Frank calls Scalia a "homophobe"

[Munchkin03]

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.

[squirrely girl]

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

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

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

Right.

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

[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.

[UGAalum94]

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?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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