Video: Maher “outs” Ken Mehlman on Larry King

posted at 9:10 pm on November 9, 2006 by Allahpundit

True to classy form, the sage of Wilshire Boulevard regales Larry with a bit of impromptu slander and a promise of more to come on his show this Friday. Why? Because of the hypocrisy, of course. And because it’s his job to make sure you know about it.

Newsbusters notes that this bit was conveniently edited out of the midnight rerun.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What is it with the left-wing gay witch hunt?

What ARE they afraid of?

SouthernGent on November 9, 2006 at 9:14 PM

How is this germane to any point? Maher is a f@#king tool and Larry King died ten years ago and no one noticed.

x95b10 on November 9, 2006 at 9:18 PM

Yeah, people noticed. Aravosis’s copy of the clip was in the Top 100 at YouTube earlier. And HuffPo, which gets megatraffic, has had the clip up all day.

Allahpundit on November 9, 2006 at 9:19 PM

I knew Mehlman was gay. Big frickin’ deal.
I don’t care whether M. was gay, straight or tranny, I think he did a miserable job of running the party (although they say Howard Dean’s afraid of him…Hehehe) and want Steele to take his place.
I have real problems with the way certain campaigns were funded this year and others were not.
That being said, Maher’s such a d*ckless tool.
If only someone–man or woman–wanted to sex with him…

Jen the Neocon on November 9, 2006 at 9:19 PM

Un-freaking-real………
How can any right minded person listen to this and not see where the real hypocrites are……

For all the Dems lip service right now about ruling from the center it is THIS type of media that has their hands on the reins of PelosiRangleConyersMurtha. How long with this media sit back and let the Dems work in the middle?…..Oh lets see….Thanksgiving? Yeah that is an appropriate time to let loose the dogs. Thanksgiving. All the new shows will be re-runs. The ratings will drop. They will need to fill a lot of 20/20 and 60 min episodes with the Jerry Springer DC Show!…..

Limerick on November 9, 2006 at 9:20 PM

Well, at least Bill sobered up after his Halloween bash.

vcferlita on November 9, 2006 at 9:37 PM

Slandering someone else is the only way Maher gets his “jollys” off. I am sick of the finger pointing dems and thier holier than thou attitudes! And it’s just starting. We need some conservative leaders who will stick to the conservative values and stand up to the name calling media.

ChrisIansNana on November 9, 2006 at 9:38 PM

I think Larry is in serious need of a diaper change after that laughing fit at the end.

RightWinged on November 9, 2006 at 9:42 PM

Do the think they can get gay marrige passed if the keep implying that Gay republicans are freaks? Personally I never cared about the whole gay marrige thing one way or another, but the seething, and hatred of their side seems kinda gross. Wasn’t that supposed to be over now that they got daddy’s keys to the capital?

Max Power on November 9, 2006 at 9:43 PM

Jen the Neocon said:

and want Steele to take his place

regarding Mehlman’s position as RNC Chairman.

Hmmm, I think you are on to something Jen. I have not watched any news programs since Tuesday night, but did you hear this somewhere, or just think it up on your own? Either way, I am all for it.

BlueStateBlues on November 9, 2006 at 9:46 PM

Nevermind, Jen, I just read the latest post.

BlueStateBlues on November 9, 2006 at 9:50 PM

I actually saw it here, BSB…if it’s not on the home page, check the archives.

Jen the Neocon on November 9, 2006 at 9:51 PM

Can Maher even see out of those pin-holes on either side of his nose?

Limerick on November 9, 2006 at 9:54 PM

When will people start standing up and explaining that being gay doesn’t mean you have to advocate gay marriage? So what if Pubs are gay!!

Pubs advocate treating others equally and fairly but not giving extra rights to any class of people and not having to endure “in your face” flaunting of behavior.

If I was an alcoholic, does that mean that I would advocate getting rid of DUI laws? Or a person prone to having affairs would advocate plural marriage?

Whether party leaders are gay or not does not mean that they have to suddenly want to see new hidden “rights” in the Constitution. They may still believe in conservative principles and not legislating from the bench. They may still believe in supporting family values as a way of strengthening society. Whether it is Melman or Haggard or any other conserative, will they still please stand up and state that whatever their personal behavior, it does not mean we should change our laws! Not all gay people want gay marriage! DUH – when will the MSM figure that out?

