I feel like cussing because this is so f***ing ridiculous.
On CNN’s debate, Obama actually said that of all the Supreme Court Justices he would not appoint, it would be Clarence Thomas because he was too young and inexperienced.
Wow.
Who We Are
Our Message to Conservatives
Welcome to our blog. We won't agree on everything, but that is part of the human experience and we welcome the civil debate. It is believed that around 75% of conservatives in America are supportive of the gay conservative movement. Even among that number, there are many who ask, "why do you need to flaunt your sexual orientation? Why do you rub our faces in it?" The answer is that we're actually not flaunting anything. It is important to us that conservatives understand that not all gay people are in lock-step with the liberal movement. We do think for ourselves. It is also important to us that other gay people who feel ostracized for their conservative politics have a safe place to discuss their views and get support from others who understand how difficult it is to be conservative in our community. We don't wish to rub in anyone else's faces anything that isn't shown to us by straight people, either. We live, we love, and we want to share our happiness with the world the same way you do. That's all. Whether you are among the 75% who support us or among the 25% who are trying to run us out of the movement, we all believe in a number of similar values and we ask that you join us in stabilizing America for future generations. The rest is in the details, and that can be dealt with (in a civil manner) later.Our Message to Liberals
Welcome to our site. You likely won't agree with us, but you are welcome nonetheless. The most frequent comment we hear is, "how can you be gay and be politically conservative?!?" That is generally followed by every political slur in the liberal vernacular - idiot, moron, brainwashed, traitor, deviant, and the ever-popular "self-loathing closet case." If you have a comment along those lines, then with all the respect we can offer, please stow it. We've heard it quite enough. If you wish to comment, you are welcome to; it is our policy not to delete comments regardless of whether they agree or disagree with our beliefs. Threats and abuse, however, will not be tolerated. Those type of comments WILL be deleted. As for the questions about how we can be gay and politically conservative, the answer is simple...such ideas make sense to us. Limited government, individual liberty and patriotism are all a part of our beliefs. Not all of the five contributors agree on every single issue, but for the most part we do agree and none of us is willing to come to a conclusion about any issue lightly. We do not allow our emotions to drive our beliefs; rather, we prefer to see all sides of an issue and think about it rationally before deciding where we stand. If you are a fellow homosexual, please treat us the way you would wish to be treated. Do not speak to us in condescension or make claims that you refuse to provide solid links for (by solid, we mean non-op-ed news from a valid source). Be the source of tolerance that you demand from others.GayConservative on Twitter!
- Sarah Palin, Tea Party save America - The Hill's Pundits Blog thehill.com/blogs/pundits-… 1 week ago
- Father Dies After He ‘Begged for His Life’ While Cops Struck Him With Batons — Cellphone Videos Seized theblaze.com/stories/2013/0… 1 week ago
- So the Fox Mole literally admits he's only sorry because he got caught. Well, at least he's honest. HA! fxn.ws/131BInJ via @foxnews 1 week ago
- Jodi Arias is guilty. Thank G-d I'm not on duty today. You couldn't pay me enough to be in downtown Phoenix right now. 1 week ago
- Hey, @cbsnews - Chris Kyle was a Navy SEAL sniper, you morons! cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-1… 2 weeks ago
Recent Comments
Mel Maguire
steveflesher
Comments
Thomas had very little experience when appointed to the Supreme Court and was an affirmative action nomination more than anything. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
One more thing… Republicans hate gays and don’t care about the environment.
There are a number of different reasons why what you’ve just said is an incredibly knee-jerk reaction, here are a few:
1.The Office of Supreme Court justice is an appointed position, not elected, meaning that the American people get no input into selection process. The American people get to decide whether or not the relative legislative or administrative experience of a candidate is sufficient for the presidency. For appointment, the president and congress has a duty to make sure they appoint and approve the most competent individual possible.
2. A supreme court justice has no army of advisers, just a limited number of law clerks meaning there is a much greater of overall burden of knowledge placed on the justice.
3. Tradition is a huge part of the courts, hence why they still wear funny black robes whereas typical politicians gave up the powdered wigs and funny suits quite some time ago. The position of supreme court justice is not only a strategic political position (in fact it was originally intended to not be a political appointment at all) but it is also an honorary appointment given to someone in long service of the law; something Obama, a constitutional law professor, understands much better than you. Meanwhile, the young president cherry was popped when William McKinley died handing the presidency to Teddy Roosevelt over 100 years ago.
4. Lifetime appointments, duh. A young president and an old president are out in 8 years. You appoint a youngin’ to the Court and you may be stuck with them for over 40 years. Should any one appointment have that power? No, and that’s part of why their is a tradition of appointing older, respected judges.
