As Rachel explained on the show last night, Tracy Thorne-Begland was set to become a Virginia judge before state Republican lawmakers rejected him. Thorne-Begland is a state prosecutor, a father, and a former Top Gun fighter pilot, and his nomination enjoyed bipartisan sponsorship, but the GOP rejected him anyway.
By all appearances, this was as plain an example of bigotry towards a judicial nominee as we've seen in a while: Thorne-Begland is gay, so Republicans blocked him from becoming a state judge.
But Virginia Republicans can explain this. The GOP didn't reject Thorne-Begland because he's gay, they argue; the GOP rejected Thorne-Begland because he believes in gay rights.
"He holds himself out as being married," said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who is running for U.S. Senate. Noting that gay marriage is not legal in Virginia, he said that Thorne-Begland's "life is a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution." [...]
Marshall, the Family Foundation of Virginia and others who raised concerns about Thorne-Begland's nomination said they did not object to him because he is gay, but because of his outspokenness on the subject of gay rights.
Ah, I see. Because Thorne-Begland has stated opinions about civil rights issues, he's necessarily unqualified to be a judge.
Or as Adam Serwer put it, "[I]t's not, strictly speaking, correct to say Thorne-Begland was rejected because he was gay. He was rejected because he believes being gay entitles him to the same rights as people who aren't."
If Thorne-Begland had been gay and remained silent on whether other gays should be treated as first-class citizens in the Commonwealth, he'd presumably be fitted for his judicial robes today.
Update: Andrew Rosenthal had a good piece exploring this in more detail:
Imagine if we applied this logic to all cases: If you’re a woman publicly in favor of equal pay, you can’t be trusted to rule on sex-discrimination cases. If you’re black and publicly opposed to racial profiling, you can’t be trusted to hear cases about police misconduct.
As Dahlia Lithwick wrote in her essay on the Virginia vote, by this logic, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who fought for civil rights at the NAACP, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was “a passionate career-long advocate for women’s rights” would be unfit to serve on the federal bench. Obviously the only people who can rise above their race, or gender or sexual orientation and rule fairly are straight white men.
Leave a Comment:
This reminds me of an old Chevy Chase line on SNL. I don't judge a man based on his color. I judge him by the size of his lips" Unfortunately this is 'Philadelphia' and Tom Hanks is fired. Where is Denzel when we need him?
Perhaps they all should watch these videos before voting on any more legislation. Then maybe they can re-evaluate the justifications of their bigotry.
The GOP are nowing waging war against Native Americans. That's it I think they probably have waged war against every single group of people in The United States oh, except one group Rich, white men. It sure is obvious if it wasn't before, Divide and Conquer just isn't working. The President will veto this bill and The Native Americans will get to keep their land. There are some Americans that will not be bought, they should know this by now. Land never loses it's value. And they need to stop raping this earth.
Republicans are so principled. Separation of church and state is in the Bill of Rights, so I'm sure they'd reject any judge candidate who had spoken out or advocated against it, right?
Re your comment about Straight White Men, you should go read http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
Funny - I thought being a living, breathing American entitled him to the same rights as all other Americans.
I guess The Bill Of Rights is going to be the next Document to be exploited by the GOP. Their mission might be to destroy every piece of paper there is. Hide your books. I can smell another Book Burning Party.
All those Republicans who fought in the 1860s for the ratification of the 14th Amendment are rolling in their graves to hear members of their own party say that!
That was back when Republicans actually represented people, not churches and corporations.
True-- but since that party still LOVES to drag out the mantra "the party of Lincoln" it bears note.
"The party of Lincoln" - heck, they can't even claim (accurately) to be the party of Reagan anymore.
I rather party with Lincoln than be of the party of Lincoln. ;-)
KJ: Making accurate claims about anything doesn't seem to be particularly high on the list of priorities for modern Rape-Public-Cons.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Didn't the Republicans make all discussions of Roe v. Wade off limits during the conformation hearings for Bush's Supreme Court nominations?
So how do these Republicans KNOW how this gentleman will rule on anything that comes before him?
iokiyrar Sorry, it won't happen again . I didn't mean to offend anybody.
Bob McDonnell is a liar and now that Thorne-Begland has been rejected he's all OVER it...'I'm not a bigot. SEE???' BS. It is the culture of hate from the right that is the problem. There's no issue with a rich white judge ruling on an rich white embezzler, right?
Ummm... totally thought this dude would be entitled to his right to free speech. Being "outspoken" isn't illegal yet, is it? I'd venture to say that Thorne-Begland is also entitled to "believe" what he wants about gay marriage rights. Freedom of Conscience, no? ... Oh, pardons!!! Freedom of Conscience is only for Catholic Bishops and Corporate employers who want to deny people health care. Oh, and free speech is only for Big Money Corporations trying to buy elections. Do forgive me...
What I find most difficult to understand is that this man was a military pilot who served his country. But this rejection is in line with the gay soldier that was booed during the debates. For conservatives to claim that they support the military is just untrue. They only support the military that agrees with their positions or when it is politically convenient. For shame! He is good enough to defend the country but not good enough to be a local judge.
Republican narrative aside, what about the other 36 the voted against him? On the show, Rachel said he got 31 votes to confirm, all 33 republicans voted against, that leaves 36 against that are independents and democrats. What were their reasons?
Nevermind, I answered my own question:
33 for
31 against (all Republican)
10 Republicans abstained
26 delegates did not vote
We can't stop the Supreme Courts ruling. But we can do this!
http://www.change.org/petitions/major-media-companies-stop-accepting-money-from-superpacs
[snark]I'm not a bigot. The idea! Why, some of my best friends belong to the same vile and loathsome subculture of civilization-destroying fiends as this despicable child-rapist we are currently nailing to the statehouse walls as an example to the rest of his demon-spawned kindred.[/snark]