Barney frank should be as awkward for the gay community as david dukes was for the
lisey sweet white community. Trey. My wife keeps asking me who controls the congress because they control other agencies. I replied that they have adopted their own moral rules, which are hard to explain without laughing. Indeed, such actions are accountable to few, even to their constituents. Dtl barney frank? Reality-based community, my ass. I think i missed the backstory of the feud between frank and scalia. Dear ole barney may be trying to defend his way out in the financial crisis. I don't think he needs to be wary of anything coming up anytime soon, not in these mainstream media. No matter what, i think frank is annoyed by the language, according to scalia, and the concrete reference to "homosexuals" ... Maybe? ... You are either lying about having read this, or lying about what scalia wrote, or you are a disgustingly incompetent reader. For many, it no longer mattered whether a public figure (or journalist) was telling the truth or knew what he was talking about. For many people (for example, your commentators in manhattan), your statement at first glance is "transmitting a republican lie." Maybe hacking is another reason liberals hate althaus? Barney uses a tried and tested democratic party tactic: when the spotlight is on the users, on barney, but not on fanny/freddie), divert his attention span by clicking on an even worse mess, thus: “look! Homophobes! "Well, barney, i have read this opinion many times and i know that you are either lying about the fact that you read it, or lying about what scalia wrote, or being a shamefully incompetent reader. Barney frank is a liar and incompetent. However, from now on he is the hero of the new republics, along with chris dodd and joe biden, new republic heroes don't have to tell the truth or be competent, they don't care about the law if it goes against their personal or campaign agendas, i bet old barney also thinks scalia , frankly, angry at the fact that gay prostitution houses are lined with congressmen's houses scalia and thomas are both unenlightened fools, due to the fact that they refuse to repeal all laws in america in order to reach the devil that the left is behind today the lisping barney frank is constantly a disgrace to the state of massachusetts and a stain on the politics of this country.Frank is very smart.Smart enough to understand, and hardly anyone really read this opinion. Smart enough to know the press would never call him on that occasion. Yes, barney frank misrepresented scalia's position. However, as a recovering textualist, i think this post highlights what is fundamentally wrong with textualism and judicial respect for the will of the legislature by using services, namely: the presumption on account of this legislative democratic majority, when, however, all judicial presumptions must be loaded into favor of individual freedom. And against locking up citizens, at the cellular level. Because of my moral opposition to abortion, i ridiculed the "invention" by the courts of the so-called "privacy document". I now believe that since the constitution does not explicitly take away our ability to privacy in relation to the government, the ability to privacy is considered the only one of those fundamental rights that are reserved for the people. Trial lawyers talk all the time about "getting rid of the bloody shirt." This phrase refers to a district attorney who draws on the bloodied clothing of a murder victim, something he has presented as evidence, and rants about the horror of the crime during his closing argument. Frank learned to express horror at the actual suppression of homosexual energy around the world throughout the 1990s. So frank does what the da does: talks about such strong moral indignation that it outweighs all rational arguments. Travelers who are willing to believe in frank just because he is gay are now being fooled. This should surprise no one. Disagree with obama and you are a racist. Not ready with frank and you are a homophobe. That's what they do. Run home to "mom" (political correctness) anytime if their particular class is publishing some kind of "clarification". They are cowards who hide from the real, using smoke and mirrors to divert the light of truth from themselves. It is good to recall that the wallpaper intends to hide behind the robes of liberal judges who hope for a so-called "living constitution" but not for the foundation intended by the founding fathers. Vote properly in 2010.I saw this rule on cnn this morning, and frank made a rather salient remark that caught my eye: doesn't scalia's disagreement with lawrence contradict his disagreement with rohmer? Of course, in both cases he prioritizes legislation on statehood, but in the lawrence version he seems to be saying that gays and lesbians can get all the legislative reserves to get equality, a possibility he would disenfranchise romer. Deprivation of gays and lesbians being able to seek remedies at the local level, but not at the state level, and at the state level, but not at the federal level, has the practical effect that they are not able to seek remedies at all. Being from massachusetts, i always try to warn people about that old meme about the "brainy" and intelligent barney frank. Today, michael barone gets rid of the "smart" compliment in a critique. I think that the intriguing, intellectually honest, assertive iconoclast has retired from the political scene at least recently. There was a predictable, spoiled, bitter queen. Now i believe that since the constitution doesn't even take away our ability to have privacy in terms of the
https://vrhunter.net/tags/mona%20wales/ government, the right to privacy is considered one of those basic rights that are reserved for the people. You see, i would argue that the right to determine privacy is still reserved to states, because all rights, whether you call them "fundamental" or "inalienable" because of this, are determined by people anyway. Disagree with obama and you are a racist. Basically, brad. I argued with elcubanitokc about this. Check out this comment thread. I didn't have to say, not a word. Elcubanitokc graciously conceded defeat and paid the bet - although i can't remember where the comment thread did this at the moment. I acknowledge that the bet continues. I think that the chance of the phenomenon that i have to pay is vanishingly small. It certainly has the advantage of nothing to do with the factor that barney frank causes embarrassment and what the press has dropped (again without causing him with this ridiculous tirade. Did anyone see frank yesterday during the aig hearing period? Go on and talk about the likelihood of food, that he would lose weight or gain weight? That was embarrassing. And of course he was in love with mortgages long before he spoke out against them. He's a psycho. That's why liberals have a bad impression of althouse commentators. Post criticizing barney frank's views on opinion of the supreme court, contains comments, thanks to which he is called a "lisping" "embittered queen". By the way, i agree with althaus's post. Scalia is too smart to reduce his personal dislike of gays to a written opinion. However, a man refers to gays exclusively through a clinical term "homosexual", although with virtually no gay groups that use this phrase to describe themselves, and his reverence for the democratic process is significant but more in line with socially conservative legislation than liberal. Madisonman, we propose to appear even soon, if his position becomes precarious ... Or not only that, based on who but. Hehe. Of course, in both situations he prioritizes state law, but in lawrence's situation he seems to be saying that gays and lesbians can have all legislative prospects before achieving equality, a possibility he would disenfranchise romer. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't rohmer's amendment 2 adopted by the people of colorado? Scalia did not seek to "deprive" someone of "legislative opportunities", but is not ready for scotus to interfere in the constitutional choice made directly by the people of colorado. “Because the constitution does not even remove our right to privacy in relation to the government, the possibility of privacy remains the main of all the fundamental rights that are reserved for people.” I do not speculate that documents "preserved by the people" but not even mentioned in the constitution (or reasonably implied by it) are "fundamental rights" as the phrase is put in constitutional law. And i don't believe the supreme court is empowered to enforce them on constitutional grounds. To: all re: barney [dinosaur] frank the senator should remember this saying... The people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Deal after all not in is, that partner homosexual. I realized that there are some interesting money issues. Sincerely, chuck(le) [people who live in glass houses are forbidden to frolic naked on the piano, imitating gorillas.] However, a person refers to gays only with the clinical term "homosexual", although they absolutely do not exist. Gay groups that use this phrase to describe themselves. God. I use "homosexual" to include gays and lesbians.Because they call themselves this week? I don't know if i'm homophobic, but i'm francophobic for sure. This guy makes me feel bad. Anything must be in the water or above the land of massachusetts. They keep re-electing frank, kerry, kennedy and all the criminals, murderers and morons. Then, in the end, they exalt them. But it is recognized as a premise of our system that electrojudgments should be made by the people and not imposed by a ruling caste who knows perfectly well. Except when they vote, then it's possible to take party agreement on the hack and tell the future ruling cast not to refer to the surfing decision because, you know, that was hack. However, he only resorts to gays with a clinical term "homosexual", although there are virtually no gay groups that use this phrase to describe themselves. Imagine that! The use of "clinical" definitions in the opinion of the supreme court! What is this world coming to? Does anyone think about children?? Edh: yes, which i seem to have acknowledged in my comment. But scalia's argument, that minority groups should seek protection for your rights only through legislatures and through legislation of the highest order, loses much of its weight when practical implications are considered. In the event that you declare it unconstitutional in a state when a minority group seeks equal rights at the city level, you are suggesting hostility towards a particular group in order to prevent that group from asserting its own rights as well as any other group can. In lawrence, the same hostility motivated the passage of state legislation against sodomy. Despite scalia's (usually eloquent) arguments that the courts are superior to the legislature, many readers of lawrence and rohmer can be told that scalia is ingenious in trying to justify laws that clearly demonstrate dislike of gays and lesbians. Reading lawrence and romer together, do you think scalia's logic will overturn brown's case against education recommendations? Just as liberals choose to ignore the tenth amendment, hardline conservatives like scalia and thomas should not appreciate the ninth amendment, which bork called an "ink blot". Somehow the insects can't seem to come to the conclusion that the "pursuit of happiness" is meaningless when you can never run your most significant relationship as you see fit, and the finances for this are protected by the ninth. And, hovsep, each of us read the comments in liberal blogs. I would not work so high and mighty. Scalia's disagreement with lawrence necessitates a failure to distinguish between criminal penalties for consensual consensual private homosexual behavior from laws against bestiality and child pornography. The process is not a clear case of anti-gay animosity, but it certainly suggests some intellectual dishonesty, which althaus accuses frank. Neither scalia nor thomas are looking hard enough. There is clearly room for privacy and the possibility for consensual sexual behavior with other adults of the same sex. It's called the ninth amendment. And they are called "unlisted rights." While i appreciate justice's stance on a literal/strict reading of the constitution, they and a host of other originalists... Forget that the constitution was designed to both serve as a limitation on the reach of the state and to expand individual freedom to the greatest extent possible. Of course, the ninth amendment is the most underused amendment in