And He's a SMART Leftist?

My Leftist counterpart tried to rip me a new one, and I know he'll be reading this since he needs me for his own blog since he's incapable of original thought. But, as he often does, he misses the point completely.

Here is the blog post in question with comments from yours truly.

Reality Now Has An ACTIVIST Bias!

No. As we'll see, the Leftist blogger has little connection to reality.

Lindaman writes:

With all the discussions about a federal court judge overturning California's Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, there's a concept that has been missed, one that fundamentally changes the judicial system as we know it.

When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.

What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.

Uh... so what judge CAN preside over the case?

That's the point. No judge can preside over this case, but Leftists forced the issue and managed to get a practicing gay man to preside over it. This raises the issue I referenced, and the Leftist blogger completely ignored because it he would have to concede the fact that I was right.

The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.

Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds

That's because... THE LEFT DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE LIKE THE RIGHT.

Ooooh, sor-ray. As we've seen repeatedly (ex. Joe Lieberman, the small number of blacks allowed to head up the DNC in lieu of letting rich white men head it up, the Left's support of Margaret Sanger), the Left does discriminate much more frequently than the Right.

(even though there is no civil right to marriage).

There's no constitutional right for ugly, obese bigots to get married, either. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to explicitly list which rights you have. The purpose is to place restrictions on the federal and state government's ability to limit your rights. What Prop 8 did was to declare that a certain segment of the population are entitled to special rights for no other reason than that they promote the status quo, and you just can't do that under the Constitution.

Actually, that's exactly what the Bill of Rights does by laying out the prohibitions of government to intrude on citizens' rights. And last time I checked, the Bill of Rights is considered part of the Constitution.

The burden isn't to prove why there should be a right to gay marriage, the burden is to prove why it is okay to keep gays from exercising that right.

Under your logic, a straight man has the right to sue a lesbian if she denies his "right" to marry her. Under my logic, the case wouldn't even get to trial because no judge has standing to deliver a just verdict.

There is only a right to marry, not a right for heterosexuals and a separate one for homosexuals. Excluding people from that right without a legitimate government interest is unconstitutional, as anyone with common sense knew all along. The words "No Rational Basis" mean something.

How about the fact that the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law? Inventing a right out of whole cloth so that gays can "marry" violates the 14th Amendment at its face, as it does not provide equal protection under the law since it elevates one portion of the population above another. And we still haven't gotten to the fact that the 10th Amendment gives the states and the people the authority to rule on this matter since the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to rule on this matter and the states haven't given up their authority to the federal government.

Oh, wait. I just did. Sorry. :-)

Of course, nobody loves you from either gender... so naturally you're going to be bitter.

Awww...two personal attacks in lieu of an intelligent comment on the issues I raised? I'm flattered!

But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.

ROFL! Considering Rush Limbaugh's preference for Dominican boys, that's not a good right-wing example.

Of course, this lame attempt at slandering Limbaugh would make more sense if I had said Limbaugh was the judge in this hypothetical example. After all the times the Leftist has blasted me for "mistakes" from a "lack of reading comprehension," one would think that he wouldn't have made such a glaring error. But why let intellectual consistency get in the way of spreading another Leftist lie?

You know, like the Right is doing with this case?

The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.

Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want,

Okay! "Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe!"

Your attempts to stop being called a homophobe by saying "Call me a homophobe!" doesn't change the fact you're a homophobe. But hey, you've already exposed yourself as a bigot and a racist, and even support anti-semites. So I guess it was about time that you went all the way to the Right and exposed yourself as a homophobe, too.

So, by raising a legitimate question about whether a practicing gay judge can deliver impartial justice to all parties involved and by questioning whether anyone has a right to marry, the Leftist calls me homophobic. That's illogical, even for the Left. Under the Leftist definition of homophobia, wouldn't I have to exhibit a clear hatred for gays? And, no, questioning a "right" of anyone to marry doesn't constitute homophobia, as it covers both straight and gay people. Try again.

but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.

And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.

We can say plenty, liar. For example:

And as far as the age-old right-wing meme of "activist judges!": Should a black judge recuse himself from a civil rights case? Debate over, in one question.

Oooh, sor-ray. See, civil rights cases involve more than just blacks, so a black judge can rule on a civil rights case if the particulars of the case are such that the judge can avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Which is the point I've been making all along.

Oh, look! After all this time, Lindaman finally has a commenter! Now we get to see that "open discussion" you kept whining about on your little "Leftist Coward Watch". Remember that?

For those that are just tuning in: Thomas Lindaman went on a two week bitchfest because I wasn't opening this blog to comments, and he called it a "Leftist Coward Watch". He kept leaving out the fact that this blog was created because he repeatedly backed down.

Actually, it wasn't. The Leftist's own masthead states he is "Exposing Right Wing Lies and Lunacy." Yet, the vast majority of his posts deal with...me. Unless I'm the only "right winger" who lies and is a lunatic, then one could conclude that one of his statements (his masthead or the portion quoted above) is a lie.

And given that he's purposely misstating the purpose of my "Leftist Coward Watch" (which was to point out how it was hypocritical of him to post comments but not allow others to post), it's clear who the liar really is.

And even so, I did offer to open a comment box for him, if he would answer the question as to why he lied about 97% of climatologists being "generic scientists", and why he lied about it again after being faced with that fact. He never acknowledged any of those three facts during his two weeks of bitching. And he still hasn't.

Funny, but I didn't lie about that. Besides, why make it a condition that I accept your discredited premise to allow for me to comment? Shouldn't you want an intellectual exchange if your ideas are superior?

Anyway, now he FINALLY has a commenter on his blog. Let's see what the commenter has to say:

"Karl: It seems the only option is to find a bisexual or asexual judge to avoid the conflict you speak of. Good luck with that. Practicality has to enter into the equation at some point."

Oh, SNAP! This guy ain't one of your good close racist AOLers! That comment is... rational! And a tough one for a right-winger to respond to! Will Lindaman rise to the challenge?

Now, let's see what Lindaman had to say in response to him, after TWO WEEKS of waiting...

Hmm... Lindaman replied with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


Of course, the Leftist missed the point Karl made. Karl actually agreed with me. Unless he wanted me to post "dittos," there really isn't a need to respond.

Unless, of course, the Leftist is trying to set up a straw man argument in lieu of an actual argument...

Lindaman... you mean you aren't even going to do what you've done before in your comment boxes, and call Karl a "slapnutz"? Which is an insult that doesn't even make sense, and in fact exposes you as a self-loathing closet case?

Except for the fact that Karl agreed with me. Why would I insult someone who agreed with me?

Of course, now that you've been exposed as ducking a comment, you might scramble for a response now. It won't be easy considering you don't make passive-aggressive smileys on the blog like you did chatrooms.

Ducking a comment I agreed with? That makes no sense, even for a Leftist. :-)


Now that I've spent far too much time pointing out the Leftist blogger's intellectual failures, I think we can all see he doesn't allow comments. He's afraid that a commenter will take him to task for his dishonesty and hypocrisy.