As to Ben Hoffman, you’re a hypocrite. I may not agree with the tenets of conservatism, or understand why any individual homosexual would fall in-line with the Republican party (however, outside of the social conservatism of that party there is no reason to believe gays can’t be Republicans); however, intolerance for diversity of opinion is precisely why gay’s aren’t given the full rights as they should be as equal members of society.
So attacking anyone for their seemingly unusual opions with such Penny Anna bullshit as, ” One more thing… Republicans hate gays and don’t care about the environment,” makes you no better than they are.
I’m out.
edit: opinion
Republicans are a radical group — not conservative. They’ve destroyed the economy and committed the biggest blunder in U.S. history. There’s nothing “conservative” about that.
I’m an Eisenhower conservative — otherwise known as a democrat.
Well Ben,
Your particular brand of rhetoric is about as helpful as Eisenhower is, who currently lies 6 feet under.
Ben and Marc -
Thomas was a graduate of Yale law school and his record of excellence as an individual rather than someone who was part of a race speaks for itself.
One clear way of proving this: the NAACP and National Organization of Women OPPOSED his nomination from the get-go. Thus; throwing the “affirmative action” number out the window.
Thomas was appointed in 1991 by GHW Bush to replace the only African American on the court which was Thurgood Marshall.
Thomas rejected Democratic social reforms and the idea of big government. He excelled on his own merit; and unlike Obama, did not have to write a book about racism and put himself on Oprah to thrust himself onto the nation as a political figure.
Second, we ELECT presidents solely because of things like what type of justices we want on the courts. We elected a president and he nominated a Supreme Court justice who was not only brilliant, but over-achieved and had accomplished so much as a judge that he had already caught up with many that were years older than him.
Third, Bush did not just throw him on there and force him on Americans. Like any other Supreme Court Justice, Thomas had to face a rigorous confirmation process being grilled for weeks if you don’t recall.
Democrats then weren’t as accepting of a black were they, Ben?
Democrats certainly were not accepting of Janice Rogers-Brown who was put in by GW Bush in 2001 – in fact Democrats loved this black woman so much, that they FILIBUSTERED her nomination for two years before letting her go to work.
Democrats opposed Condoleezza Rice from the beginning – another young, energetic, and over-achieveing African American who achieved everything individually without any Democrat social programs.
Democrats voted against gays in California in 2000, Oregon in 2004, and continue to allow gays to act as parrots for the sheer purposes of votes.
Democrats have been playing these games for years with both the blacks and the gays – some of us have caught on, and unfortunately a lot haven’t.
An “Eisenhower” Democrat would not make homophobia or racism a party issue. Eisenhower was much smarter than that.
Well thats all great Steve,
However, I’d prefer if you didn’t lump me with Ben in your response, as I did mention race once.
Also, the above list of blacks resisted by Democrats as you and I both know also had nothing to do with race or sexual preference, it was just more examples of partisan politics.
When it comes to the highest positions in government affirmative action doesn’t apply and MLK’s “content of their character” litmus test does.
If the Democrats were indeed playing “games” with appointment it was only to the extent that they liked or disliked the potential appointees; race most likely excluded.
As for Thomas, yep, its you who keeps interjecting race into the discussion over actually addressing my points about lifetime appointments, the position being representative of a lifetime in the law, etc…
I, in fact, never even mentioned Thomas by name, never mind race, so kudos to you.
I would like to mention that being a Yale Law graduate means you come about a dime a dozen. Don’t believe me, Clarence Thomas himself said his education was worth “fifteen cents.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071021/yale-justice-thomas/
You’ll probably huff and puff about it being a huffpost source, no worries, its an AP pool report.
edit: didn’t mention race once.
Sorry for lumping you in, I just did not feel like writing two separate responses.
Most of my fondess of Thomas stems before Yale with his actual views and the way he achieved his successes, how he rejected social reform – and of course after he graduated.
Colleges really don’t make a difference. It is what a man does with what he has that impresses me, but indeed it was you who talked about someone being a constitutional law professor wasn’t it?
I could have brought up that Ann Coulter herself graduated from Cornell with honors and also specialized in Constitutional law.
Unlike Obama, she was happy as peach pie with Thomas – as I was.
Guess it’s the perspective.
For the post: I think that Obamas comment is worthy of some exploration and that there clearly is two distinct sides to take. I’m in the camp that the remark is stupid and that Prez. O is as likely to nominate young jurists as anyone else.
Of the thread: Eisenhower was a country club Republican so…why a democrat would like him is beyond me. He failed to use his popularity to address racism was essentially an laissez faire exec whose parting shot about the defense industrial complex gains him the adoration of many.
Marshall v Thomas 16 years age diff.I don’t know how far you have to go to find some actually jurist based debate on issues. I haven’t finished my 1st cup o’ joe yet so maybe I’m wrong but SCOTUS seems utterly dependent upon the partisanship it was meant to be above.What I ultimately mean by that is if the black robed ones forget the Constitution does it matter how old they are ?
