<-"Join the Online Sensation Before We All Murder You" |Main|Harry Potter and the . . . ->

Sam Brownback is a Fucking Moron

December 20, 2006 2:13 PM

anet Neff, a federal judge nominee, went to her friend's wedding. That's not very remarkable. It turns out, though, that the judge's friend is a lesbian and she married a woman. Still, not all that remarkable in my opinion. What makes it even less remarkable, of course, is that the ceremony took place in Massachusetts in 2002, the year before Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), required that same-sex marriage be legal in the state. That means that the wedding Ms. Neff attended had no legal effect. It was merely a formal, although not legally significant, ceremony. Notice, also, that Ms. Neff attended the ceremony. She did not perform the marriage and was not one of the people getting married. She just went to her friend's wedding.

But Sen. Sam Brownback wants to question Ms. Neff about her role in the ceremony. Why? Well, that brings us to the title of this post: because Sam Brownback is a fucking moron.

In the words of Sen. Brownback:

I would like her to come back through committee so she can testify what took place, factually . . . her legal views on same-sex marriage and her ability and willingness to be impartial.

Let me see if I understand.

You want to question her about what took place, factually. So, you want to ask what color dresses the brides in a lesbian wedding wear? How many people there were? What they served at the reception? You probably want to ask Ms. Neff if any of the guests smoked reefer, whether they discussed their agenda to destroy the family, and whether any children were sacrificed, too, right?

You also want to ask about her legal views on same-sex marriage? Why's that, I wonder? So that you can make sure that, if she won't vote the way you want her to, you can vote against her confirmation? That seems rather un-separation of powers to me.

And you also want to make sure she's impartial. That just doesn't make any sense! Why would her going to her friend's wedding ceremony mean she can't be impartial? Am I to understand that someone is unfit to be a federal judge merely because they support a friend of theirs who does something that is perfectly legal but, in your opinion, uncool?

Yes, Sen. Brownback, you are most definitely an idiot. But, as if that fact had not been made abundantly clear, you went on to cement your reputation as one of the stupidest people in the Senate.

If we [sic] don't testify on her views on same-sex marriage legally [sic], then the only way I can see fit to do this is to have her recuse herself from a class of cases.

Let me see if I understand this. A nominee should have to recuse herself from certain cases if she hasn't testified about her views on that subject before the Senate. Am I the only one who sees how stupid that is? Not only does the very idea fly in the face of separation of powers, but it's absurd! The Senate cannot possibly question each judicial nominee about each and every single area of the law that the nominee might hear cases about. It's idiotic to say that a judge, when faced with a subject that did not come up at his confirmation hearings, should say "Whoa, guys, I'd really like to participate in this case involving some obscure procedural point but, unfortunately, it didn't come up at the hearings and you know how Sen. Brownback feels about us hearing cases when we haven't already told him how we'll decide 'em. Why don't you guys tackle this one and let me know when you've got an abortion case I can help you with."

So, in closing, Sen. Sam Brownback is an idiot. I can't wait until his presidential campaign goes down in flames.

On a vaguely related note . . .

The state of Massachusetts is considering a state-wide ban on trans fats. You all know how I feel about this shit. This is just the first step, too. Soon they'll be increasing the chocolate ration.

Powered by TagBoard Message Board

Name URL or Email Messages(smilies)

RSS