Soon after Asheville Federal Judge declared Amendment One unconstitutional on Friday, 50s-throw-back Tami Fitzgerald of the NC Values Coalition issued a deliberately misleading statement
attacking him as an "activist judge":
“Today over 60% of the voters in North Carolina are disheartened to learn that the actions of an activist judge who was appointed by Obama and confirmed by Kay Hagan could so easily override the will of the people, but we take heart in knowing that marriage – that defined by God – can never truly be redefined.
“This is why our US Senate election is so important. The US Senate is responsible for confirming federal judges, and we don’t want Kay Hagan to continue appointing activist liberal judges like Judge Cogburn.” – Tami Fitzgerald, NC Values Coalition
Fitzgerald blamed Kay Hagan (and, of course, "Obama") for this abomination of a Federal judge, but Seth Effron offered the truth on Politics North Carolina
Here’s what [Republican Senator Dick] Burr said about Cogburn during his Nov. 17, 2010 confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: “He is an excellent choice and I believe will be a great addition to the court. … He was admitted to the bar in 1976 and has made a name for himself, with a strong record in his legal career and in public service; an assistant U.S. attorney; a chief assistant U.S. attorney; magistrate judge; and, currently, a partner at Cogburn & Brazil. During his 12 years as a federal prosecutor, he was also the lead attorney on the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force. As an assistant U.S. attorney, he was responsible for prosecuting murder cases, drug trafficking, voter fraud, among other federal crimes. … Out of all the qualifications that Max Cogburn brings to this nomination, let me say this. He is a good man and we need good individuals to serve on our bench. I highly recommend to the Committee that we move as expeditiously this nominee as we can.” ...
In the highly partisan environment in pre-2012 election Washington, his nomination was approved 96-0 on March 10, 2011. Support came from Republicans Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jim DeMint, then a Republican from South Carolina.
in your pipe and smoke it, Tami Fitzgerald.
Tami Fitzgerald's entire career (and fortune) has been dedicated to holding back progress on women's and LGBT's rights. That she has to falsify, deceive, and prevaricate is of course OK because her causes are "righteous." Such a fine upstanding Christian she is! Her son in law, for whom she and Paul Stam helped buy a seat, is in a tight race for reelection in NC Senate district 18 against Sarah Crawford, a strong women's rights advocate. If you want to cock a snoot at Ms. Tami, Google Sarah Crawford for NC Senate and give her campaign a few bucks.
People should never vote on the rights of others! We should have inalienable rights not subject to votes.
Rights are countermajoritarian. Property rights, free speech rights, and due process rights. You like reminding us of this when it comes to rights important to you personally. When it comes to rights that you'd rather ignore, you alienate the minority.
Interesting that in the case of gay marriage, the local mob of democrats talks about rights above majority rule. Amazingly ironic, given their mob mentality on everything else.
Anon 8:35 -
To paraphrase my kids' favorite movie...
"'mob mentality'. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Wait they ruled in favor of equality over keeping "the gay" from making baby Jesus cry?
Jesse - you made my morning. Many thanks for the hearty laugh.
Avoid debating issues, poke fun, call names. That is what your local democratic party does best!
"Avoid debating issues, poke fun, call names. That is what your local democratic party does best!"
You do know there's a picture over on Watauga Conservative of mayor Ball as a clown right now right? Just saying my hypocritical anon friend.
But I'm feeling bored, so if you want to have a debate on gay marriage let's start here, a simple question, and I'll even let you keep hiding behind your anon tag if you want rather then having the courage to defend your views with a real name. Something your local oracle and resident snarkbeast of boone has no problem doing. =p
Do you agree YES/NO with these sentiments?
"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid homosexual marriage."
"This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
"State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America."
"This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."
"“It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”
""I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."
Balls in your court Anon.
Mr. Steele, are you capable of a debate without name calling? You have already called me a hypocrite and a republican and used quite a condescending tone. I have followed your comments for years now. You are consistently libelous, abusive, and perverse.
Uh, Anonymous, you called him names too, so don't come on here and whine about name-calling while you're doing it yourself! Are you gonna answer his question or not?
Why is it that conservatives love to complain about how liberals won't debate them. But then when you actually try they run away as fast as possible?
Answer the question Anon, I'm willing to debate if you are. Please tell us why you think gay marriage should stay banned and I'll offer a rebuttal.
See that's how a debate works, not flinging more insults and running away when you're asked an actual hard question that makes you take a stand yes or no on an issue.
So yes or no, do you agree with those sentiments on gay marriage, or not?
I'm waiting for your answer.
Whether I agree or disagree is moot. A federal judge has ruled gay marriage is a constitutional right. My point is that this is a popular constitutional right with you whereas other constitutional rights are not as popular. And constitutional rights by very nature are not determined by popular vote.
Ok there we go, that's a start anon. Well not really... But you want to know why I'm so condescending, snarky, and have fun badgering people like you?
It's because you make this too damn easy. Cause seriously this is pathetic as far as debates go so far.
More as I watch you still running from the question. And you're now pulling the classic debate tactic of trying to dodge and deflect one question and set up your liberals hate other rights straw man.
Ah well, but since you're not going to answer the question I guess I'll just have to make it a different game for you and everyone. Something you also missed my anon friend.
All those comments on marriage? Only one is actually about gay marriage. The rest were actually remarks made about interracial marriages. Cookie to the first person who finds the gay one, go for it Dem12!
Though bonus points to you Anon running so fast from having to take a stand you couldn't even see the difference. Or do the most basic research to see the trap for it was, and still technically is. Can you spot the differences?
Were I to guess about rights I disrespect? Sorry I'm not taking the bait. Because I'm not interested in guessing or making up your argument for you. It's not my job to put the hay in your scarecrow.
So stop living in general platitude and empty rhetoric land. If you have a case to make let's see you make it.
Name one right specifically you think I don't respect.
Name where a liberal body of govt tried to pass a law that went against it or was put up to a vote the same way amendment one was.
And if it was brought before the court name where a judge ruled it unconstitutional as just occurred with gay marriage.
And if you can, find me the one needle of bigotry in a haystack of racism. Even though I fully expect you to not grasp the whole concept said trap highlights.
How the same tired arguments then are the same tired arguments now, and how people like you are still on the wrong side of history.
Of course that just could be my libelous perversions talking, you never know. That or this amusing mental image of Tillis and Berger standing at the register of deeds door doing their best George Wallace Impression.
And if you feel like continuing this debate I'll be in the kitchen, you're welcome to join me anytime.
Well, so much for that "Debate" I guess?
Post a Comment