Leahy and Chris Dodd fail to follow the NGLTF’s edicts, it’s clear that at least those Democrat leaders comprehend how out-of-step the NGLTF’s position on Judge -now CJSCOTUS- Roberts is. And Dodd was once head of the Democrat Party.

    I wonder what Leahy and Vermont got for the pro-vote? Will Lake Champlain be declared the new 6th Great Lake and be able to feed at the porkbarrel trough of the fed govt? I see that even Vermont’s greatest conscience since Cal Coolidge, Jim Jeffords, broke through his medicated haze to vote for Judge Roberts. WeScream4HowieDean must be livid with his fellow Green Mountain men.

    Conservative, moderate and progressive gays everywhere should repudiate the radical politics of NGLTF, HRC and others –they’re selling our issues and us into political bondage with the Left… and making us impotent, irrelevent, and ignorable. Now, that’s leadership, eh?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 30, 2005 @ 9:12 am - September 30, 2005

  16. Anybody see the clip of Ginsberg defending Roberts’ not answering questions? It made me smile.

    Comment by Chad — September 30, 2005 @ 10:10 am - September 30, 2005

  17. In No. 15, Mich-Matt writes: “thanks for once again proving that leaders in the GayLeft are, at best, marginalized, fringe radicals clearly out of step with most voters, most policy leaders, most elected officals, and even the majority of the gay community.”

    Yeah, right — in your tiny Gay Republican world. Those cracks only shows your ignorance of the history of gains in the gay rights struggle, none of which can be credited to people like you, your party, or any of the other so-called Gay Patriots, who really are nothing more than Gay Republicans — people who put party, by god, before anything else, including country. How do you feel being a gay man who’s done nothing in the gay rights movement except criticize those who paved the way for him?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 30, 2005 @ 9:18 pm - September 30, 2005

  18. You mean the ones who call banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?

    How about the gay leftists, one of whom is now the head of HRC, who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to an FMA supporter?

    Isn’t it amazing how Queer Patriot berates people for being against gay marriage when it’s obvious that he wants to ban it himself?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2005 @ 1:55 am - October 1, 2005

  19. Thirty, you’ve been so repeatedly discredited here as a self-avowed bi-sexual who hates other gay people that I’m surprised you keep showing up to peddle your odd collection of beliefs that: 1) gay people are evil; 2) being gay is an easy choice in life; and 3) being gay is something that can be cured by reparative therapy. You’re one very strange troll.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 1, 2005 @ 8:41 am - October 1, 2005

  20. Great column. And very spot on. Sounds like they do, indeed, want anothe Clarence T. I support that 100%!!!

    Comment by Craig T — October 1, 2005 @ 1:11 pm - October 1, 2005

  21. Thirty, you’ve been so repeatedly discredited here as a self-avowed bi-sexual who hates other gay people that I’m surprised you keep showing up to peddle your odd collection of beliefs that: 1) gay people are evil; 2) being gay is an easy choice in life; and 3) being gay is something that can be cured by reparative therapy. You’re one very strange troll.

    LOL……only in your own mind, Queer Patriot, and mainly because I keep pointing out that you and your fellow gay leftists support banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights, even as you berate other people for doing so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 2:39 am - October 2, 2005

  22. Thirty, in No. 21, you say yet again say that I (QP) “support banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights”. After all I’ve written on the subject here, how stupid can you be? Very stupid AND hypocritical, apparently, considering that you, Thirty, even today persist in your support of GOP politicians who have tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution and who regularly vote as a majority against gay marriage and civil unions in every legislature where it has come up for a vote.

    Now, as to my pointing out that you have been “repeatedly discredited here as a self-avowed bi-sexual who hates other gay people that I’m surprised you keep showing up to peddle your odd collection of beliefs that: 1) gay people are evil; 2) being gay is an easy choice in life; and 3) being gay is something that can be cured by reparative therapy.”…I need only to refer the other readers to a concise summary of your views as found in Comment No. 68 of the following thread:

    http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=583

    Your claim of bi-sexuality and hateful comments about gay people, being gay as a choice, and reparative therapy are well-catalogued there for all to see.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 9:52 am - October 2, 2005

  23. Very simple, Queer Patriot; I’ve merely shown over and over again that you don’t consider it to be antigay when Democrats push, support, and advertise their support of laws and constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights.

    As for the rest, I stand by my statements; if people are interested in reading them, they will see from where I come and, as I put it before, that you are a bigot who insists on turning my words into something they’re not. Dina Felice did a wonderful job of putting you in your place in that same thread.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 1:39 pm - October 2, 2005

  24. Wow. I’d missed out on that other thread QP wanted us to read. What a jerk QP is there! QP, it would be better for you (or your reputation) if you didn’t go around recommending that thread.

    Comment by joe — October 3, 2005 @ 12:44 pm - October 3, 2005

  25. Ah, what a merry band of sisters, running around cleaning up each other’s poo.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 2:06 pm - October 4, 2005

  26. Thousands Now breast enhancement Who Never Thought They Could

    Comment by Breast Enhancement — October 25, 2006 @ 5:26 am - October 25, 2006

  27. Is Ruth B Ginsburg against Gay Marriage? I’m doing a paper and I can find it can you please help

    Comment by Zac — January 6, 2007 @ 12:30 pm - January 6, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.