Yeah, pretty much. I think both Scalia and Frank are rather polarazing but they are kind of...I don't know...second stringers in the world of U.S. politics. It's like when B-list celebrities are in the tabloids/rehab. Either way, I don't really care much for either one of them.

Whose outrage? Frank's? The people reacting to Frank? The people who think its all BS? I think it's BS, but i'm not really outraged.

Does "personal life" not matter if the scandalier is a Democrat?

I don't think people are expressing outrage here. Like Dani said, it's not the first time this has been said about Scalia, and it won't be the last. It just seems odd for a Congressperson to say something like that.

It's not the worst thing a Congressperson has said, that much is true. Doesn't make it any less strange.

It shouldn't, but I think it does in the minds of the public. People associate Republicans more with moral legislation, and they get more fired up when a Republican is accused of some moral scandal.

That said - it still amazes me that Frank got off so lightly. Like Kevin said, though, he may run into more issues around election time because of performance issues (although I would be shocked if MA voted him out because of his popularity within the Commonwealth).

It shouldn't matter unless you put it at issue unless it points to some huge character flaw.

Being gay ain't a character flaw, nor is being secretive about it if you're in politics.

The drugs would be a big deal, but apparently they're ancient history.

But yeah, he never claimed to be someone who might get the John Birch Society seal of approval, so I partially agree with what you're saying.

-- now, if the 'scandalier' [love that word] was a Democrat like Jimmy Carter, or a conservative Democrat like Dan Boren, I think personal life issues would be fair game, or at least they'd get some traction.

Setting the issue of scandals and party affiliation, would Frank still have a career had he been heterosexual? I say no.

What would have become of a heterosexual man who tried to use his political office to fix the parking tickets of his prostitute paramour?

I think that many people have been reluctant to deal with Frank's personal/professional scandals for fear of looking like bigots.

ETA: how bad does it bother most conservatives to be called homophobes? Wouldn't it really only bothered people who wanted to be regarded at progressive or inclusive?

I'm not exactly a Frank fan, but I don't think this is entirely accurate. He's a pretty intelligent guy (Harvard undergrad, Harvard law) and had a very good reputation in MA as a local legislator prior to becoming a Congressperson. If I remember correctly, his sexual orientation wasn't known publically until the mid to late 80s, some time after he'd made a name for himself politically. He's established himself very well in MA.

ETA: I misread your post and missed the "still" portion. However, I still think he'd be elected for other reasons other than his sexual orientation. He worked his way up through the MA political establishment, which didn't have anything to do with his homosexuality. Whether he's most known for that now, I think he'd still have a career, in that he's very popular in MA.

Maybe I posed my question stupidly. I didn't mean would he have even had a career, but instead, would he have maintained it in the face of serial stupidity in office?

I don't think so. I think the fact that some of the highest profile scandals dealt with sexual issues (a "was it just parking tickets or did he allow prostitution in his home" might be a career-ender for a straight guy) made people more reluctant to judge him as harshly for his bad judgment as they would have a heterosexual.

ETA: how much do you love that the main person pushing the Frank ethics charges about the parking ticket fixing was, according to wikipedia, Larry Craig. Awesome.

You're underestimating the power of being an incumbent Democrat in Massachusetts.

Probably.

Frank is one of, what, 435 member of the House up for election every two years?

Scalia is one of nine Supreme Court justices, each of whom has a lifetime appointment. He is part of what is usually the Court's conservative-leaning majority, and he can often be an influential voice on the Court. I hardly think that counts as a second stringer in the world of US politics.

I'm just tired of the misuse/overuse of the word "homophobia." Sometimes it fits, but sometimes it doesn't.

IMO...Frank is just trying to get 5 mins of fame while he still has it! I think his comments about Scalia having too many votes and this issue not being in the issue of the courts, just plan stupid....Maybe he just needs to pull out a copy of the Constitution and read that to answer all his questions....

I was being tongue-in-cheek in pointing out the hypocrisies of the far left. I think my humor has gotten a bit too dry lately.

Pretty much. I didn't know exactly what part of MA Barney Frank represented until I looked it up on a map. I kind of assumed that he represented the Cape--maybe the Provincetown connection?--but wow. Is that the most liberal corner of MA or what?!

Haha...I got the humor but was a bit too cracked out to respond with anything remotely clever.

Not only is that a liberal corner of MA, but it's the most affluent section of the state. Brookline, Newton, Dover and Sherborn are four of the most affluent cities and towns in the Commonwealth, so he's cleaning up with financial backing as well. Most of the prominent doctors and lawyers vote Dem, and while there's the occasional businessman who votes Republican, they're still giving money to Frank because of his committee assignments.

ETA: This is a total aside, but an interesting one; his predecessor, Rep. Drinan, was a priest who left office after Pope John Paul II demanded that all priests withdraw from elected office in the early 80s.

Yeah - that's my whole issue here . . . Scalia might be a 'homophobe' but the evidence provided really doesn't seem to support that, and might actually show Scalia to be both right (surprise!) and somewhat progressive in a backwards way, given people's feelings on 'activist' judicature.

I do worry about a sort of devaluing of the term when it's tossed around in circumstances that aren't all that appropriate, much more so than a Representative breaking decorum for the 90,003,405th time since Aaron Burr.

Agreed on both counts.

It seemed like Frank is centering on one opinion written by Scalia, and taking it completely out of context. As KSigRC said, he was addressing the larger point of interest groups trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench.