Over at the Washington Monthly, they’re crying “bigotry” over a Republican’s remarks that a gay nominee to the Supreme Court would be going “too far”:
As he put it, the nominee has to be straight, otherwise the would-be justice “would be a bridge too far right now.” Honestly, what the hell does that mean? Thune, as a practical matter, is establishing a litmus test — qualifications and merit are important, but homosexuality, regardless of any other factor, is more important. Why? Because Thune says so.
Indeed, the president, Thune says, should “play it a little more down the middle.” What if the nominee is both gay and well within the judicial mainstream? Why would any thinking person assume that a gay nominee is necessarily someone on the ideological fringe?
I know that’s not a rhetorical question, even though it sure as heck sounds like one to conservatives, so I’ll answer it. As I’ve said already, many times, there is no way Obama nominates a mainstream candidate. Any person he puts up there is going to be just slightly — but just barely — to the right of Lenin and Marx. You put that political ideology together with a gay candidate, you’ll get judicial activism on gay marriage and all other sorts of so-called gay rights. It’s no different than if Obama nominated, say, a hard-core animal rights activist or an abortion-on-demand activist up there. We’re talking about the left, here. When it comes to legislating from the bench, this is what they do, so of course we’re concerned as much with what kind of person he puts up there as we are about what they believe and what their judicial record is.
Put it another way. Say George W. Bush nominated the most pro-life justice he could have thought of to the court. Do you think the left would have gone ape-s##t over that? Of course they would. Is it bigotry? Of course not, and neither is this.
Conservatives genuinely don’t give a rat’s a$$ if someone is gay or not, that’s their decision and their private lives. But what we do care about is how “in your face” gay activists have become over the last twenty years. This is not a lifestyle that should be promoted (and, granted, it’s not a lifestyle that should be vilified, either), but that’s exactly what is on the agenda with these kooks. It’s not enough that they’re gay, they have to make sure everyone knows it and they have to push for more and more rights, to the point where they have more rights than the average American has. I mean, look at what the left did with affirmative action. Do you honestly think they’re not going to try the same thing with the gays? Of course they will.
The job of a judge — whether it’s on the federal Supreme Court, a state Supreme Court, or on some appeals court somewhere — is to interpret the law, not write it. They’re not supposed to set policy, they’re supposed to decide whether said policy is legal or unconstitutional. But liberals know they can’t get their agenda passed by an honest vote, so they send these judges up to do their dirty work for them, reading things into constitutions that the writers never intended. That’s why we are where we are today.
You want to talk about the damage the left has done to this country, just look at the history of every one of our current problems. You can lay it all right in their laps. High divorce rates, broken families, single mothers, high crime, high poverty, high illiteracy, illegitimate kids, etc. These are all things that came from 1960s liberalism, the belief that “if it feels good, do it” and that there is and should be no consequences to ones actions. A person is never to blame for their own failings, it’s always someone else, never them. Modern-day liberals still believe the same things and still blame everyone and everything else for these problems except the real culprits: themselves.
And now they want to place a far-left, gay activist judge on the Supreme Court? With their record? Seriously, they expect us to believe this person will be honest, fair, and impartial? Puh-lease. We’ve had enough activism over the last thirty-odd years to last us a lifetime, just put someone up there that will interpret — honestly interpret — what the Constitution says and means.
Update: Legal Insurrection points out the following:
In that very same post, however, Yglesias referred to a possible heterosexual nominee as a “breeder,” which is a derogatory term for heterosexuals. Using that term is the equivalent of calling a homosexual a “fag.” Sounds like new-fashioned, un-subtle bigotry. I can’t wait to see the Media Matters’ press release.
Who are the bigots again?