TwoCents on November 9, 2006 at 9:54 PM

The irony is that more people probably watched that clip from this site than the live broadcast; Democrap morons on display.

Zorro on November 9, 2006 at 9:54 PM

SG, I’m with you–what’s with the gay witch hunt by the Left-wing Dems?

And TwoCents, I couldn’t agree with you more, but I hear being a gay Republican is pretty much like being a black Republican–your gay and/or black(all of whom are Dem) friends treat you like a freak.

Jen the Neocon on November 9, 2006 at 9:58 PM

Bill needs another cup of Coco.

bloggless on November 9, 2006 at 9:59 PM

Nevermind those pin holes, what about them low hanging ears?

bloggless on November 9, 2006 at 10:00 PM

Just want to remind everyone of Maher’s interview with Craig Ferguson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zx2o9C12yo

The interview lasted less than three minutes before Craig shut him down. More immigrants like him, please.

Savage on November 9, 2006 at 10:03 PM

these leftist are such idiots, they actually think that if you are gay you have to be a Democrat/Lib because they are “pro-gay” and the repubs are “anti-gay”, etc. It doesn’t cross their idiot minds that some gays may, gasp, not think its such a good idea for gays to marry or adopt kids, etc. of course to them they have the “Moral Authority” high ground on the matter

jp on November 9, 2006 at 10:07 PM

How ironic to hear a white liberal like Bill accusing someone else of self hatred.

Scot on November 9, 2006 at 10:08 PM

There is no such thing as a ‘black Republican’ or ‘gay Republican’. The act of a black person becoming a Republican triggers some kind of transubstantiation that sucks the blackness right out. Just listen to the way black Democrats describe Rice/Powell/Steele/Swann/Blackwell if you don’t believe me.

And where does the blackness go? Bill Clinton got it so he could be the first black President!

The Monster on November 9, 2006 at 10:09 PM

Link

TexasInfidel on November 9, 2006 at 10:26 PM

Sorry, new link.

TexasInfidel on November 9, 2006 at 10:27 PM

…what does this piece of gator bait do for a living when he’s not making himself look more loathesome?

There’s funny, and then there’s “merely glib”. He’s merely…very merely….

Puritan1648 on November 9, 2006 at 10:34 PM

Perhaps what Maher and those who think like him fail to grasp is that many people define themselves more broadly than Maher might define them.

I am a a social drinker but I don’t define myself as a Vodka-American, nor do I want a coalition of Vodka-Americans to fight to get vodka onto the school lunch menu.

Checkpoint Charlie on November 9, 2006 at 10:41 PM

It really would be satisfying to slap that annoying smirk off Maher’s face. What a worm.

Lehuster on November 9, 2006 at 10:45 PM

Biting political comedy and the like is fantastic, and healthy, when it’s funny. Regardless of who happens to be the butt of the joke.

Maher’s not funny.

Politically Incorrect was good because Maher left most of the talking to his guests.

Standing alone, he’s just a tool who thinks he’s got some cosmic connection to Lenny Bruce. Which is fine. If you’re funny.

Maher’s not funny.

Ergo .. he’s a failed comedian.

And, why is he on King every three days?

Oh, right .. CNN.

yo on November 9, 2006 at 10:58 PM

Savage Thanks for the link. He is one really loathsome human being. I think that school yard beating he tool caused permanent brain damage, which explains a lot (in all sincerity).

TheBigOldDog on November 9, 2006 at 11:06 PM

It really would be satisfying to slap that annoying smirk off Maher’s face. What a worm.

Evidently, people have felt that way about him since he was young (watch the link Savage provides above).

TheBigOldDog on November 9, 2006 at 11:08 PM

Why doesn’t somebody out Maher as a complete and utter and unapologetic assclown.

Oh, wait. He does every time he opens his mouth.

Boy, these folks are squandering any attempt at goodwill offered to them after Tuesday’s defeats.

Gottafang on November 9, 2006 at 11:15 PM

IANAL, but it’s not slander if he thinks it’s true.

For instance: Bill Maher is a tool. Not slander.

Slander has to be harmful, known to be untrue, and stated as fact.

