Rambling Rhodes

So.... the point you were trying to make is that you're gay? You should probably inform the girlfriend about that.... :-)

It's a difficult subject to bring up with her, Rick. Maybe I'll get around to it this weekend.

You know, if we're not fucking.

Will my editing skills be replaced with a sudden flair for color coordination?

That hurts, man. That really hurts.

Ryan's not gay?

Now I'm starting to wonder about myself. In Photoshop I created a pyramid of penis heads without even realizing it. And I composed it using images of a naked male ass in the bent-over position. Not to mention that I "inadvertently" color-coordinated the guard's gloves and the prisoners' boxers in a flamboyant shade of turquoise. I must be really, really, really gay, on a subconscious level at least.

Wotisitgood4 could have bolstered his case by mentioning that Roberts played Peppermint Patty in a school musical. But then again, Peppermint Patty may well be the most masculine role in the show.

hay - its lukery here from Wotisitgood4 - i wrote the post you 'disassembled'.

you misread (or misrepresented) my post - perhaps cos i wrote it badly, and perhaps because you arent familiar with me or the rest of my writing.

ftr - no - im not 'a hate-filled ignoramus' *and* im a single 30 something male, went to an all-male boarding school and am also educated - tho you are correct to say that im not as educated as mr roberts.

when you read a sentence like "he wears black dresses" - that *could* be an indication that the writer is 'plain stupid', or it *could* also be an irony alert.

i totally agree with you that sexuality is irrelevant *except* when it comes to hypocrisy.

im not quite sure what the definition of 'gay baiting' is - but the underlying premise of my article was that i didnt want roberts or anyone fucking with "womens reproductive rights or gay rights for *any* reason" - so whatever you say about me or my article, its disingenuous to paint me as a homophobe.

roberts recently said that he would have to recuse himself if there is a clash between the US constitution and catholic doctrine - so there might be more truth than we dare imagine to the (ironic) statement "Again, because you're a Catholic believer, you must be in lock-step with all the dictates of the Catholic Church about EVERYTHING. Shhhh, don't tell Andrew Sullivan."

andrew, of course, isnt tasked with protecting the rights of minorities. on the other hand, the pope thinks gays *and condoms* are evil.

do you really want someone on scotus for three decades who arguably puts his faith above the constitution?

hell, its not even my country, but i dont want him on the scotus and i hope his nomination fails "either cos he is too gay or cos he is too straight or cos he is stupid or cos he has a nanny problem or whatever."

hell, its not even my country

Uh, then shut the fuck up?

(I'm sorry, Ryan, go on ahead and ban me.)

i totally agree with you that sexuality is irrelevant *except* when it comes to hypocrisy.

Right. So, you build an entirely speculative case basically accusing Roberts of being a closet homosexual, just so you can say "Hypocrite." Brilliant, Mr. Belvedere, brilliant.

"womens reproductive rights or gay rights for *any* reason" - so whatever you say about me or my article, its disingenuous to paint me as a homophobe.

Did I paint you as a homophobe? No, I simply pointed out that there are those in your ranks, yourself included, who seem to think there's some sort of "gotcha" medal when you think you've found a Republican who may be gay. As if gay status automatically pre-empts them from subscribing to the other tenets of the Republican/Conservative doctrine. It's cheap, easy, and ultimately IRRELEVANT.

do you really want someone on scotus for three decades who arguably puts his faith above the constitution?

Tell you what, as soon as I see evidents of that, you and I can talk. As it is, you seem to holding his Catholic faith above him as if he has to adhere blindly to every Catholic dictate and feed from the Pope like a baby bird in a nest. Everything I've seen seems to indicate Roberts can think for himself when he wants to, including when it comes to. . . wait for it. . . marrying a woman who is FOR ABORTION RIGHTS. Oh, that Roberts, the HYPOCRITE!

By the way, gay baiting is just what it implies: trying to fish for proof of gayness where there may not be any. In other words, using wild speculation to make a weak and laughable point.

Ilyka: the way F-bombs get thrown around here, you'll have to work much harder to get banned. Besides, you made an extremely valid point. I won't even ban Lukery, although Lord knows he may have to work on his logic skills before he comes back.

ryan - you dont have to ban me - you could ask me to leave if you like.

ryan, here's the article i was referring to: "Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral... (Roberts) answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself."

can we talk?

of COURSE ryan is gay! we've been having an affair for almost 2 years now. (22 months and 6 days if you want to be technical) sorry ry, i know i promised not to tell but you know i hate it when you talk about your imaginary girlfriend. why can't you be proud of the love we have?

and for the record, he kicks my ass 25 ways from friday and i love it.

