fousesquawk
Antonin Scalia
Barney Frank
I know I have been writing a lot lately about Barney Frank, but that's because every time I look around, the man sinks to a new low. Not only is this man doing more than any other person in Congress to destroy the American economy, now he makes a completely gratuitous attack against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia-calling him a "homophobe" without any reason or proof.
In an interview with a Gay media outlet, Frank spoke about the possibility of the question of gay marriage going to the Supreme Court. Frank spoke pessimistically about the prospect because "that homophobe Scalia" was on the court and went on to say that he (Scalia) controlled other votes.
What a disgusting attack on a decent man like Antonin Scalia. One may not agree with Justice Scalia's legal opinions or legal philosophy (I do), but that is no reason to label him a homophobe or anything else without solid proof. Frank should remember the old adage about people living in glass houses before he goes around name-calling. Antonin Scalia has never been involved in the questionable controversies that Frank has been involved in over his long years in Congress.
In fact, Frank's entire Congressional career has been marked by one example of conflict of interest, poor behavior or poor judgement after another. This is the guy whose Washington residence was once used as a male-escort service HQs by his live-in boyfriend while Barney was on Capitol Hill. Later, Barney's significant-other was a Fannie Mae executive while Barney was on the Congressional Banking Committee.
Of course, the whole banking mess, just like the OJ murder scene, has Barney's DNA all over it since he was the one who pressured lending institutions to give mortgage loans to folks who couldn't afford the homes they were buying. Barney also took the lead in securing a 12 million dollar bailout to OneUnited, a bank in Massachusetts, in spite of the fact they were under investigation by the SEC (I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Maxine Waters' husband, Sidney Williams, had been on the board of directors and had a couple of hundred grand invested in the bank. Nah, just a coincidence, strictly legit).
Now comes Congressman Frank, who should be in total seclusion hiding from the world, accusing Justice Scalia of being a homophobe. Where does this guy get the chutzpah?
But there is good news. Barney Frank, as we speak, is in the process of redeeming himself. He is one of the guys charged with fixing the whole financial mess. Why just the other day, he was grilling AIG CEA Edward Lilly and demanding the names of the AIG execs who had received big bonus payouts.
"The names, Mr Liddy."
Someday, hopefully, if we ever get to the bottom of this bailout mess, someone will demand "The Names" and one of the first given will be:
Barney Frank.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.BMP)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Excellent Post - Barney Frank gives new meaning to the phrase "bottom feeder" - in regards to his baseless attack on Scalia, one has to wonder if it is Frank's way of getting attention or if the man truly believes what he is spewing forth. What boggles the mind is how those in the 4th District continue to re-elect the man? (Granted he does bring the bacon home to the fishing industry, however, that is a sad price to pay for the nation’s economy in general.) Scalia has been very clear on where he stands vis a vis any marriage amendment - for states’ rights - he cites the Constitution for reference, whereas, Frank would discard that document.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Scalia even noticed. I can here him in chambers now, "Hey Clarence, shake your ass and run out and get me a decaff double mocha latte and make it quick."
ReplyDeleteHe'd be foolish to mess with Barney anyway. Hell, the man caused a housing bubble and an asset devaluation that tanked the world economy according to right wing fools. You don't tug on Superman's cape.
In an recent interview with Hoover Institution, elaborating on his earlier statement that “devotees of The Living Constitution do not seek to facilitate social change but to prevent it”[1], Justice Scalia said:
ReplyDeleteTo make things change you don’t need a constitution. The function of a Constitution is to rigidify, to ossify, NOT to facilitate change. You want change? All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. Things will change as fast as you like. My constitution, very flexible, when you want a right to abortion, persuade your fellow citizens that it's a good idea. And pass a law. And then you find out, the results are worse than we ever thought, you can repeal the law. That’s flexibility. The reason people want the Supreme Court to declare that abortion is a constitutional right is precisely to rigidify that right, it means it sweeps across all fifty states and it is a law now and forever or until the Supreme Court changes its mind. That’s not flexibility.
1. Scalia, A., & Gutmann, A. (1998). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press.