Mark Jaquith on November 9, 2006 at 11:54 PM

Maher “outs” Ken Mehlman on Larry King

Well, as they say: It takes one to know one.

pocomoco on November 10, 2006 at 12:04 AM

Larry says,

…snort…snort…snigger…poignant.

BAH!

SunnyBrook on November 10, 2006 at 12:25 AM

Maher is a f@#king tool and Larry King died ten years ago and no one noticed.

x95b10 on November 9, 2006 at 9:18 PM

Yes – but did you notice that Maher seems to be morphing into Larry King?

if you need proof:

Maher’s not funny.

Politically Incorrect was good because Maher left most of the talking to his guests.

Standing alone, he’s just a tool who thinks he’s got some cosmic connection to Lenny Bruce. Which is fine. If you’re funny.

Maher’s not funny.

Ergo .. he’s a failed comedian.

And, why is he on King every three days?

Oh, right .. CNN.

yo on November 9, 2006 at 10:58 PM

Who made who? (not just a catchy tune by AC/DC, which could also sum up Maher’s confusion).

Emmett J. on November 10, 2006 at 12:36 AM

King was like, “Gay? Yeah, I guess he seems like a happy enough fellow.” Then he went into a story from his childhood in the Cretaceous era.

Jim Treacher on November 10, 2006 at 1:30 AM

So, are we getting a glimpse of Animatronic King (Maher) here?

Emmett J. on November 10, 2006 at 1:49 AM

Let’s be honest here, the main reason a lot of you guys get upset when we out some of your gay politicians isn’t because you’re offended by our claims that they’re hypocrites. No, no, no. This is about voting. And we all know your own voters are so backwards and fundamentally stupid that when faced with the choice of a Democrat or a gay Republican, there’s no guarantee they’ll vote at all because you’ve spent so many years demonizing homosexuals. As this country moves more to the left on acceptance of homosexuality, your own voters are moving more toward the right, and everytime one of your politicians is revealed as gay, you’re in jeopardy of losing the election because your own voters might not show up at the polls.

Also, there’s nothing with being Gay and a Republican, as long as you reject the fundamentally bigoted proposals of the GOP when it comes to homosexuality: i.e. sodomy laws advocated by (now jobless) lunatics like Rick Santorum, anti-gay marriage amendments, the ban on gays in the military (which Dems have now abandoned but the GOP continues to support), etc…

Hence, there’s nothing wrong with gay libertarians. But gay social conservatives (excluding abortion) are utter morons.

Grebrook on November 10, 2006 at 3:21 AM

Whenever I see a Larry King interview, I just imagine the guest thinking “Okay, here it comes. Nice, juicy softball right over the plate,” whenever he starts to ask a question.

Sean M. on November 10, 2006 at 3:36 AM

Santorum was not advocating sodomy laws. He was saying that there is no constitutional right to sodomy. If you want to get rid of sodomy laws, you do it the old fashioned, democratic way. That’s the same logic behind getting rid of the bogus legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade. Unless you are saying that gays inherently have a different take on constitutional law, then there is no reason for a gay not to be a Republican there.

Anti-gay marriage: a gay person can realize as well as a straight person that the state has no business in the relationship between two gay people. Marriage is for the protection of children and for the protection of the mother after the sacrifices of raising children: pregnancy, child-birth, career, parenting. While gays can participate in those, there is no asymmetry in the relationship, and so there is no need for a legal structure. Again, gays have every right to believe that way or not, and it is not your right to invade their privacy if they state otherwise.

Gays in the military: this is about military readiness. Gays have as much of a stake in the strength of our military as do straights. People can differ on whether the presence of homosexuals in close quarters makes a unit stronger or weaker, but again it is not your right to punish what you percieve to be incorrect thought.

pedestrian on November 10, 2006 at 3:42 AM

“People can differ on whether the presence of homosexuals in close quarters makes a unit stronger or weaker, but again it is not your right to punish what you percieve to be incorrect thought.”

I don’t recall “punishing” people for “incorrect thought”. I do, however, recall “mocking” people for “stupid thought”. Which is different. Sorry, I know you think liberals are all stalinists, but eventually you’re going to have to adjust to reality.

I wouldn’t want to take away your right to be delusional. Then what would the Daily Show have to work with?