"skin trumpet" why no one has given you props for that is beyond me. i'll wear a black dress for *you* any time baby!

*mmmm'wah*

Well, catblogging is pretty gay.

(Roberts) answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself."

I fail to see how he's putting his faith above the Constitution. Obviously, he's saying he won't rule in a case that could put his personal beliefs in such a place that it could cloud his interpretation of the law. Somehow, that seems laudible, not a shortcoming. Do you want a SCOTUS justice ruling on a case where his stronger held beliefs are obviously guiding his ruling, or would you want him to recuse himself? Personally, I'd opt for the latter.

Sure, we can talk. I've never banned anyone before, except for spammers.

Now, if you'd like to address your wild and unsubstantiated speculation about Roberts being gay in an attempt to yell "hypocrite" pre-emptively, the ball's in your court. Seems to me, the brunt of your post was all about making Roberts out to be unqualified somehow, and using a gay lens to magnify your point. Bad form. And lazy. Which was what stirred my ire in the first place. You may not be a homophobe, but you sure seem to use homosexuality as a derogative tool, when it suits you, of course. Granted, I'm basing this observation off of one post and a brief perusal of others, but it seems apt.

Joseph: You were supposed to stay quiet about that. You bitch.

ryan,

(you said "as soon as I see evidents of that, you and I can talk" - well, i gave you some evidence, hence the 'can we talk?' question)

if roberts gets to the scotus, his job, among other things) is to uphold the constitution - if he has to recuse himself, then he is implictly saying that there is a higher, or perhaps equal, law. (i qualified my statement: "*arguably* puts his faith above the constitution")

you make the point yourself, inadvertently i assume, when you say "his *stronger* held beliefs are obviously guiding his ruling"

would i want him to recuse himself? no, i dont want him on the court. heres scalia: "The choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation" - ie not recusal. (altho, in my post, i did give props to mrs roberts for being against the death penalty)

as for my post being "wild and unsubstantiated speculation" - absolutely. it was also tongue-in-cheek (hence the title: "is john roberts gay? or just french?") - and a mirror image of the way the GOP taints people - calling kerry a french-looking girly-man and all the rest of it.

its not that i give a shit about whether roberts is gay or not - but id love it to be so, because Dobson and the rest would go beserk - hoist by the collective petard, as it were. you've studied Jiu-Jitsu - these people hate gays (and certainly arent above dirty tricks).

as i said, its the hypocrisy that kills me.

but lets go back to the original quote: " Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral." note that he wasnt asked about things that he sees as immoral, but what his *church* sees as immoral. thats pretty sweeping - abortion, contraception, gayness et al.

hell - to stop him getting on the scotus, i'd probably actually consider some serious dirty-tricking, rather than simply writing a mocking post calling him a faggy frenchy in a black dress.

This whole debate is making my scotus hurt.

andrew, of course, isnt tasked with protecting the rights of minorities

Could someone clue the moron that the US Supreme Court is NOT TASKED with "protecting the rights of minorities."

SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the US Constitution and determining the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and states.

Anything else is the province of the legislature.

'course to the moron, Roberts isn't "disqualified" because of any lack of education, temperament, intelligence, experience

it's because of THE HYPOCRISY!

I like this Darleen person.

More commentary later, hopefully, once my carpet is installed.

Where's Joshua when you need him?

Oh, that's right, Cardiff.

doreen, you moran: "nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." go fucking read it.

"SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the US Constitution" indeed. and roberts has said that he cant do that in cases where his church deems behaviour immoral. *that* is why he ought be "disqualified".

sheesh!

ryan, do you like doreen for her logic?
knowledge? attitude?

I liked Doreen for her correct use of capitalizing. You know-as in the start of each sentence, proper nouns, etc? Yeah. It makes comments easier to read, it's something about giving it flow.

There's only one person here that hasn't been going with the capitalizing, and it's doing my fucking head in.

All right, Lukery, let's play:

hell - to stop him getting on the scotus, i'd probably actually consider some serious dirty-tricking, rather than simply writing a mocking post calling him a faggy frenchy in a black dress.

First, a nice squishy softball to get us going. As an Aussie, you have very little in the way of any clout whatsoever when it comes to "stopping" Roberts from getting on the SCOTUS. You can bloviate all you want on your blog, but unless somebody does an errant Google search, as I did, nobody in the U.S., Democrat or Republican, is going to give you much more than a passing fart of notice.

That said, I will, once more, give you more than a passing fart of notice.

Seeing as how you've managed to deflect the issue from your rather shameful speculation on Roberts' gayness or not-gayness, into the realm of his religious faith, I'll play along.

