Conservatives Dismiss CA Gay Marriage Decision By Falsely Attacking ‘Unelected Judges’
Conservatives Dismiss CA Gay Marriage Decision By Falsely Attacking ‘Unelected Judges’
Responding to the California Supreme Court’s decision yesterday overturning the state’s ban on gay marriage, congressional conservatives attacked the decision by calling it the result of “unelected judges” turning over the will of the people.
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the House Minority Whip, charged in a statement that “unelected judges” are trying to “substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people”:
Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people.
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), piled on, saying that “unelected judges” had “irresponsibly decided to legislate from the bench.”
But, in making their rush to judgment about the CA decision, both Blunt and Feeney have the basic facts wrong about how California’s judicial system works. SmartVoter.org, a resource of the League of Women’s Voters, makes clear that California’s Supreme Court justices are “confirmed by the public at the next general election” after being appointed and “justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.”
In fact, each of the seven justices involved in yesterday’s decision were approved by California voters by overwhelming margins:
- Justice Joyce L. Kennard confirmed in 2006 with 74.5% of the vote.
- Justice Carol A. Corrigan confirmed in 2006 with 74.4% of the vote.
- Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar confirmed in 2002 with 74.1% of the vote.
- Justice Carlos R. Moreno confirmed in 2002 with 72.6% of the vote.
- Justice Marvin R. Baxter confirmed in 2002 with 71.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ronald M. George confirmed in 1998 with 75.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ming William Chin confirmed in 1998 with 69.3% of the vote.
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes that Feeney’s statement on the decision also engages in “coded gay baiting” when he informs “Florida’s hardworking families” that he “will continue to fight to prevent San Francisco taxes and values from infiltrating our community.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
79 Responses to “Conservatives Dismiss CA Gay Marriage Decision By Falsely Attacking ‘Unelected Judges’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Hateful bigots.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pmAre the American people stupid enough to be hoodwinked by these lying thugs again? They say anything to be haters and seem to get by with it. Anyone with (R)after their name should be eliminated from the Congress.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pmThey spout bigoted lies as facts, and the asswipe leg-humpers buy into it hook, line and sinker.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pmLiars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars
May 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm*yawn*
May 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pmBoner looks misty-eyed. Is he about to cry?
Funny that the fact un-elected Scumlia, Bobblehead Roberts, dimwit Alito and Uncle Tom Thomas have set human/voting rights back 50 years and it never gets mentioned by these retards.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pmHateful bigots, liars, and scum…this is simply about civil rights, they are equal, as we all are.
Repukes seem to think that they can decide who is equal and who is not.
And then they ignore the facts and start spewing their propaganda right away, knowing that the extremely ignorant, uninformed portion of the public will believe every bit of it.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pmForget the “unelected” part, the judges merely said that the law overturned contradicted precedent and the state constitution; it had nothing to do with “worldview.” In fact, that it had nothing to do with preferred policy was precisely stated in the decision. Ignorant dog whistlers.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pmRep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the House Minority Whip, charged in a statement that “unelected judges” are trying to “substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people”
As opposed to those who are appointed for life and show their appreciation and loyalty by making an illegal and illogical partisan decision to effect the outcome of a presidential election ?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pmAt least now we know the wedge issue they’ll be using this fall.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pmHas long as ‘The People’ should be voting on issues, let’s vote on continuing the war in Iraq, let’s vote on hearing what Cheney’s energy policy is, let’s vote on should Rove have to testify under oath about his political assasinations.
I say marraige should be between two taxpayers. You go to townhall, where you pay your property taxes, and you get a marraige license. You can celebrate at a church if you wish, but no church can interfere, as they pay no taxes.
But republicans are obsessed with sex, for some reason, and they feel the need to control it. God left them in charge I guess.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pmthat he “will continue to fight to prevent San Francisco taxes and values from infiltrating our community.”
Yes, they’d rather keep the old model of regressive taxation and stupidity.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:58 pmIt’s unconstitutional to prohibit two adults from marrying each other. That is a fact. Deal with it reich-wingers.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:01 pmMag7 Says:
But republicans are obsessed with sex, for some reason, and they feel the need to control it. God left them in charge I guess.
