For Ramadan, Tolerance is a One Way Street

By Lloyd the Idiot

Remember a year ago when the debate was raging over then-candidate David Ramadan’s religious persuasion?  Remember how the nuts of the Anti-Sharia Task Force screamed that he couldn’t possibly represent “true” Americans because he was a Muslim and the Muslim faith was fundamentally at odds with an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of Virginia and the United States?  Remember how ridiculous all that was?

Ramadan sure doesn’t.

In voting against the confirmation of an openly homosexual nominee for a district court judgeship on the basis of his sexual preference, or even his perceived inability to apply Virginia laws on same sex marriages because of his sexual preference, Ramadan is every bit as guilty of the bigotry and prejudice of which he himself was the victim only one year ago.

Of all the “no” votes on the nominee, Ramadan’s stands out as the most  hypocritical and disgusting of them all.

 

HT: Novascout for the thought provoking post and Loudoun Progress for the photo


Comments

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Barb, Lloyd isn’t a big fan of Ramadan because Ramadan tried to cause trouble for him at his place of work because of a pretty innocuous post by Lloyd after he did several hard hitting posts attacking those attacking Ramadan over his “religion” (whatever that is these days for him). I didn’t have a huge problem with Ramadan either until he had a hissy fit with Joe B and I at a fundraiser. He’s an arrogant prick.

    Minchew did not help himself with that explanation. This really looks petty. Bravo to Comstock, LeMunyon, and Rust for standing up to the self-appointed morality police.

  • For the record, I have no axe to grind with Ramadan.

  • Brad says:

    Has anyone received an explanation from Greason?

    Do the Democrats have likely challengers for these guys?

  • Loudoun Watcher 2 says:

    Del. Randy Minchew apparently has more explaining to do now. Del. Jennifer McClellan is saying that Minchew’s explanation of the events is false.

    Jennifer McClellan
    7 hours ago via Twitter
    Minchew claims testimony against Thorn-Begland was unrebutted, but debate was cut off before anyone could rebutt: http://t.co/HNzbFNZH

  • David Ramadan led the most openly anti-gay campaign of all in the local delegation, calling for more “marriage protection”. I guess we know what that means now, the elimination from the public sphere of any GLBT person who does not bow down.

    Thank you for this post. Now we get it.

  • G.Stone says:

    Minchew is correct. A rational and reasoned ressponse to an inquiry that falls under the catagory of your screwed no matter your answer, unless of course you agree with me.

    The guy took an oath, he lied and later admitted he had done so. Randy voted no for the right reason. Had this guy been a Hetrosexual nominee , we would hear crickets.

    It is possible to be gay, have done good work in the past and also have lied. He lied and the result is he will not be a judge. Consequences.

  • G.Stone says:

    “For the record, I have no axe to grind with Ramadan”

    Nowwww Lloyd. ( doing my best impression of your mother )

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    If Lloyd doesn’t then I’ll have an ax to grind with Ramadan for him for what Ramadan tried to do at Lloyd’s place of employment. I’m sure that will keep me high on Stone’s threat list when he’s employed as personal security for Ramadan.

    Remember folks, David Ramadan is the Daddy Warbucks of Loudoun politics, and he’s going to be somebody! If he can’t donate to your campaign, or hire you as a consultant (or personal bodyguard like Stone here), then he’ll try to use intimidation to keep you in line. Don’t mess with David Ramadan if you want to be someone in Loudoun politics (luckily that desire does not exist in me, so I’ll keep giving you the scoop).

  • Oops! I forgot that Delegate Bob Marshall is also a member of the delegation.

    The Washington Post lays Marshall’s motivations, bare. By proxy, the remaining “no” votes, including Ramadan’s fall in line.

    “He holds himself out as being married,” said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who is running for U.S. Senate. He said Thorne-Begland’s “life is a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution.”

  • TCJohnson says:

    If he was heterosexual nominee, then homophobes like Minchew would have voted him in.

  • Loudoun Watcher says:

    Hmmm. Loudoun Watcher 2 is not me. There are lots of names out there, pick something else.

  • Loudoun Watcher says:

    Hmmm. Loudoun Watcher 2 is not me. There are lots of names out there, pick something else.

  • liz says:

    LW2 posted the same link I was going to post, and I agree that LW2 should pick a different screen name.

  • BlackOut says:

    Stoner, with all due respect your an idiot.

    The whole issue here is if sexual orientation had not been considered he would have the won nomination. What a stupid comment, had he been a heterosexual he would have won the nomination. Put another way had he not been gay he would have won the nomination.

    If BUPERS didn’t have a problem with his service to the country neither should the bigots.

  • I really don’t, Stone. In fact, I haven’t commented on any of his legislative activities at all.

    Until now.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    When Loudoun Watcher has used more than one name here in the past, I don’t think she has room to complain about others’ screen names.

    Lloyd, this was a great post, and Ramadan indeed should have thought twice about this vote. He no longer has any right to complain about prejudice.

  • Loudoun Moron says:

    Greason with the same line of reasoning:

    http://www.taggreason.com/my-thoughts-on-the-recent-vote/

  • David says:

    He no longer has any right to complain about prejudice.

    Indeed – and unlike race or gender or orientation, religious affiliation is a choice.

    It’s too bad, because there is genuine anti-Muslim prejudice in the GA that needs to be addressed. Ramadan is now even more spectacularly unequipped to address it.

  • liz says:

    So both Tag and Randy have no problem with Tracy’s sexual orientation, they only have a problem with the fact that he admitted it publicly and asked for the military to continue to let him serve?

    That is a completely sleazy position to take.

  • BlackOut says:

    Liz, I agree. Especially when Tracy’s action highlighted a policy that eventually was changed. It’s a cheap way out.

    What about the pledge TAG, Marshall, Ramadan and Minchew took to uphold the constitution? Abortion is constitutionally allowed; they openly attack that constitutional element. Isn’t that going against a pledge? They certainly aren’t upholding it as they pledged to do. Seems mighty hypocritical here.

  • Loudoun Watcher says:

    I only use two names, this one and my own. I’ve been doing it for years and all of a sudden, LI, you criticize me for it. Everyone has a nom de plume, and I prefer to use mine when I choose. Whoever the copycat is, I wish it would stop. But since only you control this space, you can write what you want, delete what you want, criticize who you want, and generally be the big kahuna.

  • BlackOut says:

    Well Ramadan is out with his kabuki dance.

    Here’s part of his session update:

    “We in Virginia do not elect activist judges as a rule. Mr. Tracy Thorne-Begland has a proven history of putting his personal agenda and activism ahead of his sworn oath. He broke military rules, laws and protocols by going on national television while still a Navy Officer to complain about military policy – thus breaking the oath he willingly took and violating the United Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) – that is, military law.”

    Hey Ramadan were is the legislation saying we don’t elect an activist to judgeship? What law did Tracy violate? Was he prosecuted for it, if there was such a law? In light of your opinion on this, why do you think the United States Navy still felt compelled to give him an honorable discharge?

    (p.s. you need to learn how to use paragraphs in your communications. Just a suggestion)

  • Carol says:

    Seems you still don’t know what the protest against Ramadan was all about. It was not “ridiculous”. Ramadan lied or refused to answer any and all questions about his background, his 1st wife and her connections in his homeland or to the fact that he did NOT reside in the District he was running to represent. He did not explain where his wealth came from or from whom it came… he certainly cannot claim it was from any business here in the USA. He claimed he had created jobs..he just didn’t admit those jobs were all in the Middle East. Nobody ever got rich running ladies gyms after all! Ramadan “bought” his way into the GA by courting and supporting most politicians around Northern Va. It would seem that, like Ramadan, Thorne-Begland has more serious problems than religous affiliation or sexual orientation. Maybe, just maybe, those who voted against them both took these “other issues” under consideration.

  • Wolverine says:

    Hmmm, now it is somehow a negative for an American company in Texas to make money by selling franchises abroad? Who would have thought?

  • Ramadan’s excuse is just as pitiful as the other post-hoc rationalizations we’ve seen. Seems the Republicans realized they really sh*t the bed on this one. I mean, if you have two bloggers on Bearing Drift bearing down on you, you know you’ve screwed up.

    As for Ramadan’s BS, let me just say that the “activism” and the “oath” he broke are all derivatives of the same thing: his sexual orientation. Moreover, it’s an “oath” he broke which now wouldn’t even be asked of an officer.

    In that regard, it’s like saying George Washington was ineligible for office because he swore a loyalty oath to England when he was an officer in the British Army during the French and Indian War. It’s like saying Rosa Parks should be ineligible for office because she broke the law when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. How many more examples do you want of people who break the rules for a damn good reason?

