Frank calls Scalia a "homophobe"

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

Originally Posted by kddani

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.

Originally Posted by baci

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)

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.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Right.

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

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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.

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.

[Thetagirl218]

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....

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

On law, no, but he's "second string" because he can't actually go and make proposals to congress.

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

And the SC shouldn't really be about politics in the first place. It should be about the law.

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.