the legal limits bill. Equating gays and lesbians with a minority group” is where the argument gets out of hand. It is about the character, not about the circumstances of the race (what gets into the state of being”, not about the future). Associating behavior with race or sexual preference is a very dangerous precedent. It was about sodomy. This behavior is not limited to sexual desires, due to the fact that it can be performed by heterosexuals or homosexuals. The fact that the plaintiffs were gay is irrelevant to such a decision, minus those who are either idiots or charlatans of freedom. What frank and company suggest is that the state of texas should be prohibited from legislating for the connivance they justify, and they manage to frame their arguments in a spirit of freedom. Denying to the people their right to form any government of their own choice and to invite (through their respective legislatures) laws and rules of conduct of their own choosing - curious is freedom. Agree or disagree as much as you like, but the essence of freedom is to let the people decide what behavior they seek to criminalize and what is outside the scope of government intervention. It doesn't matter if you agree that sodomy should be criminalized or not.What matters is whether you support the right of the people to determine what habits and actions should be legal or illegal. Nowhere in the constitution does the federal government have the authority to decide this issue for residents of texas (or any commercial state). If texas wants to pass laws against public fornication or sex without marriage, it has the right to do so. This is no different. As long as the laws apply to everyone equally, it's allowed. Frank proposes that the constitution be amended to say something along the lines of: "the people, through their legislatures in the various states, are prohibited from enacting laws against the behavior we love." I also know that homosexuality laws are stupid. It has nothing to do with my opinion that users in mercantile states have the legal right and authority to declare these acts criminal if they so desire. I try to convince them otherwise and vote for representatives who agree with my opinion. Everyone else gets the same fact the same vote. I'm not tall and powerful. I am definitely making inappropriate and politically incorrect comments here and elsewhere. But more recently, althaus has made headlines as a result of ezra klein vilifying her commentators for their anti-semitic remarks about him. If you criticize frank because his application is wrong or stupid or dishonest or whatever, fine. But, if you call it a lisping queen, don't expect others to respect your forum. That's why liberals have a bad impression of althouse commentators. A post criticizing barney frank's views on the supreme court's opinion includes comments calling him a "lisping" "embittered queen." I said that frank became a "spoiled, bitter queen." Perhaps i shouldn't have used the ambiguous expression "spoiled queen." I've used it to describe frank's protected, underserved status as a congressional gay public defender, given how i perceive his rejection of intellectual honesty on various issues over time. I used this phrase to express disappointment at how far he had fallen, but not hostility about his orientation, it was constant. However, i also believe that the bitterness in his personal and public life serves many purposes in frank's rejection of intellectual honesty. "Cynicism" might be a better word, but frank stopped caring about the honesty of his arguments, i think, earlier. Even in the face of unprecedented gains in the gay rights zone. I believe that such (somewhat public) personal failures and staring into the jaws of one's own contradictory incompetence in the current financial crisis have created a cognitive dissonance that, to put it mildly, has taken its toll. And the user didn't feel that frank's words about scalia from left field weren't suffused with bitterness? “Obviously, there may be a right to privacy and a right to consensual sexual behavior with similar adults of the same sex. This is called the ninth amendment. And they are called "non-listed rights". Oh yeah. Is this the amendment that keeps you from bullying your pet or neighbor if the pet likes it? Give us a break! >well, barney, i've read this decision several times and know that the viewer is either lying about everything they read it, or lying about what scalia wrote, or becoming a shamefully incompetent reader. You click out of sight the possibility that his use read the opinion, understood it, but lies about the information that he understood. You underestimate the dishonesty of this foreigner at your peril and threat. Connie du toit said that "the essence of freedom lies in the fact to help the people decide what behavior they love to criminalize and what is outside the scope of state intervention." This is not true on most levels. (And, come to think of it, my mother's maiden name was duthoit.) Practically, "the people" is a legal fiction. Further, the essence of freedom is to help people achieve happiness in whatever way they see fit, as long as they do not violate the equal rights of others to the same. The essence of freedom lies in the recognition that no person and every group of people, even a group of people who call themselves “the many, can tell others how to live by this system. Any use of force against others is either morally justified or morally unjustified, and the government's inquiry does not affect the nuance of whether a particular use of force is held on one or the other side of the barricades. "However, he refers to gay people only through the clinical term "homosexual", although there are actually no gay groups that implement this phrase to describe themselves." Wow, scalia used a longer, more technical term when there is a shorter one in everyday use? It's impossible for me to find a person for a lawyer to do this! God.I use "homosexual" to include gays and lesbians. So what do midges call their products this week? "Gay" (including lesbians) or "gays and lesbians". I've been openly gay for fifteen years now and don't always remember a time when gay people called themselves or a friend of a friend gay. It's good that you strive to be sensitive and receptive to lesbians, but if you're at