I guess all men should be having heterosexual sex with prostitutes or gay sex in airport bathrooms and under the influence of crystal meth with gay prostitutes.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pmI forget…how are the women supposed to be doing? Oh yea…NOT with each other :)~
I think we should get Roy Blunt and the rest of these clowns on the record:
do they disapprove of “unelected judges” resolving disputes of constitutional law?
Because it seems like, that’s basically what this Court is doing here.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pmThe Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes that Feeney’s statement on the decision also engages in “coded gay baiting” when he informs “Florida’s hardworking families” that he “will continue to fight to prevent San Francisco taxes and values from infiltrating our community.
Dang. Them wingnuts looooove them some buzz words and simplistic concepts, don’t they?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pmInteresting how a member of a political party rocketing towards irrelevancy purports to be able to read the will of the people (hint Roy: they are willing your party out of Congress one special election at a time). I also laugh whenever a Republican talks about “San Francisco values” or such other euphemisms for homophobia. Most of the country including every square inch of Florida wishes it had the innovative and entrepreneurial critical mass of the bay area.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pmWhy would any church demand that the government ban them from performing gay marriages? Is it because the temptation for right-wing fundie churches to perform gay marriages is so great that they must be stopped by law? And if so, is this the same reason that right-wing Republicans are in favor of sodomy laws?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pmpaleolib Says:
Interesting how a member of a political party rocketing towards irrelevancy purports to be able to read the will of the people
Roy Blunt (iRrelevant-MO)
May 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pmOh Right Wing Repressed Hate-spewers, why do you despise love so much? I’m straight but not NARROW! I fully support gay marriage and demand equal rights for my fellow citizens!
May 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pmHey, what about the unelected activist Federal and Supreme Court Justices? They are legislating from the bench every day. But then, they are only “activist” judges if they are Democrats. But if they are Republicans, they are supposedly “strict constructionists”.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pmIs someone going to inform the GOP that San Francisco is hardly the only city that has gay people living in it ?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pmTHEY’RE APPEASING THE GAYS!! THEY’RE APPEASERS, DAMMIT!!! EMBOLDENING THE GAYS!! MAKING ‘EM THINK THEY’RE HUMAN!!! DAMN APPEASERS!!!!!!
May 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pmWhy are Blunt (R-MO) and Feeney (R-FL) even sticking their noses in the business of California? Oh wait, they are nanny state reich-wingers…..nevermind.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pmSorry, but these judges did not legislate from the bench, they provided a judicial review of the Constitutionality of legislation from the bench.
Besides, Mrs. [”Misters” :)] Blunt and Feeney aren’t you advocates of the Unitary Executive which does not see Congress having any valuable role in governance. So, why are you talking?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI’m not 100% sure, but I think a majority of the judges sitting on the CA supreme court right now were originally appointed by republican governors.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pmTo put it Bluntly
” I don’t know what the fouck I’m blathering about”.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI think those in favor of equal rights for gay people are pretty sure they’ll still be straight if gays are allowed to marry. Those against? Not so much.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pmunelected judges. Like Alito, Roberts and Thomas?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:12 pmI’m trying to laugh at this, but honestly? Today I am so very, very coldly ANGRY at these *insert long, long string of vile obscenities here* Repukes that I could just scream.
And keep on screaming. I hate them.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pmGay marriage will not harm diminish my heterosexual marriage in any way shape or form. This is similar to the flag burning amendment that bubbles up from time to time. The flag is not diminished because someone burns it. The meaning of the flag is made stronger due to the freedoms it represents. marriage is commitment and as long as the one’s getting married are committed to each other then marriage as a whole gains strength.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pmCorrection, Bilbo: they’re only “activist” judges if they uphold liberal principles. Doesn’t matter what party they might come from. For instance, I think seven of the nine judges on the California Supreme Court were Republican appointees.
If they, for instance, short-circuit an important electoral process — say, a state-wide recount — then they’re upholding the constitution.