    And then Ramadan has the unmitigated gall to blame the press for ignoring the other 39 judges they approved. For God’s sake, Bob Marshall is the one who egged on the press in his oppositioin to the nominee.

    I can’t decide if it’s more pathetic or disgusting.

    I guess I’ll just say it’s both.

  • Wolverine says:

    BO — I would guess that the Navy gave him an easy, less fuss and muss way out through departure with an honorable discharge. As a commissioned officer he should have known full well that you do not embarrass your superior officers by going public behind their backs on an issue like this one without paying a price. And, contrary to Lloyd’s assertion, the regs in play are the ones in force at the moment, not some prognostication of changes years hence.

    In my opinion, he was smart to leave. With that on his record, he might not have been in very good shape come promotion time and especially command selection time. I think he was smart enough to recognize that fact when he decided to go out of school. You don’t mess with military discipline without inviting career problems for yourself. The US Navy is not a democracy.

    This message brought to you by Lieutenant Wolverine, US Navy, one-time flag aide to several vice-admirals in charge of the very naval air command from which our frustrated judicial nominee departed. You just don’t mess around with a vice-admiral with a chest full of air combat medals. You especially don ‘t embarrass him by appearing on TV out of school. At least you didn’t in my day. Nowadays…..??? And don’t go asking me if I ever served under John Paul Jones, you rascal!

  • Wolverine says:

    I’m sure good old LLoyd will just love me for this. Washington was never an officer in the British Army, although he once thought about trying for it. He was an officer of the colonial militia and later was named Colonel of the Virginia Regiment, an outfit in between the militia and the regular British Army.

  • Loudoun Outsider says:

    As a young man, George Washington wanted nothing more than to be an officer in the British Army. They snubbed him. Bad move by the Brits in retrospect. Before the Revolution, most colonists were very proud of being British and desperately wanted to settle their differences with England.

    I read Tag’s press release and have a question: Is the prohibition against officers advocating a cause an oath, statute regulation or what?

    Prior to an executive order being entered in 1948 by President Truman, the United States Military was segregated. For black folks, seperate and unequal was the order of the day.

    The nominee here went on television and filed a lawsuit. Years ago it was the custom for military officers not to vote to demonstrate they were non-partisan so Tag is right when he says Thorne-Begland should have resigned to advocate his cause.

    The Navy fighter pilots I know care about flying, period. Everything else (except where are the best bars in port) is secondary. Perhaps the nominee’s passion for flying kept him from resigning?

    I disagree with Tag’s conclusion Thorne-Begland would be a General District Court version of J. Skelly Wright. There is simply no opportunity.

    General District Court judges rarely write opinions. For most cases, the final order is a standarized court form where they check boxes and fill in blanks. The cases they decide are whether somebody ran the a stop light, shoplifted, didn’t pay their credit card or whether there is probable cause to believe a felony was committed.

    On this blog, I have stated before, from a civil rights perspective, being gay is not the same as being black or jewish, but Thorne-Begland’s nomination raises an interesting hypothetical question: Would it be valid to oppose the nomination of a black officer who, prior to 1948, vocally opposed segregation in the armed forces? Although to much time has passed to get a definitive answer to this question, I believe the answer is “No.”

  • Richard Phelan says:

    You can find anti-gay leanings in almost all of these Republicans:

    Ramadan call for “marriage protection” (he must feel threatened), Greeson’s “fags in the foxhole” West Point homophobic attitude, and even Minchew’s active involvement in a group that bars gay parents from youth service as shown by this story: http://leesburg.patch.com/articles/polish-scout-and-warsaw-resistance-fighter-speaks-at-tuscarora-high-school

    Another question: why is Joe May getting a hall pass away from this discussion. Like Minchew, he was obviously in the room but chose not to vote.

  • Wolv, I stand corrected on Washington – but you get my point.

    As for Thorne-Begland, I’m really not a gay rights guy. I think the military should be able to decide who’s in and who’s out using whatever criteria they decide is best to keep the bad guys away, regardless of political correctness. I’m also no fan of changing the definition of “marriage” to accomodate same sex couples (I don’t care if they set up some other civil union, just don’t call it “marriage.”). I also agree with LO that he should have resigned to make his case about gays in the military.

    All that said, the “oath” he broke, particularly looking back on the situation with today’s lens, is not so egregious as to disqualify him. I think it’s just a convenient excuse.