Grebrook on November 10, 2006 at 4:27 AM

TwoCents,

When will people start standing up and explaining that being gay doesn’t mean you have to advocate gay marriage?

Bingo.

Would you mind sharing a couple million of your highly functioning brain cells with this Grebrook moron?

Grebrook,

Let’s be honest here,

OK, my front lawn has a better grasp of the issues than you have, and a better ability to discuss them intelligently. Is that honest enough?

Pablo on November 10, 2006 at 4:27 AM

So if ”hating yourself is the greatest love of all”, then I guess I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY love myself very very very much.

Hey Larry…ever attended a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, NAMBLA bestiality, anything goes parade? That should begin to clue you in as to why some of us “self-loathing” queers have chosen to “take public anti-gay positions”.

Yannow…like choosing to be a Jewish anti-Zionist/Semite.

Why is it that because I happen to disagree with 99.99% of the hypocritical crap being spewed forth from the likes of Rosie O’Donnell, I am simply stamped with the label of self-loathing lesbian and shoved into a corner?

When Bill Maher disagrees with one of his straight guests, nobody calls him a self-loathing heterosexual. So why should my sexual orientation have anything to do with my disagreements over the political beliefs (not to mention moral) of other homosexuals?

By allowing Maher to toss forth that inane “self-loathing” response, King simply dismisses my opinions as those of nothing more than a poor, little, lonely, self-hating queer. Evidently, I am not permitted to dissent from other gays simply because I too am gay.

This is exactly the same sort of crap that folks like Michael Steele, Condi Rice and La Shawn Barber have to put up with…”Oh, you’re a black conservative? Well then, you obviously have no love of self and must therefore be dismissed as nothing more than an ignorant house nigger. Have a nice day”.

It’s become quite apparent that the very thought of conservative queers, straights blacks and other minorities alike, all working together in harmony within the confines of the Bush White House, really scares holy living shit out the left.

Well I am here and I am queer — get used to it, Bill.

The Ugly American on November 10, 2006 at 4:35 AM

It seems the least one can say for the homosexuals in the Republican Party is that they think of someone besides themselves. Or is it precisely that they envision more “posterity” for themselves through productive political participation than through a necessarily non-reproductive “marriage”? If a “gay” Republican does make such a subtle calculation, then instead of blaming him for hypocrisy, we can consider praising his good head.

Kralizec on November 10, 2006 at 5:11 AM

I don’t recall “punishing” people for “incorrect thought”. I do, however, recall “mocking” people for “stupid thought”. Which is different. Sorry, I know you think liberals are all stalinists, but eventually you’re going to have to adjust to reality.

OK, so you made me waste two minutes of my life listening to those twerps to find this so call mocking. Maher wasn’t mocking, he was outing. Perhaps it is his sick way of staying relevant, but his intent is clear, to harm the reputation of a public figure. It is up to Ken Mehlman alone to choose to discuss his sexual preferences. Maher is outing Mehlman, and says he will others. The fact that he is doing this in a way that avoids lawsuits is an admission that he knows he is causing economic harm to his victims, just that he plans to escape liability. To think that the only way to punish someone is to send them to the Gulag is simplistic. There are other ways to punish, that are apparently too subtle for you, but they are effective nonetheless. A public figure is greatly affected by there image, and any insinuation of any kind is a great concern to someone in a highly competitive field.

There may in fact be some troglodytes out there who think a gay person can’t be a party chairman or a congressional staffer, but the vast majority of Republicans easily understand that a gay person is no more or less likely to be talented and hard-working than a straight. For Democrats to be trying to appeal to those trogodytes in order to harm the gays is revolting. Whatever happened to simply trying to persuade people through ideas?

pedestrian on November 10, 2006 at 5:21 AM

Let’s be honest here….

Grebrook on November 10, 2006 at 3:21 AM

In order to condescend properly, Grebrook, you have to start from an elevated position. “Let’s be honest here” is a cliche, but worse, it signals your uncritical regard for honesty as a virtue. I’m “honest” or blunt enough to admit my cruel delight in pointing out your inferiority in both style and profundity, and to openly question the worth of honesty, “the youngest virtue.” Feel the pathos of distance, Grebrook.