In other words, it’s not even a partisan thing. It simply depends on the individual decisions and whether they like them or not.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pmBoner and Blunt in one picture…ewwwww
May 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pmIt continues to astound me that people line Blount, Feeney, Bohener, etc continue to get elected! It must be their way with made-up words/phrases that continue to astound the voting public in their respective states…. With a collective IQ lower than a whale’s habitat (At maximum, ZERO) how do they breath on their own???
Oops, I forgot the KoolAide injections..that must be it…
May 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pmMCMetal Says:
Is someone going to inform the GOP that San Francisco is hardly the only city that has gay people living in it ?
Washington DC has a lot more gays than anyone suspects. The closeted ones are designated by an (R) and their names.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pmIt’s pretty hard to miss the enormous gay population here in DC.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pmI remember the good old days when the bigots were against gays because they thought they were promiscuous.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pmThursday’s California court ruling striking down that state’s ban on gay marriage will spark a fresh push to add a nationwide ban to the U.S. Constitution, Texas Sen. John Cornyn said shortly after the ruling was announced.
Is it not possible for the Republicans to come up with something new to get the religous right riled-up? It’s almost comical how they revert to the same S#&t every four years. At this point, they’ll fire the first shot in the “war on christmas” sometime around July.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pmSpeak for yourself, HIB. When I kissed my wife goodbye on my way to work yesterday, I had no idea that the very foundation of our marriage would be rocked by an earthquake like this decision during the day.
When I got home, my wife and I had a long talk about it, and we decided we would have to get a divorce because our own marriage has now become so degraded and debased that we can no longer live with it. Bummer.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pmIf the voters of Florida they deserve all the ridicule they can get.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pmtake care
tony and Lido
sorry if the voters of Florida elect Feeney again….
May 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pmWhy haven’t we heard anything from Larry Craig (R - ID) on this issue? Doesn’t he represent all that is “good” in the Repug Party? Wide stance and all.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
If they, for instance, short-circuit an important electoral process — say, a state-wide recount — then they’re upholding the constitution.
Are you a strict constructiionist if you rule that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was written specifically to protect George W. Bush from the voters of Florida?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pmhttp://www.dallasnews.com/ sharedcontent/ dws/ news/ politics/ national/ stories/ 051608dnnatcornynreax.10303c43f.html
Sorry, Having troubles linking to Cornyn story. But, this is the address.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pmRep. Feeney is a truly sleezy guy. He’s up for reelection this year in Florida. Being Florida, however, his district will probably reelect him again. Florida - land of flat-earthers. I moved here about 5 years ago, and WOW!! Talk about walking back into the distant past!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Feeney#Controversies
May 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI heard a radio head yesterday claiming that in Massachusetts, the Catholic Relief society was ‘forced’ to go out of business, because of the overwhelming burden of providing services to ‘all’ the gay couples.
This sounds like a complete crock of shit. Does anyone know the real story here? Sounds like they decided to shut down so they wouldn’t have to service ‘any’ gay couple’s needs…
May 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pmThat was a good one ralph. Sorry to hear it.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pmHe doth protest a weensie bit too much, I wonder how wide HIS stance is?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:30 pmWell if it is true it’s probably all the ex priests who are finally in a monogamous relationship. Who else would go to Catholic relief?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:32 pmHey ralph, at least she didn’t dump you for another man!
May 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pmWhat a minute? Two threads on teh gays and no Daryll?
Maybe he’s still searching for the answer as to why our male cat turned out gay.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pmMaybe he’s still searching for the answer as to why our male cat turned out gay.
Or trying to locate you and your sinful cat so he can cavort with, er, I mean, convert it.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pmWell, at least we’ll know who to blame the next time there’s an earthquake in California.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pmFlorida is only good for the Golden Girls.
That says a lot.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pmIt’s the U.S. Supreme Court that’s unelected, it’s the U.S. Supreme Court that’s overturning the will of the people, it’s the U.S. Supreme Court that’s legislating from the bench, and it’s the U.S. Supreme Court that’s substituting their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people.
Of course, that’s just fine with Blunt, since the U.S. Supreme Court has been packed with mindless parrots who share his narrow, twisted, small-minded “worldview.”
