Diaz: Satan Controls Our Schools! »« NOM Speakers Warn of God’s Judgment

The Attack of the 50 Foot Gay Judges

Two openly gay judges have been confirmed for the federal bench and the anti-gay right is throwing quite a tantrum over it. The Worldnetdaily, naturally, is putting the megaphone in front of the bigots and offering up their dishonest and irrational arguments with no analysis whatsoever:

President Obama has a pen, a phone and apparently a list of activist homosexual judges ready to appoint to the federal bench who will work to implement his agenda regardless of what Congress or voters decide.

Two of those judges garnered U.S. Senate confirmation on Thursday. Darrin Gayles to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 while Staci Yandle will be seated on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by a vote of 52-44.

Notice that codeword “activist.” Merely being gay is proof that a judge must be a “judicial activist,” a nonsense phrase that really just means “I don’t agree with their rulings.”

Mark Trammell of the pro-family Liberty Counsel said Harry Reid’s decision in November 2013 to change the rules of the Senate, allowing him to file a motion for cloture, which ends debate and forces a vote on all presidential appointees, is now coming home to roost.

“He basically eviscerated the ‘advice and consent’ role of the U.S. Senate,” Trammell told WND. “Today, that’s about all the Senate does. They initiate very little legislation. They basically confirm judges and executive appointees.”

That’s so stupid as to be funny. The Senate’s advice and consent role is firmly in place. After all, the Senate debated those nominations and took a vote on them. All that changed is that a minority of the Senate can no longer prevent that process from taking place. The rule change is what allowed the Senate to provide advice and consent; you can’t do that if you can’t even take a vote on it.

Now, the confirmations seem to be running through the Senate on autopilot.

“Honestly, it seems like just about every day there’s a list of judges or executive appointments,” Trammell said. “The district court, the circuit court, the number Harry Reid is filing for cloture on is just overwhelming, and no matter how much research the Republicans uncover about an appointee, they go through. There’s really not a lot of hope.”

OMG, it’s overwhelming! Fact check: The Senate has approved 54 judges since Nov. 21 of last year, less than two a week. But it had only confirmed 36 in all of 2013 prior to that, and only 49 in all of 2012. Until Nov. 21, 2013 the Republicans had filibustered 27 judicial nominees; all presidents since Eisenhower had only had 20 nominations filibustered. The rule change was entirely justified. Conservatives may not like that, but elections have consequences. When a party controls the White House and the Senate, they get to appoint a lot of judges. Deal with it.

Comments

  1. matty1 says

    I am deeply worried by this, you’re saying these judges are not only gay activists but have fifty feet? Do they use them for trampling the rights of True Christians (TM)?

  2. Chiroptera says

    “He basically eviscerated the ‘advice and consent’ role of the U.S. Senate,” Trammell told WND.

    He misspoke. What he really meant was that he’s worried that the radical rightwing minority lost its veto power.

  3. Loqi says

    “The Attack of the 50-Foot Gay Judges” was the best Mystery Science Theater episode ever.

  4. says

    Fact check: The Senate has approved 54 judges since Nov. 21 of last year, less than two a week. But it had only confirmed 36 in all of 2013 prior to that, and only 49 in all of 2012…

    But that means Obama still snuck through 139 hard core CommuNewBlackPantheMarxiMuslinHomoJudges!

     

    …all presidents since Eisenhower had only had 20 nominations filibustered.

    Well, sure, but to be fair Obama was none of those presidents.

  5. Ben P says

    Yeah, figured this would probably happen when I first heard the news they were confirmed.

    I do cheer the judiciary being more diverse, but being a practicing lawyer tempers my reaction somewhat. Law is foremost still a technocratic exercise, particularly at the trial court level where politics don’t play on a lot of decisions.

    This story gave me the opportunity to look at the actual backgrounds of Gayles and Yandle, which I’ve been meaning to do.

    Darrin Gayle who was confirmed 98-0 has followed a pretty typical pattern for a judge. Howard University BA and a George Washington JD. He was a state prosecutor, jumped to INS to be an immigration prosecutor, then an assistant US attorney (federal prosecutor), then has been a state court judge for 10 years. Based on his confirmation vote I can’t imagine there are many concerns about his practice as a state court judge.

    Stacy Yandle took a different path but also a not uncommon one of being a practicing lawyer who developed political connections through private practice. BS from University of Illinois, JD from Vanderbilt, twenty years in private practice doing primarily plaintiff side work, is a member of the commission on civil rights and represented the ACLU in various things, then founded her own solo firm in 2007. (Key point – solo practioners have more freedom to undertake political work because there aren’t partners sharing the income who might think you aren’t carrying your weight if you spend time on political ventures).

  6. Numenaster says

    Ben P, thanks for the analysis of the candidates’ backgrounds. Now that you’ve seen them, are you cheering louder or less? Both backgrounds look to me like good news for the court system, but my expertise is in a different technocracy and I could easily have missed something.