Kralizec on November 10, 2006 at 5:41 AM

Pablo, you’re fairly stupid if you think that most homosexuals don’t naturally wish for the right to marry their partners.

I’m sorry most are just too “uppity” for you, and bitch about that whole “we have rights” things. I mean, damn, can the faggots just get over their second-class status? I mean, REALLY?

Grebrook on November 10, 2006 at 5:58 AM

Gays already have the right to marry, just like everybody else. They just can’t marry *each other*.

I happen to have a friend who is both lesbian AND married … to a GAY man. See? Everybody has the right to marry, it just has to be male/female.

Ya want civil unions? Fine. Just don’t call it ‘marriage’.

Kralizec, I always get a kick outta your comments, but “my cruel delight in pointing out your inferiority” is one of your best! Keep up he good work.

Tony737 on November 10, 2006 at 6:04 AM

OK, this Grebrook person is lost on the web–we are “liberals” and “Stalinists?”
Wrong blog, buddy! Daily Kos is down the hall>>>>>

Jen the Neocon on November 10, 2006 at 6:14 AM

Why is Bill Maher worried about other men’s cocks?

retired on November 10, 2006 at 6:46 AM

Pablo, you’re fairly stupid if you think that most homosexuals don’t naturally wish for the right to marry their partners.

Naturally wish to get married? Men? Ha!

So you think those who disprove your theory must be hypocrites?

Let’s see: “Any gay person who doesn’t think X, must be Y.”

You’re a dunce and a homophobe. Get lost. Back to DU with you, troll.

Pablo on November 10, 2006 at 8:35 AM

Greygook,

Let’s be honest here, by boldly declaring that “your” strategy, as a Democrat, is to viciously attack homosexuals in order to win elections you are being essentially dishonest, but I think wrong, too.

By reducing the choice in an election pitting an incumbent Republican who is homosexual vs. a Democrat, who is — I guess you are saying — homosexual by default, due to “so many years of (our) demonizing homosexuals”, our “stupid and backward” voters either accept the unacceptable (gay Republican), the demon (Democrat) or don’t show up.

Good theory, except that it does not appear that this happened. It appears that the “stupid, backward” voters voted for (demonic homosexual) Democrats.

Heh.

On the bright side, though, and in keeping with years of demonization, I can picture you and your swashbuckling friends dressed up in pirate and cowboy outfits, sipping sherry and laughing over your trolling of the (not too) conservative web site for party fun.

I believe that your intellectual level might best be found nearer Mr. Aravosis’s skirt.

Jaibones on November 10, 2006 at 8:37 AM

Why is Bill Maher worried about other men’s cocks?

He doesn’t have one of his own?

On a more serious note, does anyone really care if Mehlman is gay? More idiocy from the humanoids who prefer to be recognized for the color of their skin, anti-religious beliefs and/or sexual preference in order to deflect scrutiny of their competence. Or lack of.

jdkchem on November 10, 2006 at 9:06 AM

What libs don’t understand is that we actually know how laws should be made/changed – they don’t understand that so they assume we don’t. They think that judges make laws. They don’t understand that our (at least mine,) fundamental opposition is not to gay marriage or gays per se, but to laws being changed through the Judicial branch and not the Legislature. They’re so short-sighted and need instant gratification, (like children) that they would be willing to give the one non-elected branch of government the power to make/change laws. I could care less if gays get married – I have gay friends who are married. But I have a HUGE problem with allowing my Democracy to be undermined by judges who think they know better than me. The whole point of a Democracy (this is for you Grebrook) is that the people decide their own laws, and the left just doesn’t seem to care whether they have that power or not – or – as I assume – they just don’t understand the basic workings of a representative democracy. They always compare the black/white marriage to gay marriage which proves they don’t know what “equal protection under the law” means. They’re un-informed so they assume we are. They don’t understand that if it’s put to the people (like in the many referendums on the ballots this election) and the people decide gay marriage is a good thing, then we would abide and they surely don’t understand that that is why it’s being put on ballots. In short – they’re idiots who don’t understand how their own democracy works. Grebrook – may I recommend that you: A) watch the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon about how a Bill is made into law and B) learn what “equal protection under that law” means. Then come back and discuss.