    If you want to talk about “oaths’ broken, how about marriage vows? Since they are sworn to an entity more powerful than the US military, shouldn’t the fact that a person has divorced and remarried disqualify a person from public office?

    And if that’s the case, then Ramadan’s guilty of that one, too.

  • Wolverine says:

    I see your points, LLoyd; and we are not very far apart on most of it.

    My bad on one thing — that response to BO on military discipline. I should have been more precise in my aim. Once Thorne-Begland admitted in public to being gay in violation of official policy at that time, he would have had to leave anyway at some point. What I find off-base is the perception that his honorable discharge is somehow an indicator that the Navy itself didn’t take the thing that seriously. In taking the action he did, Thorne-Begland knowingly got himself two counts: the business of being gay in a time when that was still verboten and the business of having slapped his commanders in the face by going public behind their backs and committing a serious breach of discipline. So, yes, I suspect that they took it very seriously. I would posit that the honorable discharge was just a tactic to stop the bleeding in a situation where the thing had gone public.

    Nevertheless, I don’t think those commanders would have gotten much satisfaction out of any disciplinary action. When you are running an outfit like the COMNAVAIRLANT I knew, you were never happy when you lost a promising pilot, especially one who, I hear, was “top gun” in his training class at Pensacola. Everybody lost on that one, not just Thorne-Begland. You don’t find pilots like that by advertising in the Yellow Pages.

    That said, I must admit that whether a judge is gay or straight at that level of the judiciary doesn’t mean squat to me. Moreover, the Navy business was just one point in the guy’s life where he can be said to have stepped out of line — where the line was at that moment in time anyway. The fault I see is in positing that one part of his life is necessarily a reflection on what he is doing now and what he might do in the future. Even if he has been a LGBT activist outside his official job, you cannot condemn from a professional standpoint unless you can show a pattern of behavior that has imitated that Navy incident of the past. And you had better have some concrete evidence to back it up. Otherwise, let the guy have the job. If his ultimate ambition is to rise higher in the judiciary to a position where the judicial activism you don’t like is possible and you believe it is happening, you can take up the complaint again.

    I may be conservative on almost everything, and I suppose there are people here who would call me a “bigot” — at least at a safe distance. But one thing to which I do not cotten is condemning someone by guessing at what they might do in the future without having any evidence of it or by predicating such an opinion on the basis of a single incident in the far youthful past. You get in the habit of doing that, and someday that dog is going to turn around and bite you.

  • NOVA Skeptic says:

    Just wanted to correct the remarks about the delegates not voting. It is a tradition in the VA HOD, as well as other legislative bodies, that if a delegate does not support a judicial nominee, he/she will simply not vote. This process originated as a show of respect to the delegate who nominated that candidate. What TAG and Ramadan did was unusual. Also, Richard Phelan, I hardly think that we should be attacking Tag from graduating from the USMA and serving his country, and Randy from working with the boy scouts.

    Lloyd, if you consider marriage vows to be sworn to god, as I do, then that’s a divine matter, and as so many people have pointed out on this blog: religious laws are not the same as government laws.

  • Wolverine says:

    LO — You hit the Washington thing right on the head. He did at one time in the 1750′s yearn to have the British military commission he never got .From what I have seen, he was about as “British” in thought and demeanor as you could get. In fact, although he had already donned an “American” uniform in support of the cause in 1775, he was reputed to have raised a toast to King George almost every day in his officers mess.

    What changed his mind? The publication by Thomas Paine in January 1776 of “Common Sense.” In a letter to Joseph Read of Pennsylvania in that same month, Washington indicated that he had crossed a personal Rubicon and that it was due to what Paine had written. Paine’s arguments had allowed him “to decide upon the propriety of separation.”

    Tom Paine. The blogger’s blogger.

  • An oath is an oath, isn’t it?

  • TCJohnson says:

    I just want to say, based on his voting record, I am really happy about being represented by Tom Rust

  • New Energy says:

    Richard, you’re right, Joe May should answer for his cowardly decision to not vote too. Randy Minchew’s explanation was laughable and contained outright falsehoods as Loudoun Watcher 2 pointed out. Randy’s explanation contained a lie. That’s not honorable.

  • Spank that Donkey says:

    Dear “New Energy” (or whichever of your aliases you are using now),

    I read Minchew’s explanation that Lloyd posted. There was nothing in there that you could call out as being a lie. You will, undoubtedly, tell us that Minchew was lying in stating that the evidence of oath-breaking and UCMJ violations by Thorne-Begland was not (as he claimed) unrebutted because “the question was called” before the Democrats could put forth their rebuttal.