May 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Well, at least we’ll know who to blame the next time there’s an earthquake in California.
Yeah, and knowing how Godworks, he’ll probably center the earthquake in Oakland and kill a bunch of black people in order to punish the gays in San Francisco.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pmGood point Im945, Blount and Boehner are having selective morality when it comes to unelected judges. I’m fine with them having issues with the ruling but to attack those who made the ruling as those who aren’t serving the people is just wrong. I’d like to here their stance on the unelected judges in the Supreme Court.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pmRemember, Blunt uses a whip. He has a “vested” interest. He is the first servant of a boner as well. He publicly acknowledges it.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pmIt is too bad that none of this is really funny? Why does he hate so many people? How does he feel about Larry Craig? Now Larry can go to California and marry the hot bathroom stud of his choice.
I’m guessing Mr. Larry Craig is more of the sexual deviant. The type that enjoys the “T” room trade. Mr. Craig would have no interest in providing equal rights to openly gay couples who have committed themselves to each other.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:05 pmhellinabucket Says:
I’m guessing Mr. Larry Craig is more of the sexual deviant. The type that enjoys the “T” room trade. Mr. Craig would have no interest in providing equal rights to openly gay couples who have committed themselves to each other.
Thats right. If gays are free to marry each other, then Tappy McCraig would have fewer bathroom pickups. He does not like that idea at all.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pmRE: Unelected Judges
Stupid question - when was the last election for Supreme Court held ?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pmSix of the 7 “unelected activist” California Supreme Court justices who committed this heinous act, are conservatives appointed by Republican governors.
Think of the damage to marriage if librul justices had been involved!
May 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pmBlunt longs for the days of Jim Crow laws at their height… “the people” widely approved, no need for any Constitutional examination or judicial action…
May 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pmCaption:
May 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm‘Gays should stay in the closet; like John, me & Larry.’
It’s only judicial activism when it’s a decision the Repukes don’t like. Think of all the ‘judicial activism’ coming from the Roberts court and then we’ll talk.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pmWhat I don’t get is that if I get married, how is that going to destroy my next door neighbor’s heterosexual marriage? Is the husband going to want to get a divorce and marry some guy? It has never been explained, exactly, how this will hurt heterosexual marriages. And if it is a question of ’strengthening’ marriage, well…if you let more people marry, isn’t that a good thing and helping to strengthen that institution? See, I believe that marriage is a PUBLIC acknowlegement of your commitment to one other person. That’s much better than some faux marriage that is unloving but done, essentially, for everyone else around them as a pretense to love, honor and commitment. Blount can kiss my gay ass.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:48 pmEr…I take that back…I don’t want Blount anywhere NEAR me.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pmVariety is reporting that The Performance Artist Known As Daryll™ is being urged by his manager to take his act “in another direction”.
While the gay-bashing is a big hit with audiences, some critics see it as a bit limiting for a performer with the dynamic range of Daryll. Some of his friends are reportedly advising him to consider other right-wing causes to parody. Immigration is a growth area for parodists, as is Evolution.
But E! News spoke to his agent, who said that the Gay-bashing “still puts butts in the seats” for Daryll’s act. So nothing is written in stone.
My guess is that Daryll is chilling in Cabo while he mulls over which direction his career is going to take.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pmBUSH WAS NOT ELECTED EITHER
May 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pmAh, those faces of pure panic. Decisions like this are all too frighting for this lot of cowards. Apparently, they are no longer as safe as the president had convinced them they were.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pmAnd now the pukes wish the judges had been “appointed” so that they could have their trusty Athorney General fire them at will.
Run for cover Senators!
“San Francisco taxes and values”?