foxforce91 on November 10, 2006 at 9:28 AM

The whole point of a Democracy (this is for you Grebrook) is that the people decide their own laws

Why I bother I don’t know: the Supreme Court decisions under Renquiest (sp?) have been analyzed–looked at the same 9 judges over several years. The conservative judges overturned more federal laws and more judical precedents than the liberal judges did; the liberal judges overturned more state laws. This is fact, you can look it up. I have absolutely no delusions that you will consider this before making your “activist judges are all liberal” lament, but there you are.

honora on November 10, 2006 at 9:44 AM

This has backlash written all over it. Even John Stewart complemented Cheney after his VP debate with John Edwards. Cheney didn’t want to talk about his daughter simply b/c it wasn’t an issue, and as a father, he wanted to protect his daughter from these creeps.

And what does Ken Mehlman’s sexuality have anything to do with governing? I was raised (by conservative catholics) to believe we’re all equal, and not to “judge a book by its cover”. Anybody see the South Park when Chef pulls the race card?

Does Bill Maher expect Republicans to use their homosexual members as tokens, and in effect, promise and pursue legislation that will undoubtedly be defeated? Sorry, Bill, that’s for the Democrats.

Conservatism is an epidemic to liberals like Maher. Look at Arthur Brooks’ recent string of editorials in the WSJ!

Conservatism? We should just re-name it Common Sense-ism!

budorob on November 10, 2006 at 9:57 AM

At least Mehlman isn’t a Nancyboy, like Maher.

JackM on November 10, 2006 at 11:11 AM

But I have a HUGE problem with allowing my Democracy to be undermined by judges who think they know better than me. The whole point of a Democracy (this is for you Grebrook) is that the people decide their own laws,

Unfortunately for you, the United States is not a direct democracy but rather a Republic with three seperate but equal branches of government designed with checks and balances to limit power. The Founding Fathers designed the Supreme Court and gave it as much power as the elected branches of government because they realized that the ‘masses’ neededed to be checked and balanced as well. Throughout the history of our country courts and judges, not elected officials, have been at the forefront of civil rights laws, so like it or not, it should not come as a suprise that they are today. I’m sure 60 years ago there were many people complaining about the ‘activist judges’ who would dare make a decision as crazy as Brown v. BOE. And 60 years from now our kids will be reading in the history books about the ‘activist judges’ and the oppostion the faced when gay marriage was legalized.

JaHerer22 on November 10, 2006 at 11:41 AM

“I don’t know if he’s gay. But Al Gore Bill Maher — total fag.”

-Ann Coulter

tnculp on November 10, 2006 at 11:44 AM

honora-
I guess you misunderstood my point. We can discuss activist judges on either side. I don’t condone judicial activism. But I was trying to explain why some liberals think we’re prejudiced against gays. I used to be a liberal until very recently so believe me – I understand your patronizing, condescending tone – I sounded just like you, (then I grew up.) My point was that Republicans don’t hate gays – the perception comes out of conservative opposition to gay marriage. And the opposition is not so much about what gays do as it is about judicial activism. I’m trying to help you and people like Bill Maher understand where that opposition is coming from. Not anti-gay; anti-changing laws willy-nilly. But it’s like the Cindy Sheehan thing: put up a victim – oppose the victim’s views, and you are a meany, a bigot, how dare you, blah blah blah.

foxforce91 on November 10, 2006 at 11:50 AM

I’m sure 60 years ago there were many people complaining about the ‘activist judges’ who would dare make a decision as crazy as Brown v. BOE.

See? I knew one of you would bring this up and relate it to gay marriage and here’s why it doesn’t apply:
Brown vs. BOE was based on the 14th Amendement and completely Constitutional. Children were not getting an equal education due to segregation. So under the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendement) the courts rightfully interpreted the Constitution’s 14 amendment to allow black children the same educational standards as white children.

Gay marriage does not apply to the Equal Protection Clause because gays already have the same marriage rights as everyone else – they can marry the same people I can. So if you give gays legally recognized marriage would you include other same sex couples: mother/daughter, brother/brother, father/son? Because if you didn’t then that would be giving special rights to gays – not equal protection – for all same sex couples. You would be saying, “only these particular same-sex couples can marry.” Legal marriage isn’t based on love, it’s based on a partnership between a man and a woman because of the potential for biological offspring and their legal entitlements.

