It is NOT the Supreme Court, Bob!

By Lloyd the Idiot

For chrissakes, Del. Bob Marshall is opposing a nominee for a General District Court judgeship  for no reason other than the nominee is gay.  Keep in mind that the nominee is a 12 year veteran prosecutor, was nominated by fellow Republican Del. Manoli Loupassi, and is, in Loupassi’s words, “absolutely well qualified.”

Now, also keep in mind that the General District Court decides  such weighty issues as traffic tickets, simple assaults and other People’s Court-type stuff.  Look, unless your defense to a speeding ticket is that you were late to a pedicure, the fact that a district court judge is gay is never going to  make a difference.  (That’s my attempt at a Modern Family-style joke, by the way)

Psst.  I think I just saw Marshall and Delgaudio sharing an appletini.  Just sayin’  . . .


Comments

  • Citizen Tom,

    If you think of yourself as a Republican, please leave the party. We have no use for any so-called Republican who is against homosexuals having the right to marry.

    If you think of yourself as a conservative, go find another word. We conservatives have no room for people like you who do not understand that the proper role of government is not to defend your particular nonsensical social logic. It has ZERO role in marriage. That is the conservative position. So go call yourself something else.

  • Minchew: Come on here and explain that vote. Why did you do this? You have been supported here. Should we continue?

    Please simply explain this vote.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    I’m curious not just about Minchew, but also about Joe May. I hope the call of nature was extremely urgent or that some other irresistible reason explains their apparent “walks”. It frankly doesn’t seem like either of them to vote NO on this or even a disguised NO. I hope there is a good story on this (Perhaps Marshall told Minchew and May that tradition required the junior and senior members of the Loudoun contingent to go out to get pizza for the Members and they were a mile down the road before they realized they had been snookered).

  • Neither Minchew nor May actually voted, so I wouldn’t read too much into it. Others officially abstained, and still others voted no. It’s the no votes that get me.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    RE Citizen Tom’s comment: we’ll find out soon enough how far the federal Constitution permits states to go in dispensing a legal status to heterosexual couples that they withhold from homosexual couples. That case is certainly going to be heard by the Supreme Court in the context of the Prop 8 challenge in California. But is there really a problem in Virginia with state judges flouting the Constitutional restrictions put in place by the voters several years ago? And, if the answer is a documented yes, why does that have anything to do with this particular appointment? Are you saying that a competent homosexual jurist cannot uphold the law? Are homosexuals as a group less conscientious, less ethically responsible than heterosexuals? Are there issues on which heterosexuals cannot be trusted to dispense justice fairly? If so, should we ban both homosexuals and heterosexuals from serving as judges in Virginia?

  • “If so, should we ban both homosexuals and heterosexuals from serving as judges in Virginia”

    Reminds me of the debate we had about Muslims and their ability to represent “true Americans”

    Apparently one Muslim legislator who voted no here forgot that whole episode.

  • Loudoun Moron says:

    Wonder if Greason will have an opponent in 2013

  • David says:

    Tom didn’t get the memo, either. LOL

  • Viper says:

    Remember that not voting is the same as a no vote. An appointee needed to get 50 plus yes votes. And let’s also remember that these are rarely contested. Minchew’s “not voting” has the same effect of a no vote, it must happens to be more cowardly.

    I bet Minchew will just say he was absent or something, Don’t believe him, it was calculated like everything Minchew does.

  • BlackOut says:

    What gets me is these social conservatives don’t have the integrity to stand up for what they believe in during election cycles. They hide their agendas, as I can only assume they think they won’t win election if they were truthful.

    It’s not only that I disagree with them, it’s that I think they lack integrity to debate what they believe. It’s slimy and cowardly. No conviction. Or better said their conviction only comes out with select audiences and at legislative voting time.

  • BlackOut says:

    Minchew has built in political radar to avoid things like this. He loves having plausible deniability. Someone said it best above, he’s an enabler.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    From Mark Herring:

    “The treatment that Mr. Thorne-Begland received by the General Assembly, well after midnight Tuesday morning, was disgraceful and offensive. Mr. Thorne-Begland is a highly qualified prosecutor who served our country with distinction as a member of the United States Navy. His nomination to the General District Court bench was rejected by a majority of Republicans in the General Assembly solely because of his sexual orientation. Together with many of my fellow Virginians, I am embarrassed by what I witnessed take place early this morning.”

  • Having grown up hearing many, many sermons, and coming to know many, many pastors very very well, one thing I learned was that when the pulpit starts becoming a bully pulpit for one thing or another (from things ranging from porn to debt to the importance of exercise) there is a pretty good chance that the particular pastor is going through something very personal — or someone close to him/her is going through something.

    I’ve learned that when a politician insists that person X “Can’t uphold the Constitution” then that generally means, if that politician were in the same position, he/she would be willing to put their own politics over the Constitution. To true believers (like those who might be struggling with issues similar to the pastor) these comments sound like sound fundamentals. But chances are, they are only the bleating sound of a very angry sheep.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    It appears you recall your Samuel. Gretchen going Old Testament…

  • G.Stone says:

    Had I the opportunity to vote for or against this fellow it would have been based on his judicial philosphy, and if I disagreed with it, I would have voted no in a NY minute. If he was a strict constructionist then he would deserve the seat and received a thumbs up. However, I suspect had I or anyone else voted against him based on his legal thought process, they would have been dismissed and labeled a bigot or homophobe bla bla bla. Given that, it is almost pointless for anyone to provide a rational for their vote one way or the other.

