Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Press Crestfallen Over Alito Confirmation

*cue music*

Advocate sez: “It’s the end of the world as we know it.”

The confirmation troubled many gay rights leaders who opposed Alito’s nomination on the grounds that he would likely vote against the advancement of gay rights.

If Alito were nominated by Bill Clinton, they would have wrote: “Alito’s record is unclear on gay rights, but we are confident the Gay Messiah will anoint him with his Presidential blessing and ensure he upholds DOMA.”

I found this note at the bottom of the Advocate news article quite amusing: ” (AP, with additional reporting by Advocate.com) ”

Um, more like with additional editorializing by Advocate.com.

Meanwhile I see that the Gay Left is unhinged and has their hate campaign all revved up. (hat tip: Malcontent)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

9 Comments

  1. Supreme Court nominations are one of the few areas where Clinton kept his promise. Ginsburg and Breyer have been sympathetic to gay issues.

    Bush said he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, so he has also kept his promise.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - January 31, 2006

  2. Gay Press Crestfallen Over Alito Confirmation

    They were so upset they dropped their toothpaste?

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - January 31, 2006

  3. Bruce, you scooped me; I was going to post on this after the SOTU. Guess I’ll have to focus on the Democratic movie awards Oscars.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 31, 2006 @ 8:53 pm - January 31, 2006

  4. Ginsburgh and Breyer voted to eliminate property rights (Kelo) and to eliminate free speech (McCain/Feingold). I gues the gay-rights promise wasn’t the only promise Clinton was keeping.

    Bush had to be forced into keeping his promise- when it comes to law, Harriet Myers isn’t fit to shine Clarence Thomas’ shoes.

    Comment by DaveP. — January 31, 2006 @ 9:26 pm - January 31, 2006

  5. -Ginsburgh and Breyer voted to eliminate property rights (Kelo)-

    So did 3 Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican Presidents. That really doesn’t have anyting to do with either party.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - January 31, 2006

  6. Carl, that excuses anything how?

    Comment by DaveP. — January 31, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - January 31, 2006

  7. It’s interesting how the people who run this sight seem to get off on gleefully attacking any gay person, group, individual, etc. who doesn’t agree with them. A quick glance down the topics on the page over the last few weeks shows many more devoted to attacking others than to discussing the topics of their views of patriotism (ie the tribute to Reagain from last week).

    Comment by Kevin — January 31, 2006 @ 11:00 pm - January 31, 2006

  8. #5 – No, it does.

    The 3 Justices you’re referring to may have been appointed by Republican presidents, but they had to be appointed in the face of a strong Democratic Party and hence, were all closet liberals.

    In Kelo, the Court’s liberals all voted to eliminate property rights and kick an old woman out of her home… the Court’s staunch conservatives all voted to keep the old woman in her home.

    That’s what it has to do with party. There is no way a Democrat president would ever appoint a Kelo-opposing, non-liberal Justice. But there is a 50-50 chance that a Republican president would.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - January 31, 2006

  9. Calarato, do you hear what you write? I gave up trying to make sense of it. Even with the principle of charity, I couldn’t grasp what it was you thought you said. Is this ambiguity a tactic, or are you really that confused?

    Simply: Kelo was a bad decision, if you believe in the ostensive wording of the Bill of Rights. Stevens, a known liberal justice, made the only compelling conservative case for the absurd decision: Would the country rather the matter be in the hands of the judiciary or the legislature? Obviously the latter.

    But Stevens’ question begs the whole point. It’s a false dichotomy. The Bill of Rights is unequivocally clear about iminent domain. It doesn’t even suggest the question Stevens raises. The Constitution bars unjust confiscation of others’ property except for specified situations. New London violated those situations, but Stevens’ rejoinder was that it was better that the local legislative body violated the rights rather than the court. But, by not upholding the ostensive wording itself, the court in fact did the exact opposite of what it was claiming it wasn’t doing: The Court sided with the legislature versus siding with a “court,” but that’s a false petard. In effect, the Court did exactly what it said it wasn’t doing. It decided that legislatures can overturn the ostensive wording of the Bill of Rights. So the Court ultimately prevailed anyway by siding with itself and against the ostensive wording of the Document they were appraising.

    Many Republicans went along with this nonsense. At least Stevens’ boldface nonsense could be seen for what it was. And because it was fallacious from every perspective, one feels a certain despair. If words in concrete written form cannot withstand judicial activism, then nothing constitutionally cast means much of anything. More than anything, I think this is why the Kelo decision upset so many people. The people knew the meaning of the word “is,” but the Court could not find it, so it totally subverted the discussion into an absurd ruse. Worse than sad, it’s scary.

    Comment by Stephen — February 1, 2006 @ 1:25 am - February 1, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.