06 August, 2010

Dumbfuckery du Jour

My heart's not in it tonight, my darlings.  I had an utterly shitty day.  All I really want to do is crawl into the loving arms of geology and dream for a while.

But three items commend themselves to my attention, and the Smack-o-Matic is giving me the puppy dog eyes, so let's do some brief bashing.

In the "having a heart attack from not surprised" category, the rabid right's not happy Judge Walker handed their asses to them, so what can they do?  Why, say he's gay!

Fox News, for example, ran a piece from University of Notre Dame law professor Gerard Bradley, who expressed concern about the lack of attention paid "to one very troubling aspect of the case." (via A.L.)
This is the question of the judge's bias due to his possible interest in which side wins the case. [...]
Battalions of commentators have wondered about his bizarre handling of the case, and many have attributed it to Walker's belief that it is unjust for the law to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Nor is the neglected bias related to the fact that (as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay.
Of course, Walker's opinions about marriage and sexual preference could be related to his own homosexuality.
Now, I have no idea whether Walker is gay, and I don't care in the slightest. His ruling speaks for itself, and if the right wants to find flaws in the decision, conservatives can make their case -- without going after the motives and/or personal life of the jurist who wrote the ruling.

But consider the implications of this line of criticism. Should an African-American judge necessarily be accused of bias if she considers a case of racial discrimination? Should a woman judge consider recusing herself in a case involving sexual harassment?

For that matter, why would a straight judge necessarily be preferable to hear a case involving marriage equality?
I've really run out of words to express my disgust with these people, so I'll just settle for "ridiculous little shits."

Additionally, Boehner has decided that police officers and teachers are "liberal special interests," which tells you all you need to know about his suitability for public office.

Oh, and the next time you hear Teabaggers babble about "constitutional conservatism," you might want to ask them to explain this rather large list of things they want to revise.  Fair makes your eyes pop when you see it all in one place like that.

No comments: