I Fought The Law, and the Gay Won

Apparently that intemperate crank at the NRO and President of the Ethics and Policy Center (stop laughing) who outed Publius at ObWi a couple of years ago for the sin of disagreeing with him has decided that gay people shouldn’t practice law because… well, I’m not really sure why. They might gay it up or something. Or only straight people can be impartial. You try to figure it out.

47 replies
  1. 1
    Zifnab says:

    If gays can practice law, they’ll have that much more power with which to enact their dreaded gay agenda. Our only hope is to lock all the gays in a room together with Marcus Bachmann so he can cure them with his righteous fervor.

  2. 2
    KG says:

    People who may be the subject of discrimination shouldn’t be involved in cases that involve claims of discrimination… be they lawyers, judges, or parties. What’s so hard about that?

    These are the same people that didn’t like the fact that Thurgood Marshall got to sit on the Supreme Court and hear cases regarding racial discrimination.

    And unsurprisingly, they have no problem with pro-religion judges (such as Anton “A cross is as much a secular symbol as it is a religious symbol” Scalia) ruling on cases that involve religious liberties.

  3. 3
    BGinCHI says:

    One day the law gets really fabulous and the next thing you know you’ve got a dick in your mouth.

  4. 4
    gex says:

    Why do I suspect that one day Whelan will be on this site some day?

    ETA: C’mon we all know that only straight white Christian males are capable of being impartial. You can tell by the first two hundred years of our history.

  5. 5
    gex says:

    @KG: I agree! Straight white men only! What’s so hard about that? They are the only people able to be impartial.

  6. 6
    trollhattan says:

    Once Prop 8 is killt for good, squadrons of ghey lawyers will be free to march east and cause who knows what kinda havoc. This ghey DOJ is only a ghey camel’s nose under the legal tent! Also, too.

  7. 7
    BGinCHI says:

    @gex: It’s so true: they enslaved black people regardless of gender, sexuality, or country of origin.

  8. 8
    gex says:

    @BGinCHI: And don’t forget the white Christian women, or “property” as they like to think of them. Who here doesn’t long for the good old days when your father or your husband had to cosign a loan with you?

    ETA: And who wants bodily autonomy anyhow?

  9. 9
    daveNYC says:

    @KG:

    People who may be the subject of discrimination shouldn’t be involved in cases that involve claims of discrimination… be they lawyers, judges, or parties. What’s so hard about that?

    The fact that the stupid is making my eyes bleed? Unless you get some dolphins to pass the bar, there’d be no lawyers that could take discrimination cases.

  10. 10
    BGinCHI says:

    @gex: How in the hell are we losing to these fuckers?

    I’ll bet you a hundred bucks Rick Perry couldn’t do the Monday NYT crossword if he had 24 hours and 5 lifelines.

  11. 11
    Tom S.Tom S. says:

    It’s the robes…

  12. 12
    Redshift says:

    It’s the “vanilla exception.”

    When I was a kid, McDonald’s had three kinds of shakes, chocolate, strawberry, and plain. Vanilla wasn’t a flavor to me, it was the absence of a flavor.

    Similarly, to wingnuts like these (and a lot of people who aren’t outrageously political), there are gays, minorities, women, and “normal people.” Straight white Christian males are the only ones who can be relied on to have an impartial view of anything, because they’re not any of those special categories, they’re just people.

    (Yeah, I know it’s called “white male privilege” in some circles, but to me, “vanilla=nothing” gets it across without sounding like an attack on someone.)

  13. 13
    gex says:

    @BGinCHI: The GOPer who resigned and left that long letter explained it all. Low information white voters would rather vote against their own interests than to vote for women’s or minorities’ rights. To them it is zero sum, and they’d like most of the good stuff split up amongst the white men, even if they are getting the smallest pieces of that pie.

    @Redshift: It’s funny how the people who dished it out for several centuries can’t take it (being singled out as a “problem” demographic).

  14. 14
    Redshift says:

    @daveNYC:

    Unless you get some dolphins to pass the bar, there’d be no lawyers that could take discrimination cases.

    That’s a feature, not a bug.

  15. 15
    efgoldman says:

    Man, I just can’t wait until all those state supreme court judges in the red states are forced to wear pink robes covered in sequins!
    Liberace redux!

  16. 16
    Zifnab says:

    @BGinCHI:

    How in the hell are we losing to these fuckers?

    Because our country is run by assholes and we’ve clearly just grown used to it. Maybe with a bit of Stockholm Syndrome thrown in for good measure.

  17. 17
    singfoom says:

    @BGinCHI: The answer to your question is
    1.Privately funded campaigns
    2.Corporate donors
    3.Citizen’s United
    4.Corporate Personhood

    Rearrange them in any order you wish, but that’s why we’re losing. It all comes back to the money money.

  18. 18
    cleek says:

    Apparently that intemperate crank at the NRO and President of the Ethics and Policy Center (stop laughing) who outed Publius at ObWi

    OMG. that guy… what a cyst. no, an anal cyst. no, a bleeding anal cyst with two bot fly larva fighting it out inside.

  19. 19
    Makewi says:

    Gays, a political stick and shield and a slur. Is there anything they can’t do?

  20. 20
    Hal says:

    Did you purposely post this above a post titled “Dickensian.”

  21. 21
    Makewi says:

    @singfoom:

    Democrats out-raise and out-spend the GOP. You’re losing because your ideas suck and in part because you can’t accurately describe the world around you.