From: http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html

William H. Rehnquist - Lutheran
Stephen G. Breyer - Jewish
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Jewish
Anthony M. Kennedy - Catholic
Antonin Scalia - Catholic
David H. Souter - Episcopalian
John Paul Stevens - Protestant
Clarence Thomas - Catholic

Since you seem particularly aghast when it comes to Roberts' religious faith, I wonder where your outrage lies when it comes to the religious faith of the other justices. Because, it occurs to me that every justice who has ever sat on the Supreme Court, has likely made rulings that either go against, or support, their own religious/moral beliefs, going back through such luminaries as Louis Brandeis (Jewish). Is that worse than, say, recusing oneself when there's a conflict of interest?

if roberts gets to the scotus, his job, among other things) is to uphold the constitution - if he has to recuse himself, then he is implictly saying that there is a higher, or perhaps equal, law.

No, he is implicitly saying that there's a conflict between his religious belief and his belief in the law, and as such, to avoid injecting his religious beliefs into a ruling, he'd rather recuse himself in some cases. Kudos for admitting that, I say.

heres scalia: "The choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation"

It's funny that you should mention Scalia, because I seem to remember a case not long ago where he probably should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest. http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5988&fcategory_desc=Dick%20Cheney%20and%20Halliburton

But, again, all of this is basically akin to talking at the wind, because as an Australian you have little to no say whatsoever when it comes to U.S. domestic issues. Tell you what, the next time Australia's prime minister (whoever the hell that is) does something I disagree with domestically, I promise to keep my blog-mouth shut.

ryan - if your argument is that im not american, then you win.

and i never pretended to have any clout.

if thats your argument, then congratulations.

and if your argument is that scalia should recuse himself sometimes, and therefore its always wrong to quote him, then i cant argue. im just quoting someone from your side to make a point. as ive said repeatedly - its the hypocrisy that drives me crazy.

and if you want to label the scotus family by religion as your proof - then we could ask each of them whether they put their religion above their constitutional task

religion isnt a disqualifier - but go read jfk's speech again about whether a catholic could be president. the constitution comes first, right? right? does roberts believe the same thing?

if your argument is that im irrelavant, then you win.

if your argument is that im a foreigner, then you win.

if your argument is that doreen is really cool - then its sad that i know more about your constitution than she does, its just sad. because even non-americans love that document as the pinnacle of what we all aim for.

if your argument is that roberts is a good candidate because he'll recuse himself from upholding the constitution when he doesnt really believe in upholding the constitution, then he is a bad candidate.

if your argument is that roberts is a good candiate because scalia et al are just as bad, then can i give you some more rope.

if your argument is that the australian PM is also stupid, or you dont care whether he or she is stupid, then thats a quite tenuous argument. ive never defended the australian govt.

and if your crowning argument is that im not an american - well, you are right, and wrong. im not american, but i have to deal with the consequences.

seriously ryan - im not trying to 'win' an argument with you. you say its "rather shameful speculation on Roberts' gayness or not-gayness" - from the outside view - we see that bush would demonize anyone who doesnt agree with him as being gay - and he would also lie, a lot, so that he can go to war and kill 100,000 people. everyone now understands that was based on a lie.

and you wanna criticise me for a mocking gaybaiting post? fucking hell - if i called him a childkiller, would that be better? itd be more accurate.

and u criticise me for being 'foreign' and you think doreen is really cool for mocking my understanding of the constitution - theres something wrong when you incorrectly mock a foreigner who understands it really well.

fucking hell - most of us love the idea/l of america - but she isnt what she promised to be.

lukery, if all you're going to do is dabble in reductio ad absurdems, then there's really no point in going forward here.

Case in point:

if your argument is that roberts is a good candidate because he'll recuse himself from upholding the constitution when he doesnt really believe in upholding the constitution, then he is a bad candidate.

See, it's now getting to the point where either a) you're deliberately twisting my points or b) you didn't read the points in the first place. I'm guessing a). So, I'll reiterate:

No, he is implicitly saying that there's a conflict between his religious belief and his belief in the law, and as such, to avoid injecting his religious beliefs into a ruling, he'd rather recuse himself in some cases. Kudos for admitting that, I say.

Ya see? Rather than using his post as a Supreme Court justice as a pulpit from which to make his beliefs the law (which both liberal and conservative judges have been guilty of in the form of judicial activism), Roberts is saying that, if there's a danger that his personal beliefs could taint a ruling, he'd recuse himself, in deference to the law. Jeezum crow, man, that's hardly hypocrisy. Some might even call it INTEGRITY.

Back to your reductios:

if your argument is that doreen is really cool - then its sad that i know more about your constitution than she does, its just sad. because even non-americans love that document as the pinnacle of what we all aim for.

