Sleepy lawmakers
Last night, the Virginia House of Delegates debated past midnight whether to appoint a gay man to be a judge. They finally voted after 1 a.m., and rejected the nomination of prosecutor Tracey Thorne-Begland to General District Court judge in Richmond. We’ll have an editorial on that tomorrow, but in the meantime you can read the comments of Sen. Brian McEachin below, which pretty well sum things up.
But first, here’s an inaction shot featuring two of our local delegates courtesy of Richmond Times-Dispatch photographer Bob Brown, by way of the Associated Press.
(AP Photo/Richmond Times-Dispatch, Bob Brown)
In the front, looking like he is dozing off, is Del. Nick Rush, R-Christiansburg. The one face-palming in the back is Del. Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke. (The bored-looking one in the middle is Del. Israel O’Quinn, R-Bristol.)
The vote on the gay judge went 33-31 with 10 abstentions and 26 lawmakers not voting. It needed 51 votes to pass. Rush abstained. Ware did not vote.
When they and anyone else who did not vote last night seek re-election, I hope voters remember. They either refused to go on the record or lacked the stamina to fulfill their duty. Neither is acceptable.
(Update: 12:03)
Click here for a pdf of the vote tally. Locally:
Yea: Joe Yost, R-Blacksburg
Nay: Charles Poindexter, R-Glade Hill
Abstention: Anne Crockett-Stark, R-Wytheville; Lacey Putney, I-Bedford; Nick Rush, R-Christiansburg
Not voting: Greg Habeeb, R-Salem; Chris Head, R-Roanoke; Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke
(end update)
–
Statement by Senator Donald McEachin on GA’s Failure to Appoint Tracy Thorne-Begland
RICHMOND, VA – Today, Senator Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) made the following statement on the General Assembly’s failure to appoint Tracy Thorne-Begland to the Richmond District Court.
“Tracy Thorne-Begland is a highly qualified and exceptionally competent prosecutor, who also served our country with honor as a Navy pilot. The blatant prejudice that Republicans displayed last night should have no place in our government. The GOP took Virginia back to the bigotry and mean-spirited prejudice of the 1960s. I thought we had made more progress toward a just society than this.
“The only criteria legislators should apply when selecting judges are that person’s ability to fairly and impartially weigh the law. Mr. Thorne-Begland’s qualifications for appointment to the bench were unimpeachable, but Republicans cynically voted against his appointment just because he was gay,” said Senator McEachin.
May 15, 2012 - 11:50 AM
This kind of cowardly behavior is unacceptable on several levels and this kind of prejudice is unacceptable on EVERY level. Some days I am ashamed to be a human being.
Hey, Senator McEachin…instead of runnin’ your mouth, how about proof that he was voted down because he is gay?
You want to make such accusations? Prove it.
#2 He was, Michael. Why don’t you read a little?
“But his nomination came under fire late last week, as the Family Foundation and Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, stoked fears that the 45-year-old attorney would allow his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions.”
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/may/15/19/house-of-delegates-rejects-thorne-begland-for-judg-ar-1914948/
Social conservative homophobes.
3 – And you actually have proof that this is the ONLY reason his nomination was voted down? Let’s see it.
#3 – So ONE person expressed concern over it and that means they ALL voted against him because he’s gay, gdad?
Sorry. I ain’t buying it.
Once again, someone who is gay doesn’t get what they want and the lefties scream it’s because he’s gay.
Sorry, you guys wore that out a long time ago.
Onzlee Ware didn’t vote. Does that make him a homophobe?
#4 Tell you what, Other Rick, you show us otherwise. Of course it’s impossible for me to “rove” there’s not other reason at all. But his sexual orientation is the only reason I’ve seen given publicly. Read the story from the conservative RTD.
I’ll be back to see your answer.
6 – Sorry, but YOU’RE the one making the accusation. The burden is on you.
Unless one is blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other, it is an extremely reasonable conclusion that Thorne-Begland was denied this position based purely on his sexual orientation and nothing more.
Had there been any irregularities in any of the court cases that he had participated in or actually tried, they would have most certainly been brought forward by the homophobic idiots in The House of Delegates.
What is even more disturbing to me is the number of non-voting members of this body.
If anyone ever doubted that discrimination based on sexual orientation didn’t exist, the is prima facia evidence that it is indeed alive and well in the body of government and therefore alive and regrettably well in the non-governmental job market as well.
Virginia…I’m ashamed of you tonite.
#7 Sorry, I’m not making the accusation. Numerous people in the legislature and elsewhere are. The RTD article makes it pretty clear. And Bob Marshall sure as heck ain’t denying it.
The committees approved his credentials and he was a highly rated lawyer. Now go ahead Other Rick and Michael, tell us what other reasons you know of that he was denied. Oh, you don’t know of any other reasons?
Why would you want to defend these homohpobes?
#9 – I’m not defending any homophobes, gdad. I’m simply standing up against yet another unprovable claim made by the Left when a gay (or minority, or handicapped, or whatever) person doesn’t get what they want.
#9 – Sorry, gdad, I forgot to include that I don’t know of any other reasons why he was voted against.
However, neither do you.
Every person who voted against him could have had a very valid reason for it, none of which are due to him being gay.
Too bad he isn’t Black. You could play the race card right along with the sexual orientation card.
If there WERE other reasons, why would they not be voiced? No one with a brain, even a hard wired right wing bigot’s brain, WANTS to be seen as a bigot. If there was another reason, it would have been stated IMO.