  7. says

    Ben P.:

    Pretty much agree with your analysis. except for this:

    “particularly at the trial court level where politics don’t play on a lot of decisions. ”

    ALL prosecutions are political in some sense, where the prosecutor has to weigh the chances of getting a conviction v getting embarrassed by surprises like investigatory misconduct. A local businessman was arrested, charged and prosecuted for sexual assault of a minor (the minor was a foreign exchange student, both were males). His defense attorney stipulated to the charges then, somehow, the case was ruled a mistrial by the judge and an new trial (non-jury) was ordered. The exchange student was unavailable and the judge ruled that his testimony from the first trial was not admissible. You can guess the rest. Did I mention that both the judge and the prosecutor were GOPers, as was the businessman. Oh, I’m sure that was coincidental.

  8. says

    Ed:

    I feel that you might want to think about that header.

    A 50′ Gay judge might be scary to a small child but if you want to put the fear of SATAN into the ReiKKKwingers, a header like, “Teh GAY judges, FOURTEEN INCHES, UNCUT GAY JUDGES! are confirmed!”. You KNOW that they KNOW what sort of sentences those guys will be handing out!!

  9. Ben P says

    Ben P, thanks for the analysis of the candidates’ backgrounds. Now that you’ve seen them, are you cheering louder or less? Both backgrounds look to me like good news for the court system, but my expertise is in a different technocracy and I could easily have missed something.

    I would need an even deeper look to really decide for myself if either party were likely to be good judges. As I said with Darrin Gayle, he’s been a judge already for 10 years and if there were bad rumors, they probably would have been brought out in the confirmation process. That they were not is reflected in his 98-0 confirmation vote. So that’s a very strong indicator that he’s a great appointment for judge.

    Stacy Yandle was confirmed 52-44, essentially party lines. That may be because of her personal background or because of her politics, possibly a combination of both. The article I’m copying below says that Illinois Senators actually split on the vote, and a criticism against her is that she has little federal court or criminal court experience.

    her own firm biography says she concentrated in representing victims of medical malpractice, nursing home abuse, defective products, and civil rights violations. She has all the honors one would expect of a lifelong plaintiffs side lawyer, and the mere fact she was chosen for the federal bench tells me she was probably quite successful at that.

    That more or less satisfies me that she probably knows the law, and I would only question judicial temperment. I don’t have any information to base that on as it would have to come from people who have a first hand knowledge of her.

  10. says

    Ed said: “Deal with it.”

    They are dealing with it just like they do with everything else: throwing a temper tantrum like a 3-year-old, lying and blaming someone else.

  11. Ben P says

    ALL prosecutions are political in some sense, where the prosecutor has to weigh the chances of getting a conviction v getting embarrassed by surprises like investigatory misconduct.

    I would point out that most state court judges are elected as well. However, that’s beside the point.

    In the 17th Century Sir Edward Coke wrote a judicial opinion directed at James I called “The case of prohibitions.” James I, the king, had sat as a judge in a case and issued a sentance. Coke overturned the decision of the king, writing that law is a form of artificial logic, and adherence to the rule of law is adherence to that system of logic. Even if the king was schooled in natural logic, he was not qualified to sit as a judge, most importantly because the king could not be tried in his own courts, if the king sat as a judge, there was no recourse under the law.

    This was, in many respects, the beginning (at least insofar as english legal systems are concerned) of law as a technocratic exercise.

    Back to the point, a judge who cuts favors that are contrary to the law is by definition a bad judge, because he is not following the law. As a practicing lawyer I often know when I might lose a case under the law, or when I might lose on the facts. I can tolerate that. However, what makes me angry is when the scales are tipped and people win or lose cases that they should not have won or lost.

    That is precisely half the point I was making. I like to see more diversity on the bench, and accept the premise that someone with broader life experiences can draw on those experiences as a judge. Moreover, there are many areas where an educated judge can apply those experiences well within the law. Many times the judge also sits as a finder of fact, and a minority perspective affects those decisions just as much as a white privileged perspective affects the decisions of a person like that.

    However, However, the idea that a minority judge would be more friendly to minorities or to other democratic causes than say, a 75 year old white man, is one that rubs me the wrong way, because a trial court judge is explicitly required to follow the law.

    Now, the higher up you go on the chain, the less this matters. Supreme Court judges are supposed to follow the law, but they also are in many cases setting policy for the rest of the court system. They make far more of the decisions which are inherently political.

    Regarding your scenario, there are lots of things strange about the story you tell me. A stipulation is not a guilty plea, and the mere statement of an attorney does not carry the weight of a guilty plea. In fact, that’s why we have defendants allocute at plea hearings. If they’re presenting a guilty plea they have to tell the judge, what they did and why they’re pleading guilty. That also doesn’t tell me what the cause for a mistrial was, or what testimony was presented, or why the witness was unavailable for the second trial. Our system places a high premium on in-person testimony. Prior records are onyl allowed if the witness is “unavailable” which is a term of art. The questions I asked above matter because they can change the outcome.

  12. says

    Ben P.:

    There are many questions that I would love to give you the answers to but there is not a lot of information available. I just spent the better part of 45 minutes looking through local news archives and there ain’t much to look at.

    If I find something out over he next few days, I’ll give you a “heads up” on this thread or another one.

Leave a Reply