I can’t post anymore. I have to go to work.

foxforce91 on November 10, 2006 at 12:12 PM

Two jerks talking about other jerks. Big deal. And who cares how many hits it got on YouTube? So there are a large amount of idiots in this country? Again, no news.

The Huffingtonpost? That one made me actually LOL.

I’ll never understand the preoccupation with sexual orientation that so many seem to have. What kind of moron defines himself or herself by their sexuality? What happened to people being American? Sad. Even sadder that someone actually thought there was something to see here.

Cary on November 10, 2006 at 12:38 PM

The conservative judges overturned more federal laws and more judical precedents than the liberal judges did; the liberal judges overturned more state laws. This is fact, you can look it up. I have absolutely no delusions that you will consider this before making your “activist judges are all liberal” lament, but there you are.

honora on November 10, 2006 at 9:44 AM

That’s some pretty sloppy reasoning there, h. Did you miss law school/civics class or were you deliberately dumbing this down to address foxforce? (of course, you assume that all we Conservatives are morons…)
Conservative Justices–to wit, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts (formerly Rehnquist and sometimes O’Connor) would overturn a case because they are by their nature strict constructionists of the Constitution and could tell that the cases from lower level courts, be they state or federal, were making it up as they went along to suit their Liberal agenda, like abortion, gay marriage, or seizure of private property.
Whereas the Libs (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souder and Stevens: Boo! Hiss!) believe the Constitution to be a “living, breathing document” that must be jolted to life with the paddles of Socialism, no Liberalism, make that Transnational Progressivism and that the Law must be interpreted “loosely” to fit modern living conditions. The Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly want abortion of a child up to its 9th fetal month to be illegal, so they must have implied a right to privacy that makes that procedure possible and legal.

Jen the Neocon on November 10, 2006 at 1:03 PM

Think about this – our government and founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights) were conceived and formulated by genuises.

Created to stand the test of time. A government created by genuises to be run by idiots (the first “idiot proof” product, so to speak).

Unfortunately, they didn’t see today coming as it has – they believed in the innate good of the collective people to oversee and participate in their affairs.

They would not believe how their intent has been so perverted by all sides if they were here now.

Perhaps it is a good thing that they are not so that they do not have to suffer the indignity of seeing their work flushed down the toilet.

Emmett J. on November 10, 2006 at 3:09 PM

“I don’t know if he’s gay. But Al Gore Bill Maher — total fag.”

-Ann Coulter

And,.. um…gross lush too

Topsecretk9 on November 11, 2006 at 1:07 AM

The Founding Fathers designed the Supreme Court and gave it as much power as the elected branches of government because they realized that the ‘masses’ neededed to be checked and balanced as well. Throughout the history of our country courts and judges, not elected officials, have been at the forefront of civil rights laws, so like it or not, it should not come as a suprise that they are today. I’m sure 60 years ago there were many people complaining about the ‘activist judges’ who would dare make a decision as crazy as Brown v. BOE. And 60 years from now our kids will be reading in the history books about the ‘activist judges’ and the oppostion the faced when gay marriage was legalized.

The Founders left it to the Judiciary to interpret laws, including those enshrined in the Constitution, but never, ever to create them. The Legislative branch enacts law, the executive implemtens and enforces law and the judiciary intereprets law, all of which must remain within Constitutional parameters.

Brown vs. BOE was not judicial activism, as the court invented nothing, but simply executed it’s duty to apply the Constitution faithfully.

Gay marriage as a right is as valid as a man’s right to bear children. Doesn’t matter how much you’d like it to be, it can’t.

Pablo on November 11, 2006 at 7:32 AM

Throughout the history of our country courts and judges, not elected officials, have been at the forefront of civil rights laws, so like it or not, it should not come as a suprise that they are today.

BTW, JaHerer22, what branches of government were responsible for women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Pablo on November 11, 2006 at 7:35 AM

Kralizec, I always get a kick outta your comments, but “my cruel delight in pointing out your inferiority” is one of your best! Keep up the good work.

Tony737 on November 10, 2006 at 6:04 AM

Thanks, Tony737, and I’m glad to know you’re reading.

Kralizec on November 11, 2006 at 6:43 PM