His boss in the CA’s office called the decision out:
“Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael N. Herring said today that Virginia lawmakers who scuttled the judicial nomination of openly gay Chief Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Tracy Thorne-Begland early this morning did so without any justification that he was unqualified for the bench.”
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/may/15/22/house-of-delegates-rejects-thorne-begland-for-judg-ar-1914948/
Is that enough “evidence” for you? If a bigot could hide behind another excuse, ANY excuse, they have, they do and they will.
#12 – Herring’s comment is an opinion and not evidence of anything. Give us statements from those who voted against him saying they did it because he’s gay.
Could they have voted against him for political reasons? Absolutely. But no, it’s much easier to make baseless accusations than face the possible truth.
And you think voting against him “for political reasons” is so much more acceptable? Even if that was the case, they should have the integrity to say so.
You have set an unacceptably high bar for when you will decide a decision is bigoted IMO. When they admit they voted against him “because he is gay” you will believe it and until then, no excuse at all is reason to refuse the obvious one? The thing here is that you all go ballistic (for decades) when someone’s “politics” is used as an excuse (Bork ring a bell? Roberts? Scalia?) and yet in this case, you are perfectly willing for that to be not only “the” excuse, but a valid excuse. Funny how that argument changes when the shoe is on the other foot.
#11 Michael, the guy leading this, Bob Marshall, said it was because he’s gay. Period. End of story.
#16 – How about a link to that? Thanks.
#17 “But his nomination came under fire late last week, as the Family Foundation and Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, stoked fears that the 45-year-old attorney would allow his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions.”
I know that I’m always afraid that heteros will allow their sexual orientation to affect their decisions. Or that men will let their gender affect their decisions. And in fact it happens — especially the male part.
I love it when people defend wingnuts like Marshall.
#18 – What, exactly, did Marshall say? And “Stoking fears” is the opinion of the author.
I’m not saying folks didn’t vote against him because he’s gay…they are human after all. I’m saying a lot of asumptions are being made without actual proof.
The article is written as if all 31 Republican votes against him were because he’s gay. While I doubt very much if that’s true, you and I have no way of knowing.
This article is simply another media hit piece against Republicans.
If it is true that we “have no way of knowing”, how can anyone who surmises a conclusion be called wrong? YOU may say fervently that there were other, unknown, unvoiced and unaccounted for “reasons”, WE may say fervently that “it quacks like a duck”. You can no more prove we are wrong, than you can prove you are right. Until there is evidence to prove me wrong, I believe the preponderance of the evidence points to the truth of the matter. Sometimes that is all you have. Please stop pretending that it is activism that you disdain when that does not appear to be the case at all when the activism fits your own POV. How often have folks here argued that a very religious, very partisan, very active TP/GOP ________________fill in the blank, can still be honest, impartial, fair and govern wisely? Quack, Quack, Quack!
Based on what is being reported, the only reason Thorne-Begland was opposed was his sexual orientation. According to one report, “the only issue on which Thorne-Begland was challenged were his same-sex partner and his gay rights activism. There wasn’t even a claim that he was unfit for any reason other than who he is.” Marshall himself said “I don’t even think it’s proper to put his name forward because of his behavior.” That ‘behavior’ Marshall is referring to is his sexual orientation and the fact that Thorne-Begland has been an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights. According to AP reports, several of the people who voted against Thorne-Begland said the reason they voted against him was “because he breached military rules by speaking out publicly against the now defunct “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and disclosed his sexual orientation on television news programs.”
The main political groups that supported this move was the Family Foundation of Virginia. They issued a statement opposing his appointment, arguing that his public work on behalf of gay rights makes him unsuitable for the impartial role of judge. Their website states “Until we can be assured he will not put his obvious political agenda ahead of the law, we don’t believe he should be approved.” I find this particularly ironic because it is radical Christian groups like the Family Foundation et.al. who are constantly putting forward their “obvious political agenda ahead of the law.”
The people who opposed his nomination use the argument that because Thorne-Begland is gay and publicly supports LGBT equality, he would not be able to separate his personal life from his judicial duties. Does this mean that women who publicly support equal pay for women should not be allowed to rule on sex-discrimination cases? Or if you are black and publicly oppose racial profiling, then you can’t rule on police misconduct issues? If you are Christian, does that mean you can’t rule on religious discrimination cases, or cases involving religious freedom? Dahlia Lithwick summed this up perfectly in her recent essay. “…by this logic, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who fought for civil rights at the NAACP, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was ‘a passionate career-long advocate for women’s rights’ would be unfit to serve on the federal bench. Obviously the only people who can rise above their race, or gender or sexual orientation and rule fairly are straight white men.”
And BTW, if the votes were about “activism”, how is it that the gun rights “activist” and the labor “activist” both got their judgeship?
No one is being fooled here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/virginia-general-assembly-rejects-openly-gay-prosecutor-for-richmond-judgeship/2012/05/15/gIQAvZKSSU_story.html
#20 -” You can no more prove we are wrong, than you can prove you are right.”
At no point have I said you were wrong about this, Sandi. My whole point, that apparently went beyond your comprehension, was that no one actually knows why they voted the way they did. They are being accused of something that may very well NOT have been the case.
Michael, how often do you stand by and allow someone to accuse you of being a bigot and not respond? It is not beyond my comprehension to know that people do not like being called, or thought of as, any such thing if they can plausibly avoid it. To date, no such protestations of “other valid reasons” has been presented. That alone is an indictment.
#24 – Who called you a bigot, Sandi?
#25 — Probably the exact same number of people who called YOU a bigot: None. NEXT!