Brownback’s obstructionism

October 17, 2006

Perhaps no domestic issue riled Republicans in the Senate more than judicial nominees. The fact that Senate Democrats would dare to do exactly what they did when Clinton was president, and obstruct some of the president’s more controversial would-be judges, was, as far as the Senate GOP was concerned, a genuine threat to democracy.

Every nominee, Republican said, deserve an up-or-down vote. No exceptions could be tolerated without tearing at the fabric of our system of government. Senate Republicans felt so strongly about this that they were prepared to cheat and re-write the chamber’s rules in order to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees forevermore.

With this background in mind, it’s fascinating that the latest senator to block a Bush judicial nominee is none other than Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who, it just so happens, was an enthusiastic support of the “nuclear option” when it was Dems who had concerns about would-be judges.

And why, exactly, does Brownback, as loyal a GOP lapdog as you’ll find in the Senate, feel compelled to take such a bold stand against the president’s own nominee? Because he really, really hates gay people.

A Republican senator is stalling a Michigan judge’s nomination to the federal bench because she reportedly helped lead a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple four years ago.

Sen. Sam [tag]Brownback[/tag] of Kansas, an opponent of homosexual “marriage” who has presidential aspirations, said [last week] he wants to know whether there was anything illegal or improper about the ceremony in Massachusetts.

He also said he wants to question Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Janet T. [tag]Neff[/tag] about her views on homosexual “marriage” and how her actions may shape her judicial philosophy. “It seems to speak about her view of judicial activism,” Mr. Brownback said. “That’s something I want to inquire of her further.”

The closer one looks at this, the more ridiculous it appears.

Judge Neff once attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. That’s the problem. As far as Brownback is concerned, this very well may disqualify her for the federal bench, even though she was nominated by the Bush White House.

Keep in mind, this wasn’t a gay wedding in Massachusetts before they were legal; it was a commitment ceremony, which is always legal. And Neff wasn’t presiding over the event; she was just in attendance.

Brownback, in addition to blocking Neff’s nomination, has asked the Justice Department to investigate the ceremony. Seriously — he’s that hysterical.

A commitment ceremony is not a marriage; it has no legal force whatsoever but is a private expression of the love and devotion of two people. The idea that such a ceremony could be “illegal” is deeply offensive; Americans are entitled to gather, speak, celebrate and worship as they see fit. An administration official says Judge Neff has told Mr. Brownback that she didn’t preside. But even if she did, that would say nothing about her jurisprudential views — merely that she wished to help a couple recognize their relationship informally in the absence of state sanction for it. Keeping Judge Neff off the federal bench over such a matter is perilously close to declaring her unfit to serve because she has lesbian friends.

Given his bizarre conduct in this matter, I’m almost convinced that having lesbian friends would make her unfit to serve, as far as Brownback is concerned.

Remind me, who are the [tag]obstructionists[/tag] again?

Presidential aspirations? Please do. I enjoy seeing fools and their money being separated.

  • “Americans are entitled to gather, speak, celebrate and worship as they see fit” – WaPo

    Well, for now. Don’t expect that to last now that Boy George II can lock up anyone for any reason at any time without any access to the courts.

  • Well, for now. Don’t expect that to last now that Boy George II can lock up anyone for any reason at any time without any access to the courts.
    —Comment by Lance

    Speaking of that, someone called into Air America Radio this AM as I was going to work saying that Bush did not sign that bill within ten days of Congress being out of session, so it has an automatic pocket veto. Does anyone know if that is true? Apparently he let eighteen days go by. Anyway, it has been awhile since I was in the 8th grade and took my US Constitution test, so perhaps someone else knows.

  • Brownback has since lost any moorings he may have had with reality. President? Please. The last time I checked reality was a sine qua non for the executive branch although our current president may be the lone exception to this rule.

  • I just looked the pocket veto up on wicopedia and I am stil unclear because congress was out of session and he didn’t sign it within the ten days, but I think I read that the law still stands.

  • Reality? Presidency? It’s only a requirement for Democrats. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Minor: I wouldn’t call these people with strong moorings with reality.

    One can make the argument that Bush Major tried to have a relationship with reality and look what happened to him. Voted out.

  • Ok, how about this….

    I call a meeting of the Secret Homoseckshool Underground Conspiracy here in D.C. After we cover old business (our attempts to protect Foley from himself and our sabotage of the right wing family values agenda in Congress), we’ll start a new project. Every gay/lesbian couple will be assigned to go make friends with conservative politicians (I know enough of them already that I’ve filled my quota). We’ll keep good records. Then, when the same politicians cause trouble or run for higher office, we’ll “out” them as having HOMOSECKSHOOL FRIENDS! That will instantly disqualify them for office, and end their careers.

  • “Gerry Studds’ lawfully wedded spouse is about to get stiffed by the people who administer Congressional pensions.” – DXM

    Of course. Congress passed a law just to punish Studds The Defense of Marriage Act says that the United States does not recognize gay marriages by the states. Thus his widower husband, Dean T. Hara, gets stiffed.

    Ain’t America great?

    God, I wish Hara would cut an ad for Virginia explaining this and maybe waking some people up to how unfair we are being.

  • As insane as this sounds, Brownback is going to win major points with the Christian fascists over this. Without Gary Bauer or — to a lesser extent — Alan Keyes, Brownback is their candidate for president.

    Their wild, irrational belief in and fear of the inherent ickiness of gays reminds me a lot of my Catholic school days and discussions in the boys’ locker room. It’d be funny except these people are deadly serious and they’re intent on running the country.

  • An administration official says Judge Neff has told Mr. Brownback that she didn’t preside.

    She should have told him “Get stuffed you walking prick!” Cripes are we going to have Stonewall – The Sequel?

    But the witch hunt is on and I think all right minded citizens need to start carrying baseball bats, if not for themselves, for a friend or a stranger who is minding his own business when the freaks attack. A cynical tin foil hat wearer might wonder if these people were just waiting for a chance to get their hate on and the Foley scandal was their cue to froth at the mouth and whip out the torches and pitchforks. Nah. Just like it would be foolish to assume that all of this hysteria is an attempt to distract people from the Foley cover up.

    But if Brownback and other scum floating on the gene pool aren’t careful they’ll get what they’re asking for. The banishment, not just of people who are G/L/B, but everyone who knows someone who is G/L/B, which will mean America will revert to a stone age society and jackasses like Brownback (what a name) will pick a louse from his beard and say “See, I told you homosexuals were bad for society!”

  • According to Findlaw annotations on Article 1 Section 7, if the president doesn’t sign or return the bill within 10 days of being presented with it, and Congress is still in session, then it becomes law anyway. But if Congress has had its final adjournment (is out of session) and it’s been more than 10 days since the bill was presented, it counts as a veto.

    A couple of questions would be, what date was the bill presented to the President, and, serious question, what happens if Bush actually missed the deadline but decides to backdate it?

    Both the text and the annotation are short, only a couple of paragraphs, and easy to read.

    Text of Article 1 Section 7
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

    the annotation
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/24.html#1

    • Comments are closed.