    Well, hello. While you may have a point that the Speaker cut off debate prematurely, you make Minchew’s point for him that these allegations really were unrebutted.

    By the way, while it may interfere with the partisan rant you are working on, read Lloyd’s posting on what Minchew said again. In particular, note that he voted to affirm Thorne-Begland in the Courts Committee KNOWING FULL WELL that the candidate was gay.

  • Glen Bayless says:

    Wow! A politician (Washington) who changed his mind based on another’s opinion. He couldn’t get elected dogcatcher (or traffic court judge) in today’s world.

  • New Energy says:

    Dear Spank the Donkey, thanks for joining the board. I’m sure it’s your first time here. I tried to follow the lead of Loudoun Watcher and have two identities, but since Lloyd said stick to one, I shall oblige.

    Anywho, Minchew did indeed lie or at best was making facts look like something they weren’t. You can spin it and say the attacks against the nominee weren’t rebutted and say that’s technically accurate, but I’ll just say it’s totally deceitful. Saying that an attack is unchallenged suggests no one wants to challenge it. As previously indicated in this thread the gay-hating, trans-vaginal probing Republicans didn’t want to hear other arguments.

    You can call it partisan all you want. I guess it has been partisan. Republicans voted down a judge because he’s gay (Marshall has confirmed this on CNN, saying that since he’s gay he might be biased) and it’s been Republicans who decided the government should probe vaginas. So, yeah, it’s partisan I guess.

  • Thad Hunter says:

    He was voted down for a lack of integrity. Our judicial system has become a policy making vehicle for activists who can’t win elections. Their function is to stand for the rule of law and protect citizens from the executive branch first and the legislative branch second. Why would you want anyone on the bench who hasn’t displayed the highest level of integrity and honesty consistently throughout his or her life? Or are we running out of qualified judicial candidates?

  • Lack of integrity, huh? No, he was voted down because he was an activist. A gay activist. And there’s nothing to suggest that his gay activism would have made a damn bit of difference in the traffic court.

    Like I said, the Republicans REALLY screwed up on this. They are in full on crisis mode, and rightfully so. EVEN IF everything they say is true, the irreducible fact is the nominee was voted down because of his gay activism. And there’s no way that’s going to play well anywhere.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “And there’s no way that’s going to play well anywhere.”

    Well, we both know this will play well SOME places in the social con circles…

  • House GOP Veterans Speak says:

    Bad Judgment: Not the Stuff of Would-be Judges
     
    A key function of the General Assembly is to elect judges.  Unlike other states, this task falls squarely on the shoulders of the General Assembly and we must select judges of the highest character and ability.  If either condition is lacking, we must ask “is this candidate worthy of selection?”
    Such was the case on Monday, May 14th, when the House of Delegates chose not to elect Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland as a District Court Judge.  Advocates for Mr. Thorne-Begland point to his prosecutorial abilities, however, they ignore that as a naval officer in 1992, he violated clear military directives not to appear on television to advocate for a personal cause.  Nevertheless, Mr. Thorne-Begland made that appearance, ignoring the requirements of duty that he voluntarily took an oath to uphold.  We contend that Mr. Thorne-Begland exercised profoundly bad judgment in using his military office to advance a personal cause, in this case sexual orientation, on national television; an act he knew was prohibited.  
    Let’s begin with the oath those of us who served the nation in war and peace took when we were commissioned.  “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”  A key word here is “duties” and among them are fidelity to rules and regulations of the military and support for the chain of command.  When an officer violates this fidelity for a personal cause, no matter how sincerely held, he has broken his trust with the service he has sworn to obey.  An officer who does so demonstrates exceptionally bad judgment.  Those who don’t think that oaths, discipline, and fidelity to the chain of command matter, fail to comprehend how the military must function if it is to be effective in combat, which is it’s raison d’être.  It may be difficult for someone who has not served to understand the depth to which we hold this oath, but it is profound.
    An officer shirks his duty when he willingly and knowingly violates a lawful directive of the military and his chain of command by appearing in the media to advocate for a personal cause he believes is more important than the oath he took.  The prohibition to “participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause” is unambiguous, yet Mr. Thorne-Begland violated it knowingly.  Some say, “Well, what about his First Amendment right to free speech?”  Simply put, when you join the military, you give up your right to free speech when it comes to good order and discipline.  You can’t say anything you want about any cause, no matter how deeply held, when, in doing so, you speak publicly in contravention to the policies of your service.  You can be sure that many of us who have served this nation have had times when we didn’t agree with our chain of command and in some cases may have felt the orders and requirements were misguided.  But no matter what side of an issue you take, you do not, as a military member, have the right to speak publicly against your service and chain of command to advance your personal beliefs.
    A case in point was the recent discharge of a young Marine sergeant who made disparaging comments about President Barack Obama, his Commander-in-Chief.  That sergeant may have felt, as Thorne-Begland did, that he was right in speaking out, but that Marine was wrong to do so and should have been discharged, as he was.  And if he ever becomes a lawyer, moves to Virginia, and seeks a judgeship, he shouldn’t be surprised when we don’t support him either.  In both cases, the proper course of action would have been to resign from the service, hang up the uniform, put on civilian garb, and speak to your heart’s content.    
    In the military, we take oaths, duty, good order and discipline very seriously because we know the important role they play in creating an effective fighting force.  We think no less of these values when selecting judges.  If you exhibit bad judgment and indiscipline, you shouldn’t be a judge. Mr. Thorne-Begland’s decision to go on national television to advocate for a personal cause in violation of his sworn duties to his service indicates poor judgment and a lack of regard for the institution he swore to serve and respect.  These aren’t the qualities we seek in a jurist.  
     
