Frank calls Scalia a "homophobe"
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/...o/scotus_frank

Seriously?

I hate congress

I'm pretty sure I've called Scalia that, and some other names. I was in law school in 2003 when that sodomy ruling came down (and his dissent).

But then again, I'm not a member of Congress!

I don't hate you, kddani, i just don't like congress in general. This is just another incident in which i think politicians are only shooting their mouth off for press.

Thanks, RU OX Alum ;)

For the record, I don't believe that a member of Congress should shoot their mouth off in that manner. Surely there was a better way for him to get his point across. I'm fine with a critique of the Supreme Court and its justices, but when you're in the spotlight, you have to make a better choice of words.

Exactly; Scalia is a polarizing figure, and I'm sure there are lots of people out there who have similar thoughts to Frank. However, I don't think that it's a good thing when a member of Congress is leveling personal attacks against a Supreme Court justice.

I always found Frank to be emotional at best and downright hysterical at his worst. He hasn't always practiced the decorum befitting a member of Congress, and this is just more of the same.

Frank needs to go with that comment!

I don't believe a member of Congress should be allowed to speak like that. (Think what you want, but speaking like that is another issue)

Much ado about nothing, IMHO. Frank is so tainted by this banking scandal that I don't see how the good people of Massachusetts will continue to employ him in his current capacity, although, I will grant you he has the cockroach-like quality of being able to survive just about anything.

Scalia, on the other hand, is appointed for life and likely doesn't really care about what Frank has to say about anything.

Pretty much. I would have figured Frank wouldn't survive the drug addiction and male prostitute scandal, but what do I know?

if that's the most offensive thing a rep could say, i think the world will be okay.

The difference, I think, is that his and his supporters' mantra thus far has been "personal life doesn't matter, only performance does" and lately, his performance has been worse than lousy.

Elaborate on the drug addiction. Never heard Rep. Frank connected with that particular vice.

I thought it was fairly common knowledge--he admits to having been strung out in the halls of Congress, but never felt the need to resign because he had all of the other Representatives to take up the slack. He spoke about it a lot after the whole Jim McGreevey scandal.

Right.

<---- failing to empathize with the outrage.

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.

Lol. Ok lady... :rolleyes:

Exactly.

On law, no, but he's "second string" because he can't actually go and make proposals to congress. And the SC shouldn't really be about politics in the first place. It should be about the law.

Well, by that definition then, Frank is not second string -- he can introduce all the bills he wants.

Politics = the science or art of governing or exercising power in the public affairs of a country/state/municipality etc. The judiciary should not be partisan (for which "political" often operates as a synonym), but it is by definition political.

yeah i guess so

he's still only one voice out of many though. either way, our little aside isn't really contributing very much to this thread. sorry about that.

Partisan would have been the better word choice.