TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Barney Frank calls Justice Scalia a homophobe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barney Frank calls Justice Scalia a homophobe

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090323/D9741AQ81.html

Quote:
"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.

Barney Frank is such a liar.
post #2 of 28
I don't have a whole lot of respect for Barney Frank to begin with and disrespecting a Supreme Court justice certainly isn't going to win any points. What I'd like to see is some decent investigative journalism into Frank and campaign contributions and ties between those contributors and his legislative and committee records. Selling all those shovels and pitchforks ought to help get this economy moving again.
post #3 of 28
Barney Frank is a complete joke. He can't even pull off an act that can allow for him to be taken seriously. I can't understand how some of these people keep getting elected and he is number one on that list as far as I am concerned.
post #4 of 28
The opinion that Frank references makes him look very homophobic.
post #5 of 28
Thread Starter 
You mean this opinion sounds homophobic

Quote:
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.
How can that be considered homophobic? I think he is right.
post #6 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
You mean this opinion sounds homophobic



How can that be considered homophobic? I think he is right.
This news report outlining his opinion isn't homophobic. The wording of his opinion appears to be.
post #7 of 28
Thread Starter 
Barney Franks wishes he could have a fraction of the class that Justice Scalia has.

How a Senator can keep getting elected time after time after time after running a prostitution ring out of his own house is beyond me.
post #8 of 28
Barney Frank and "intelligent" are two words we shouldn't have to worry about being used in the same sentence. Like Pelosi, every time they open their mouths it's a train wreck waiting to happen.
post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Barney Franks wishes he could have a fraction of the class that Justice Scalia has.

How a Senator can keep getting elected time after time after time after running a prostitution ring out of his own house is beyond me.
What does that have to do with his opinion of Scalia's comments? And how does stating an opinion make someone a liar?
post #10 of 28
Thread Starter 
Barney Frank, IMO, has no credibility whatsoever, based on what he let go on in his house and what was allowed to go on with Fannie and Freddie.

Barney Frank has a lot of nerve name calling Justice Scalia for his opinion
after the way he has harmed this country.
post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Barney Frank, IMO, has no credibility whatsoever, based on what he let go on in his house and what was allowed to go on with Fannie and Freddie.

Barney Frank has a lot of nerve name calling Justice Scalia for his opinion
after the way he has harmed this country.
What does that have to do with his opinion of Scalia's comments? And how does stating an opinion make someone a liar?

Is it that you feel Frank's opinion is wrong, or that he just shouldn't dare to have one?
post #12 of 28
Justice Scalia is correct in his opinion, but he doesn't go far enough. It's not up to judges to decide morality, and furthermore, it's not up to legislators, either. Legislators decide what behaviors are regulated by the law for the good of society. If someone's morality conflicts with the behavior regulated by the law, then tough beans. It's when their behavior is against the law that they get arrested. It's not their morals that get them arrested, it's their violation of the law. And it's up to the courts to decide whether the law is appropriate given the extent of the danger to society. If the law is weak given the danger, then the courts can impose the maximum sentence. And visa versa. But morals shouldn't even enter into it. And if the Supreme Court decides the law is unconstitutional, then they strike it down. Again, morals have nothing to do with it.

Justice Scalia got it half right.

Barney Frank got it all wrong.

As he often does.

Therefore, MY opinion is that he can keep his opinions to himself.
post #13 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
What does that have to do with his opinion of Scalia's comments? And how does stating an opinion make someone a liar?

Is it that you feel Frank's opinion is wrong, or that he just shouldn't dare to have one?
I think he is lying when he says Justice Scalia is a homophobe. Because Justice Scalia doesn't believe SCOTUS should make moral judgements does not make him a homophobe.

I think Barney Frank is one of the main bad guys in Congress, he is revolting to me.
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think he is lying when he says Justice Scalia is a homophobe. Because Justice Scalia doesn't believe SCOTUS should make moral judgements does not make him a homophobe.

I think Barney Frank is one of the main bad guys in Congress, he is revolting to me.
Scalia's very own dissenting opinions seem to me to support what Frank says.

Quote:
Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even “animus†toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of “animus†at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct.â€
However, he seems to have no issues with participating and offering rulings on issues that would adversely affect homosexuals.
post #15 of 28
Like what issues in particular?
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
How a Senator can keep getting elected time after time after time after running a prostitution ring out of his own house is beyond me.
Because I and many others keep voting for him.

He's a Representative by the way, not a Senator.
post #17 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbysMom View Post
Because I and many others keep voting for him.

He's a Representative by the way, not a Senator.

Whoops, my bad.

I was under the impression that he didn't feel SCOTUS should be judging issues of morality.
post #18 of 28
According to his dissenting statement, Scalia applied his ideas of morality to the issue instead of purely interpreting the law. The most simple version of the case in question was only "does having separate and unequal laws for heterosexual and homosexual couples violate the 14th amendment?" His little homophobic rant in his statement was quiet unnecessary. But in all fairness, I'm sure it came from the heart.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
"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.
So, does Barney think they get more than one vote in the SCOTUS, think that the other Justices don't have minds of their own and make their own decisions on the rulings, or did he just forget that there are NINE justices that make rulings and not just one?
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
So, does Barney think they get more than one vote in the SCOTUS, think that the other Justices don't have minds of their own and make their own decisions on the rulings, or did he just forget that there are NINE justices that make rulings and not just one?
It sounds to me as though he may be one of the types that will yammer about anything as long as it gets his name into the news.
post #21 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
According to his dissenting statement, Scalia applied his ideas of morality to the issue instead of purely interpreting the law. The most simple version of the case in question was only "does having separate and unequal laws for heterosexual and homosexual couples violate the 14th amendment?" His little homophobic rant in his statement was quiet unnecessary. But in all fairness, I'm sure it came from the heart.
I don't take that statement of Justice Scalia as homophobic at all. I don't see it, not the way I read it. Read it again.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I don't take that statement of Justice Scalia as homophobic at all. I don't see it, not the way I read it. Read it again.
I have read it. I read it shortly after the case was heard, and a dozen or so times since, and I have to agree. Homophobic isn't the correct word! Homomalevolence would be much more accurate.
post #23 of 28
Thread Starter 
I don't see it. Malevolence is nowhere that I can see. Perception is the key I guess.
post #24 of 28
I'm not debating anything about Frank because I know nothing about him. Everything I "know" about him is from it being posted here, and I honestly don't consider him to truly be worth the time to research. But, I look at him with the "Even a stopped clock..." viewpoint. And his opinion of Scalia, though not necessarily his wording, is one of his "right moments".

Scalia's comparison of homosexual relationships to "prostitution, or the illegal use of heroin" is especially endearing.
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
I didn't take Justic Scalia's remarks that way at all. I took it as he didn't feel SCOTUS should make moral judgements and that is all.
If he was such a anti-gay person, one would think he would want to make a judgement so he could go against gay people.
Not everyone that is conservative is against gay people you know.
post #26 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I'm not debating anything about Frank because I know nothing about him. Everything I "know" about him is from it being posted here, and I honestly don't consider him to truly be worth the time to research. But, I look at him with the "Even a stopped clock..." viewpoint. And his opinion of Scalia, though not necessarily his wording, is one of his "right moments".

Scalia's comparison of homosexual relationships to "prostitution, or the illegal use of heroin" is especially endearing.

Be glad you don't know much about him as he is surely not any kind of role model for gay people, in fact he is the opposite, along with his BF's
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I didn't take Justic Scalia's remarks that way at all. I took it as he didn't feel SCOTUS should make moral judgements and that is all.
If he was such a anti-gay person, one would think he would want to make a judgement so he could go against gay people.
Not everyone that is conservative is against gay people you know.
He DID want to make a judgment. Dissent in this case doesn't mean that he withheld his vote, it means that he voted quite vigorously against the majority of the court. And he spent 21 pages explaining how "the homosexual agenda" was going to nullify laws against all manner of heinous crimes such as rape, incest, illegal drug use, murder, zoophile acts, homosexuality, etc. (note the company he likes to throw gays in with)

Interestingly enough, the case of Lawrence originated in Texas, and at the time of his dissent and possibly to this day, acts of Zoophilia are still legal in Texas. Imagine that! You'd think Scaila would have known that. Maybe he didn't do all of his homework after all.

They tried to outlaw homosexual relations between 2 humans, but heterosexual relations between a human and animals is legal. For a state government so engrossed in legislating morality, that is just plain weird.
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
I don't even know what that zoo word means and I don't want to so please don't tell me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Barney Frank calls Justice Scalia a homophobe