    Here is proof of my assertion from Herrings statement:

    ” His nomination to the General District Court bench was rejected by a majority of Republicans in the General Assembly solely because of his sexual orientation.

    This is on its face is an assinine statement. There is no possible way Mark Herring would know or could know the reasons an entire group of Delegates voted against this fellow. If it were 100 votes it could be 100 different reasons. Did he interview the group after the vote ? did he talk to even one of them ? probably not. This is a prime example of what I was talking about.

    Now comes the part when someone will chide me for caring about his Judicial Philosphy given the position is just “General District Court ” well it matters, it always matters.

  • “I suspect had I or anyone else voted against him based on his legal thought process, they would have been dismissed and labeled a bigot or homophobe bla bla ”

    Stone, in fact, no member of the House voting “no” who has stated an opinion said they voted against him because of this legal thought process. In other words, they didn’t give a damn about his qualifications.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    G, come on. You’re smarter than that. No one else was singled out. Minchew is now saying it was the DADT thing. No one is even glancing at the “judicial philosophy” excuse.

  • G.Stone says:

    How many have stated an opinion, I am not being a smart ass, i don’t know.
    My points are, it is possible to vote no for reasons other than he was gay.
    It only takes one member of the voting block that voted against him to do so for reason other than what Sen. Herring asserted to destroy the assertion.
    BTW, did any Democrats vote no ? If so, would Herring or others draw the same conclusions as to their motivations ?

  • Stone, not a single Dem voted no.

  • G.Stone says:

    ED

    Are you asserting that Herrings statement is on solid ground ? Are you really capable of determining what is in the hearts and minds of an entire group who happened to come down on the same side of a vote. Seriously ?

    Remember this is the quote…. “solely because of his sexual orientation.” No wiggle room here. I know what the word solely means.

  • G.Stone says:

    “Stone, not a single Dem voted no.”

    Then it was a party line vote. Correct ? Yet another reason why someone voting against him might do so. Following orders, taking one for the team, going along with the crowd.

    You do realize your arguing with a guy who probably would have voted for this guy as previously stated. So if you are trying to find someone who will carry the no gays on the bench flag, keep looking. That position would be as illogical as the one I think you are trying to make.

    I will however continue to make the point that asserting every man and woman who voted against this fellow did so because he was gay is an assertion without merit. Further, it is one you could never prove if you were so inclined to do so. The assertion is static.

  • No, it was not a party line vote. Some Republicans voted yes.

    Just get your facts straight. Hell, the vote tally is just a few comments above.

  • Wizard says:

    This is incredibly disappointing in regards to Randy Minchew. And to think he told so many people – in his best professorial voice – how he was going to stand up to this kind of politics. Heck, I’d respect him more if he had his reasons and voted “no.” But he took the cowardly way out. I guess he voted “absent.”

    Certainly not a Profiles in Courage moment for Minchew.

  • […] only a very few anemic voices trying to make excuses for Mr. Marshall. And at least one commenter understands the meaning of this precisely: I take Bob Marshall at his word when he says he did not torpedo the nomination of an extremely […]

  • edmundburkenator says:

    G, you’re stumbling around this thread like a guy drunk on vodka and Koolaid.

    Look up Occam’s Razor and stop trying to create this “looking into someone’s heart” argument.

    You sound like a Democrat.

  • […] Thought Police mewlings of Marshall and his little band of sycophants, who are even now being pitifully defended with the argument “you can’t prove they voted no because they agreed with […]

  • David says:

    Here is a further breakdown of those counted as not voting. Formatting: The single entries should be in the center column, under 1:12:56, but I think you’ll get the idea, i.e., Brink was actually not present, while May and Minchew were present and chose not to vote.

    “There was a vote held on another judicial nomination mere seconds earlier, at 1:12:33. And a vote held on another judicial nomination just seconds later, at 1:13:19. Here’s a table listing every delegate who did not vote on each of those three occasions:

    Delegates Who Did Not Vote
    1:12:33 1:12:56 1:13:19

    Brink Brink Brink
    Englin Englin Englin
    Gilbert
    Habeeb Habeeb Habeeb
    Head
    Howell Howell Howell
    Joannou Joannou Joannou
    Johnson
    Jones Jones Jones
    May
    McQuinn
    Miller
    Minchew
    Morris
    O’Bannon O’Bannon O’Bannon
    Orrock Orrock Orrock
    Peace Peace Peace
    Plum Plum Plum
    Purkey Purkey Purkey
    Ransone Ransone Ransone
    Tata Tata Tata
    Tyler Tyler Tyler
    Ware, O. Ware, O. Ware, O.
    Ware, R.L.
    Webert Webert Webert
    Wright Wright Wright
    Yancey Yancey Yancey

    One can immediately see who was present 23 seconds earlier, disappeared from the chambers (according to the official record), and then returned 23 seconds later: Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), Christopher Head (R-Roanoke), Joe Johnson (D-Washington County), Joe May (R-Loudoun), Jackson Miller (R-Manassas), Randy Minchew (R-Leesburg), Richard Morris (R-Isle of Wight), and R. Lee Ware (R-Powhatan). These are our eight “Profiles in Courage” legislators—guys who failed this little test of basic human decency, who knew that they were doing something wrong, but didn’t want it on their permanent record.”

  • David says:

    So there you have it – there was a single Democrat in the category of those who facilitated this shameful episode. Happy now?

Leave Comment