  22. 22
    singfoom says:

    @Makewi: I’m sorry troll, I wasn’t speaking to you. In the future, you can just ignore my comments as I do yours. (With the exception of this one)

    KTHXBYE

  23. 23
    beltane says:

    @efgoldman: Oh yes. And they’ll have to sing Broadway show tunes from the bench. Fabulous.

  24. 24

    @BGinCHI: Aw, be nice; he does the one in Highlights for Children in ink.

  25. 25
    Alex S. says:

    @Makewi:

    The way Obama taxes and spends clearly shows that we’re winning.

  26. 26
    Chyron HR says:

    @Makewi:

    You can’t accurately describe the world around you. SARAH PALIN 2012

    The average Republican’s grasp of reality shames us. Truly.

  27. 27
    KG says:

    @daveNYC: yeah, what @Redshift said. And you missed the key part… if they had their way, it wouldn’t just be lawyers and judges who couldn’t be involved, it’d be plaintiffs too.

    I think we’ve missed something… and I hate to say it because I fear it may well be true: they aren’t fighting the New Deal; the New Deal is just the opening fight; they are going after Reconstruction and in particular the 14th Amendment.

  28. 28

    Wait, you mean, I could be gay AND a lawyer?

    Oh, shit; why did I waste all those years in college studying theatre?

  29. 29
    forked tongue says:

    Troll, Dude, you come here with a name pronounced “Make-a-wee” and then expect to be taken seriously?

    (Apologies if this joke has been made before like 3,087 times)

  30. 30
    Roger Moore says:

    @BGinCHI:

    How in the hell are we losing to these fuckers?

    Yackity yack Blackity black, don’t come back. I’m pretty sure that has a lot to do with it.

  31. 31
    KG says:

    @Mustang Bobby: speaking as a lawyer, because you wanted to do something productive with your life?

  32. 32
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Makewi:

    You’re projecting, shitstain.

  33. 33

    @Mustang Bobby: Wait, you mean, I could be gay AND a lawyer?

    Even better, you can be gay, black, female, angry, and a lawyer.

  34. 34
    beltane says:

    @forked tongue: The joke has been made before but it has not been made recently. You are therefore free to mock the troll Make-a-wee as severely as you deem fit an proper.

  35. 35
    PurpleGirl says:

    @KG: That’s why they are supposed to recuse themselves if they are judges. But they don’t always do that.

  36. 36
    BGinCHI says:

    @Mustang Bobby: Maybe with tracing paper.

  37. 37
    burnspbesq says:

    @Makewi:

    ” Is there anything they can’t do?”

    It appears they can’t make ignorant trolls disappear.

  38. 38
    PurpleGirl says:

    @efgoldman: I like the image. I’m not much of a fan of pink (purple is more me) but I love sparkles and spangles. Lots of sequins, lots and lots of them.

  39. 39
    Roger Moore says:

    @PurpleGirl:

    That’s why they are supposed to recuse themselves if they are judges. But they don’t always do that.

    But recusal only works if you can find a replacement who isn’t affected. If you accept discrimination as a zero-sum game, then there aren’t any unaffected people. Everyone is either in the group that would be allowed to do the discriminating or the group that would be discriminated against, so there’s nobody truly impartial. The majority is likely to be just as biased about their own rights as the minority; it’s only majority privilege that lets them think otherwise.

  40. 40
    jesdynf says:

    Diversity in all fields isn’t anything you could object to.

  41. 41
    Tom Hilton says:

    The Ed Whelan guide to conflict of interest:

    Being gay? Inherent conflict in any area of law. Because SHUT UP, is why.

    Having a spouse who lobbies on issues you’re called on, as a Supreme Court justice, to adjudicate? Nothing to see here, move along…

  42. 42
    KG says:

    @PurpleGirl: recusal isn’t that simple. Usually for recusal to be in play, the judge has to have a personal or closely related interest in the case. Obviously, we’re not going to let a judge sit in a case where his brother-in-law is an attorney or party. Nor are we going to let a new judge handle a case where he use to represent a party. But what if you are a single man and someone brings a case like Loving v Virginia? Your right to marry the person you choose could be affected? So should we only allow a married judge to hear the case? That’s basically the argument that the Prop 8 side made in the Perry case as to why the judge should have been disqualified (I was quite sad to see my old professor and friend be one of the people making such a bad argument).

    The fact of the matter is, when it comes to civil rights cases, there isn’t anyone that can be impartial in the sense that their rights won’t be effected. Because when you rule certain action constitutionally protected, that effects everyone.

  43. 43
    Teejay says:

    Anybody seen or heard where Publius went? Did he hang up his
    keyboard? If anybody knows of his whereabouts please pass it along. I’ve missed his thoughts.

  44. 44
    cleek says:

    @Teejay:
    Did he hang up his keyboard?

    yep.

    he dropped just a couple of posts after that one.

  45. 45
    Jay C says:

    @Teejay:

    Anybody seen or heard where Publius went?

    Back, I assume, to his (academic) day job – where, despite the lack of an Internet forum such as ObWings, I am sure he is doing more good in a day than an assclown like Ed Whelan could manage in an eon….

  46. 46
    Yutsano says:

    @jesdynf: Wait wait whoa whoa…are you saying Phoenix Wright is GAY?? How come no one tells me these things?

  47. 47

    […] John Cole] Tags: civil rights, Ed Whelan, fear, Justice Department, law, lawyers, National Review, paid […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] John Cole] Tags: civil rights, Ed Whelan, fear, Justice Department, law, lawyers, National Review, paid […]

Comments are closed.