The WSJ has a clear compare/contrast between the experience of Thomas and the experience of Obama.
“By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his “elevation” to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.”
“Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a “community organizer” and law school lecturer. ”
Sounds like Thomas would make a better president to me…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901817146948231.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Got it from:
http://patterico.com/2008/08/18/wsj-obama-and-clarence-thomas/
Hey Ben, can I get some bagels to go with that red herring?
Peter,
Well, the fact is that legislative and administrative experience are a whole different ball of wax from judicial. Judicial appointments are usually made on merit, whereas elected officials get to where they are based on popularity, which is how you can get a popular senator with a quarter of a century worth of congressional experience who flubs his knowledge of Czechoslovakia. You wouldn’t see a supreme court judge making the same kind of serious mistake. Knowledge and judgment, which can be related to but are not synonymous with experience, are the real indicators in the non-judicial branches of government.
In response to Alfie, I’m not sure that any controversy will be stirred by the statement. It’s not exactly a secret that the Democrats aren’t fond of Thomas and Obama’s overall point was that he would pick experienced judges; is that so bad? Also, its all going to be overshadowed by the recent “cone of silence” flub.
To steve,
Obama was a “constitutional law professor” not a student. There is a big difference between being the few chosen to teach over the many who pretend like they are learning. Yale and U of Chicago boast some of the brightest professors in the country, their studentry however, is a different matter.
As for Coulter, she’s successfully used her knowledge to argue national security over our constitutional rights on more than a few occasions; I am painfully aware of her supposedly high credentials, and her very real low moral fortitude.
Once again, student at Cornell, not professor.
So Thomas would not make a good president because he has proven track record of being knowledgeble and practicing good judgement that he got from his documented experience, while Obama would make a good president not because he has little legislative and administrative documented experience, but he is popular…
Scary (and sad)…
I’m not sure you could have made any greater of a twist on my words.
I just mentioned that popularity is why we can have a lot of legislative dumbasses; even with measurable experience. Its up to you to determine the relative knowledge of a candidate.
As for Thomas, he was young and inexperienced by comparison to other justices who were appointed at the time. You can cite experience as much as you want but it doesn’t mean a damn thing unless you put it in context.
“On CNN’s debate, Obama actually said that of all the Supreme Court Justices he would not appoint, it would be Clarence Thomas because he was too young and inexperienced.”
Obama is being the typical liberal he and his kind typical liberal kind are.
He as one set of rules for himself and a completely different set of rules for everyone else. Every die hard liberal I’ve ever met worships this tenant in the most holy of ways. Most die hard liberals display this fervor in the area of free speech. Die hard liberals strongly believe in free speech as long as other people say things they agree with.
The whole point here was that one very inexperienced, very young guy is saying he wouldn’t have appointed another because the other was inexperienced.
What experience does Obama have? How would he know that Thomas was or wasn’t capable of holding that position? Obama has no business pointing the finger at others for his inexperience, that’s what Steve was trying to say. Whether Thomas was inexperienced at appointment or not was not part of the issue.
And I’ve said it once, and i’ll say it again; experience is a subjective trait, not objective. It means different things for the Executive and Judiciary and while you all may fall down like a pack of holy rollers screaming hypocrisy any time Obama mentions experience; that’s your opinion and not a matter of fact.
Obama thinks he is experienced enough (or thinks that in this case experience is hardly the only determinate factor in a good candidate) for the presidency and he thinks Thomas wasn’t for the supreme court.
It’s a subjective opinion many Americans may agree with and a bunch of guys on the other side of the fence and not Obama supporters huffing and puffing saying that its the pot calling the kettle inexperienced isn’t going to sway a goddamned soul without some facts.
Congratulations, we already know you’re the unhappy opposition! Now are you going to engage in intelligent debate or continue to act self-righteous children?
“Obama thinks he is experienced enough (or thinks that in this case experience is hardly the only determinate factor in a good candidate) for the presidency and he thinks Thomas wasn’t for the supreme court.”
Clarence Thomas wasn’t the best nomimee for the Supreme Court, but he did pass muster with his experience. Potential nominees are rated by the legal world as to their suitability. Thomas passed. That’s all any nominee needs to do. Some nominees may pass with flying colors while other squeak by.
Actually, in either case, experience is very important. The leader of the free world needs to have experience making decisions that are difficult, he needs to be able to lead the military, and he needs to be able to do things that aren’t popular because they’re the right thing to do. Do you think Obama has any of that experience? He’s hardly been a senator for one term.
Facts are facts, Marc. Nobody’s acting self-righteous exept you. You cannot point a finger at someone for their faults when you are just as bad. It’s a simple principle. Your argument here is that we’re not engaging in intelligent debate…we brought up a single point and you have continued to hammer the same counterpoint. Give us something new before you accuse us of that.
Congratulations to you, too, we already know who’s feet you’d like to anoint.