A lack of necessary judicial temperament
By Robert G. Marshall
Your editorial “Bigoted lawmakers block gay judge” (May 16), criticizing the recent House of Delegates’ rejection of judicial nominee Tracy Thorne-Begland, is long on name-calling and short on facts. Your readers deserve to know why this judicial candidate was not confirmed.
First, I assume that we have appointed individuals as judges who experience same-sex attraction. If so, they are not activists. Yet this candidate defied his military oath, sued the Department of Defense in federal court for dismissing him after he announced his homosexuality on national television and publicly advocated for homosexual behavior despite military code prohibiting political activism.
Marshall, of Manassas, is a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates
May 27, 2012 - 8:00 AM
Bigoted Or Reasonable Lawmakers Block Gay Judge?
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2012/05/bigoted-or-reasonable-lawmakers-block.html
-
Most people, myself included, tend to adopt a position on an issue and then look for reasons supporting that conclusion (pre-clusion??).
It seems to me this is exactly what Del. Marshall is doing.
For example, Marshall is opposed to “activists” becoming judges. I say, So What!? Thurgood Marshall was an activist long before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Being an activist didn’t stand in his way.
He complains of Thorne-Begland suing the Dept. of Defense. Our Bill of Rights says we’re allowed to petition our government with grievances so to use this as an excuse is to be AGAINST the Constitution.
Marshall complains Thorne-Begland “threw away” $2 million dollars worth of training by announcing he was gay. This is not true. The Dept. of Defense “threw away” that $2 million when they discharged Thorne-Begland.
Marshall says, “This activist judicial applicant is critical of all other Virginia judges!” Again, so what? If 60 million people do a stupid thing, it’s still a stupid thing and worthy of criticism no matter how many people do it.
I could go on but won’t.
It takes a great deal of intentional effort to put unbiased reason before the type of emotional justifications put forward by Del. Marshall.
In looking at his “arguments” as even handedly as I can, I am of the opinion, Del. Marshall is a bigot.
The most illuminating aspect here is the reporting & editorializing on this issue by the RT versus the expanded pov of Marshall.
The latter we finally get today, and agree with him or not, he makes a compelling case.
#3 – Even more illuminating, Jim, is how yet again, the Left and the media ignore the facts and instead believe only what they want to believe.
#4 I’m not particuarly concerned with what they believe. I am very concerned when they shape the news & slant the facts to influence others to think the like.
#3 Jim sez: “agree with him or not, he makes a compelling case.”
“Compelling case,” my foot. More like a self-serving rationalization of his homophobic bigotry. Scott M. up in comment #2 was far, FAR more compelling.
#4 Michael sez: “yet again, the Left and the media ignore the facts and instead believe only what they want to believe.”
Pot, meet kettle.
#5 Jim sez: “I am very concerned when they shape the news & slant the facts to influence others to think the like.”
Maybe you should save that advice for your own kind, Jim.
#8 My kind? Please elaborate.
#7 – No, Steven.
Here’s yet another case of someone who was slammed by the Left explaining why they did, supported by facts.
And once again, the Left doesn’t accept it. They deemed Marshall a bigot and by God, no matter what his reasoning, a bigot he is!
Facts be damned!
As Obama said after his election in 2008, elections have consequences.
The VA legislature and the governorship is controlled by conservatives now. Why shouldn’t they pick the judges they want.
Ironically, I think Marshall was right to do what he did. I’m not saying I agree with his decision but he was elected by his constituents to make his best judgment and do as he sees fit.
The role in reverse was the non-confirmation of Robert Bork. That guy is a serious loon and as much as the regressives (because that’s what Bork is) wanted him, the liberals were able to torpedo his nomination.
I completely disagree with Marshall’s reasons for doing what he did. He’s still a bigot. But if roles were reversed and I found myself in the State House faced with someone I thought wrong for a judgeship I’d fight tooth and nail to keep him/her out. Of course, I’d do it for all the right reasons unlike Marshall.
If we want better judges, we need to elect better representatives. Until then, we get the government we deserve.
I don’t know if it’s true or not but I’ve heard Plato said “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
#10 Marshall has shown in the past his bigotry and his desire to somehow control the sex lives of others, Michael. Excuse us if we don’t believe that he’s suddenly operating under some sort of high standard.
Scott M…Marshall explains his vote…gave many reasons for his position… NONE was the candidate was incapable or unappointable due to his homosexuality. You rightly state Marshall is voting on behalf of his constituents.
Then claim Marshall to be a bigot while offering no proof. And those voting to abstain or absent?? Their non vote was just as “supportive” as a no vote.
Are they bigots too?
@14 BUD, besides his history you are correct I’ve offered no proof. I am offering an opinion that I believe to be correct.
The others who didn’t vote did it either because they couldn’t stay up that late or had no balls. They may be bigots or they may not be. I don’t know. If they write an opinion piece explaining why they didn’t, I’ll be happy to tell you if I think they’re being truthful or not.
I think Marshall is lying in the sense his reason for voting no is because he’s a bigot against gays. He found some things that almost but not quite sound like reasons to hide behind in justifying his particular vote.
It’s time for Marshall to go away.
Odd that it does not even register why people think Marshall is a bigot. He chooses his words and his causes. We simply choose to hold him responsible.
“The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all
Perfect example.
#9 Here’s what I mean by your kind, Jim: The kind that will, like Marshall, employ all manner of pretzel logic in their attempts to claim that the equal-protection clause of our U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to gays when heterosexuals are allowed to enter into legally-recognized marriages with the people they love (and enjoy all the 1000+ govt. benefits that come with them) while gays aren’t. I mean the kind that blithely ignores the consensus among just about every medical and mental-health organization worldwide that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variant of humanity, isn’t a choice and can’t be changed. I mean the kind that screams “judicial activism!!!” when Federal courts issue decisions they don’t like while giving a free pass to SCOTUS judges who ignore all judicial precedents by claiming that artificial constructs like corporations have the exact same rights as people. THAT kind, Jim…YOUR kind.
#10 Sorry Michael, but Marshall singles out a particular judge because the delegate feels the judge’s sexual orientation makes him inappropriate. I never saw him have a problem with African-American judges presiding over cases involving race, yet he singles out the Prop H8 case in California because of the sexual orientation of the lower court judge from that case (which the U.S. Appellate Court found to be a non-issue). If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. And if it looks like a homophobic bigot and acts like a homophobic bigot, it’s a homophobic bigot.