They are a helluva lot better than the “1492 old world” parroting done by these neo-con nitwits. I live in northern San Diego County and I absolutely love the petition people with the signs “Don’t let Adam marry Steve” with the crusty religious bearded nutjobs who make it sound like the bible and Constitution were written only for the fearful white people who can’t accept change. But if any do, it’s only allowing one mixed race couple into their neighborhood church…and even then, they’re an oddity of Barnum & Bailey proportions. And these petitioners are always outside a Wal-Mart or a Home Depot or a various grocery store doing this. They also have signs that read, “Don’t let illegals who’ve committed crimes stay in the U.S.A.” and other various conservative hyperbole.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pmGeeDubs Says:
What I don’t get is that if I get married, how is that going to destroy my next door neighbor’s heterosexual marriage? Is the husband going to want to get a divorce and marry some guy? It has never been explained, exactly, how this will hurt heterosexual marriages. And if it is a question of ’strengthening’ marriage, well…if you let more people marry, isn’t that a good thing and helping to strengthen that institution? See, I believe that marriage is a PUBLIC acknowlegement of your commitment to one other person. That’s much better than some faux marriage that is unloving but done, essentially, for everyone else around them as a pretense to love, honor and commitment. Blount can kiss my gay ass.
Perhaps the Republican party and/or some Christian groups could sponsor a PhD candidate or two to research whether gayness is in our genes (it’s best in the jeans), comes from a smell or phernome, or perhaps a hidden force like gravity.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pmMust be a slow news day on the hill. Boner has nothing better to do? He looks like he could use a drink and a smoke.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:20 pmOne of the other things that really bothers me about their argument is that they completely ignore the fact that these judges issue WRITTEN OPINIONS with a complete justification for their decisions. You NEVER hear the Republicans criticize or refute any of the legal reasoning that the courts provide. They don’t like the outcome, so they jump straight to condemning “activist” judges without ever even attempting to challenge or refute the ideas behind the rulings.
Actually, the judicial branch has built-in mechanisms for reversing bad decisions and the written opinions of judges are part of the official record and subject to review and subsequent challenge. This is in stark contrast with their views of the “unitary exective” who they feel has the power to change law unilaterally and in secret so long as some lawyer somewhere can make an argument in favor of their position, however spurious (i.e. ‘we don’t think the FISA law applies during wartime’ [despite the fact that it has clauses in it which detail how the law changes in a time of war])
May 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pmBoehner and Glunt have much to hide. Are the doing a Larry Craig imitation, trying to hide their love of other men? Not too far fetched.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:03 pmIt is really amazing some of these psychochristian idiots don’t simply burst into flames. They expend all their energy naming “righteous constructionists” to the bench then, when said judges make a decision based on law rather than ideology, they blather on about “activist judges legislating from the bench”.
Here’s a news flash, THEY ARE THE SAME JUDGES! Stop blaming “libruls” for your own inability to present a case.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pmThe California Supreme Copurt Justices that decided this were REPUBLICAN. In fact the majority opinion nwas written by Justice Ronald George, a major REPUBLICAN appointed by Governor Arnold S.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pmSo When you have conservative judges rendering this opinion, what does that say!!!!
Here is a little history lesson for you liberal democrats who continually call the republicans racist bigots and all of the other unfounded accusations that you throw at them.
Martin Luther King was a Republican.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2615
Democrats started the KKK
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295
It took a Republican president to free the slaves though the democrats fought against it.Abraham Lincoln
Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican organized the 1963 March on Washington by Republican Dr. King
Frances Rice, lawyer, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and president of NBRA (National Black Republican Association), who has studied this issue extensively, made the following statements in a recent article:
“It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.”
Liberals, you must be scratching your heads right now. They never tought you this in public school or the liberal universities did they.
Don’t you feel compelled to ask yourselves truthfully…
Why are you really a democrat? Did you take the bait that the democrats threw to you? Are you racist?
Just asking.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:30 amAnd Obama has the same position as MOST politicians - he is AGAINST gay “MARRIAGE”
“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. “
He has just taken a more nuanced support for it. Furthermore, he is ignoring the tricky issue that arises, when you leave it TO THE STATE, there is that pesky DOMA issue to deal with.
Obama has been “opposed” to DOMA, then opposed to the appeal, then supportive of the appeal - depending on the wind. Stay tuned as he waffles again with this issue. He will NOT be elected if he takes this position, and I’m sure he knows that.
They ALL do and they ALL know they cannot get the religious votes needed to win if they redefine *marriage*
All the gay debates do is flush out the candidate who can speak the most fluently out of both sides of his/her mouth.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:56 am