A of all, it's DARLEEN. B of all, she accurately called you on your BS, that being that the SCOTUS is not tasked with "protecting the rights of minorities." Spin it anyway you want, that's what you said, and that was BS. C of all, since when did Darleen become the focus here?

Reductio:

if your argument is that the australian PM is also stupid, or you dont care whether he or she is stupid, then thats a quite tenuous argument. ive never defended the australian govt.

Now you're just getting sloppy. Even a cursory look back at my comment shows that the only thing I was pointing out was that, when it comes to U.S. domenstic issues, non-Americans really shouldn't have much of a say, just as non-Australians shouldn't opine about Australian domestic issues (foreign policy, of course, being fair game to anyone with an opinion). To augment my point, I simply pointed out that I don't even know the name of your freakin' PM. Notice that I didn't call him stupid, or even hint at anything remotely like that.

Now, the biggest non sequiter of them all, which wins points both for not making any sense as well bordering on moonbattery:

seriously ryan - im not trying to 'win' an argument with you. you say its "rather shameful speculation on Roberts' gayness or not-gayness" - from the outside view - we see that bush would demonize anyone who doesnt agree with him as being gay - and he would also lie, a lot, so that he can go to war and kill 100,000 people. everyone now understands that was based on a lie.

Ummm, the U.S. went to war for gay oil?

fucking hell - most of us love the idea/l of america - but she isnt what she promised to be.

Refresh my memory here: which president was it who promised the idea of America? What was the exact wording of that promise? I've been combing through the history books, looking for the complete text of "The Declaration of the Promise of America," and I just can't find it. You ever notice that there are a lot of people out there who disagree with each other about what the "promise" of America actually is? Gosh, it's almost like America didn't promise anybody anything, but people like to think it did.

here is one thing i said:
"if roberts gets to the scotus, his job, (among other things) is to uphold the constitution"
i *also* said that the scotus is "tasked with protecting the rights of minorities. on the other hand, the pope thinks gays... are evil."

you see, in the context of discussing minorities, i said that the scotus is tasked with protecting minorities. so, no, she didnt 'accurately call my BS.'

let me make this simple for you by way of an analogy - if i said that parents were tasked with teaching their children, i wouldnt by implying that was their only task, nor the primary one. ya see, parents have to multi-task - similarly, the scotus is tasked with upholding each and every one of the amendments - including, but not limited to, the 14th amendment. goddit? phew.

"which president was it who promised the idea of America? What was the exact wording of that promise?"
ummm, its called the constitution. and every president has promised to uphold that promise.

"when it comes to U.S. domenstic issues, non-Americans really shouldn't (opine)"
1. ftr, am i allowed to opine about, say, whether its good news that iraq is about to become a theocracy? or is that off-limits too?
2. bush and powell and armitage and others directly intervened in the australian election - was that bad?
3. scotus isnt exclusively domestic.
4. if john roberts facilitates rigged & fraudulent military tribunals that involve australians, am i allowed to opine then?

its so hard to know.

The thing is that the Left is incredibly homophobic. After all, why else would the questions even be raised about Roberts who, if he were in fact gay, would be entitled to privacy about that fact -- at lest if he were a liberal. However, conservative homosexuals are NEVER entitled to privacy -- and even suspected conservative homosexuals (witness Mehlman) are to be excoriated and denigrated for their orientation by the Left.

Ok guys, we've derailed this topic far enough. Let's get back on topic and poke fun at Ryan for being gay some more.

Well, my girlfriend's dad is gay, so maybe that will rub off on me someday and I'll start attending Cher concerts.

quick test: name a *single* out conservative gay that we 'denigrate for their orientation'.

therein lies the answer.

Wouldn't it be hot if Lukery, Ryan and i got together for some hot steamy sex? I mean, imagine 2 men who hated each other wrestling around in bed naked. *woot* I'll ref!

Christ. Why don't you to guys call each other and argue this out? You both seem smart enough to know that you're not going to persuade each other (or anyone else) with your verbal prowess. CLEARLY, you're not communicating as you keep quoting and correcting the other. Seems to me that neither of you has enough to do than picking apart and researching retorts to the others' comments.

[Ryan - I know you were falling asleep last night when i was growling this in your ear, so i thought i'd put it somewhere you would see it. Luv, ~j ]

Calling people "gay" is not an insult from the liberal standpoint. The reason liberals are picking up on any possible right-wing respected gay person is because we DO NOT THINK IT IS A BAD THING, and want to call attention to the fact that they're members of your side as well as ours, and that they're perfectly normal sane human beings.

That said, if Roberts IS gay, I find it to be immoral to attempt to out him against his will.