    Delegate (Colonel) Rich Anderson (R-51 and US Air Force Retired), Delegate (Commander) Mark Cole (R-88 and USNR Retired), Delegate (Lt. Commander) John Cosgrove (R-78 and USNR, Delegate (Colonel) Mark Dudenhefer (R-2 and US Marine Corps Retired, Delegate (Sergeant) Tim Hugo (R-40 and US Army Reserve), Delegate (Colonel) L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-31 and US Army Retired) and Delegate (Commander) Chris Stolle (R-83 and US Navy, Retired) all serve in the Virginia House of Delegates of the General Assembly.

  • Lloyd says:

    “Lack of integrity, huh? No, he was voted down because he was an activist.”

    But Lloyd, he was/is an “activist” because he *has* integrity.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    This vote was a disaster. This wasn’t about activism or integrity.

    As was pointed out, show me one of these politicians that had not broken an oath.

    Either our republican colleagues abandon this nonsense or hand everything back to the dems. They will be worse, but at least it will be them being worse and not my own party embarrassing us.

  • Lieutenant Wolverine,

    Most people think of the Lieutenant as a one bar Army or Air force rank. In the Navy, that rank is called an Ensign. Is it possible that you are using that lay-person understanding of insignias to inflate your rank?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    As someone under a voluntary sworn oath (he CHOSE to serve, he CHOSE to become a judicial officer) he doesn’t get to pick and choose which parts of oath or law to keep.

    It doesn’t matter what law is changed to afterwards, it matters what it was when he chose not to follow it.

    He bears a greater onus in that, for being under oath.

    He has every right to think, feel, be, but HGV is correct, take the uniform off before you put on your activist hat.

    “But it’s traffic court” has zip to do with that fact–”I disagree with this law so I’m not going to follow it” violates existing oath, and “but they changed it later” doesn’t change that.

    ——————————————————
    Jonathan, unless you have military background, I’d hesitate to argue with someone who has, particularly in your usual passive aggressive manner to suggest that they are lying about their own service. Why not go be happy that the NAACP is on board with Obama’s gay marriage plank?

  • “Bad Judgment?” Really?

    “Bad judgment” is the GA embarrassing the entire commonwealth and all those in it with votes (that’s plural) that make us look like social totalitarians.

  • BlackOut says:

    The justifiers have now won over the argument. All we are playing badminton over now is an oath. This ain’t just about an oath or not an oath. It’s about the integrity of the candidate over his lifetime all taken into context. Same for this guy and same for every other past current and future judge. You can’t tell me every judge is squeaky clean. Has any judge committed adultery? Then maybe got a divorce. I bet so, and that cat broke an oath.

    The justifiers can shout all they want about a military oath, this guy got canned because he was a gay activist. Period. And now all that is being talked about is the oath. Mission accomplished justifiers. At least in their own minds. I am sure it eases their conscience in some strange way.

Leave Comment