advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

AN OPENLY GAY JUSTICE?

By
Neal Boortz
@ May 6, 2009 8:22 AM Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0)

Jamie Dupree mentioned this on the air yesterday, and I just had to get a good chuckle. With Obama's impending Supreme Court nomination, everyone has their theories as to who will be the chosen one. Some say it has to be a woman. Others say it has to be a Hispanic so we can check off the list "first Hispanic justice."

But there is another strong lobby group out there ...the gay lobby. Yep, there is a big push to have Obama nominate the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court.

Now, some could argue that we have already had gays serving as Justices ...... but we will just leave it at that.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: AN OPENLY GAY JUSTICE?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/30062

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • In support of polygamy, etc
    Can't we just abolish the whole concept of government-backed marriage? I don't care who marries their pets, their sisters, themselves, whatever. The government should have nothing to do with this whole "marriage" thing anyway.

    -- a complete hypocrite who's living happily with his wife due to a government approved marriage visa
    By someguy @ 05/07/09 07:23:51 AMreport abuse
  • Gay Justice
    I think Souter is little queer! Let's move to some other person qualified to sit on the bench only by way of their minority status. Can't have someone there who is truly qualified; wouldn't be PC.
    By Frabax @ 05/06/09 06:35:14 PMreport abuse
  • justice
    Lets face the facts.With the exception of maybe 3 people who read Neals Nuze, we are not going to be happy or properly served by obama's nominee.No one he would even consider is going to be qualified as a rule of law justice.
    By mailman @ 05/06/09 05:30:31 PMreport abuse
  • Stupid
    Why do we have to be so politically correct about it all? First this, first that. I recall John McCain was slandered for saying he might not take judges that agree with him on Conservative issues. And here we are purposefully picking out random people?

    What's next? First mentally disabled justice? Because that's arguably been covered for years now. Not to mention Congress is doing their fair share to pick up slack on that.

    And then after that, what?
    By Troy @ 05/06/09 03:30:59 PMreport abuse
  • Clarification
    I am not against gays. I do believe that everyone is entitled to love. My point is why gays are more entitled than polygamists since the media crucify them but are all for gay marriage. And of course the way they went after the Miss USA contestant.
    By Mikey Gee @ 05/06/09 03:18:49 PMreport abuse
  • Justice Buttf@#kus
    That was my comment.....
    By stepcousin @ 05/06/09 01:51:54 PMreport abuse
  • I AM talking to you Mikey Gee
    So, people marrying pets, is your real name Fred Phelps? You seem to have a WHOLE lot in common there. FTR I'd gladly marry a gay couple, why should straight folk be the only ones who suffer!!
    By daibhi @ 05/06/09 12:20:53 PMreport abuse
  • The category that WON'T be nominated:
    An openly Constitutional justice.

    But maybe we'll luck out, and Obama will inadvertently pick a "closet Constitutionalist."
    By Ben from Norcross @ 05/06/09 12:15:27 PMreport abuse
  • A study in contrasts
    Republican president = Supreme Court nominees who vocally state their desire to only uphold the Constitution in their rulings.

    Democrat president = Supreme Court nominees who openly state their belief that the Constituion is subjective and should evolve, with track records of legislating from the bench.

    Seeing how the Supreme Courts existence from the beginning was only to uphold and defend the Constitution as it exists and to provide checks and balances to the legislative branch, the Democrat nominees, by definition, would seem rather, dare I say, unconstitutional?
    By Dan @ 05/06/09 12:13:23 PMreport abuse
  • i not talking to you, Mikey Gee
    you know, all these people who are against gay marriage, have something to hide. its like something sexual that they don't want anybody to know. so they attack it more than normal.
    and its plain to see
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 05/06/09 11:58:36 AMreport abuse
  • Reminds me of a quote from King of the Hill:
    (quoting from memory)

    Peggy: I don't see how having a girl on the team would ruin it. Did a woman judge ruin the Supreme court?

    Hank: Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren.
    By Stephen @ 05/06/09 11:57:23 AMreport abuse
  • Just the Constitution please
    Why not a transgender accordian repair man? I don't think we've had one of those yet either.
    By Steve Boston @ 05/06/09 11:46:15 AMreport abuse
  • senators
    if any senators ask anybody who is a supreme court wanna-be, how they are sexually inclined, ought to be run out of the room
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 05/06/09 11:14:05 AMreport abuse
  • Openly Gay Marriage??
    I will support gay marriage when the courts (note I did not say politicians or voters since its the courts that now legislate) say it is OK for polygamy, brothers marrying sisters, sons marrying moms, pet owners marrying pets.
    By Mikey Gee @ 05/06/09 11:01:55 AMreport abuse
  • Sad commentary
    on what is considered important in selecting a Supreme Court Justice. Race, gender, and sexual orientation have nothing to do with someone's ability to intrepret the Constitution, yet this seems to be most important criteria in selecting a Justice.
    By Upgrayedd @ 05/06/09 10:49:47 AMreport abuse
  • Here's a novel idea....
    How about a non political,non partisan,intelligent,law expert(ex judge,D.A.,law professor doesn't matter),that has no agenda other than sitting on the bench to apply the laws as it is clearly written and interpeting the law when not clear.I don't give a rats ass if that person is queer,straight,male,female,white,black,hispanic,or whatever as long they can be unbias,tempered with the common sense to see the laws in the CONTEXT that they were written AND how that applies to today.Is that to much to ask?(of course it is)
    By DAMIFINO @ 05/06/09 10:45:05 AMreport abuse
  • Justice
    As long as the person sticks by the Constitution, I don't care what race, gender, or orientation they are. There are extremist bigots in every group. I have gay friends that are extremely laid back and I have also met gay people who are convinced that everyone is gay on some level and its their job to prove it to you and convert you.
    By What? @ 05/06/09 10:36:23 AMreport abuse
  • As a gay person I hope for someone that is at least gay friendly and just not a white male. We have an overabundance of white male view. Neal once again defaults to implying Souter is gay because he isn't married. I feel sorry for all the single straight folks out there always haviing their sexuality questioned because they aren't married. It is hard enough being judged constantly for actually being gay but when one isn't it seems just cruel to me. However one considers the source and this is white boy humor.
    I will never understand why anyone thinks they get to approve of anyone being gay. That is something that one can only decide in regard to themselves. If you are gay the only choice you have is whether you will accept yourself or if you will let the judgement of others, their ridicule and cruelty in the name of 'humor', cause you to live the life 'they' won't reject you for. How unfortunate that Neal is smarter than this but his ego would rather have the easy, intellectually lazy laugh. Neal doesn't hate gay people but he is still a jerk about it.
    By Robin @ 05/06/09 10:02:39 AMreport abuse
  • Group Status
    So what is important is you group status. Democrats will not be happy until government is made up proportionately the same as America. Well at least their off to a good start with not paying taxes.
    By Robert @ 05/06/09 10:02:09 AMreport abuse
  • Here's an idea:
    How about a Hispanic lesbian? Three birds with one stone! That should satisfy the racists, sexists, AND gays.
    By Brilliant @ 05/06/09 09:46:40 AMreport abuse
  • steve
    he not a libertarian, no matter what his mouth says. he is a LINO
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 05/06/09 09:42:18 AMreport abuse
  • What is a gay lobby?
    A drag queen concierge with disco music playing in the elevator?
    By Gay DeKalber @ 05/06/09 09:41:48 AMreport abuse
  • The last thing to worry about...
    Is the sexual orientation of the next chief justice. Let's forget about this future justices court decisions and instead focus on what may or may not be done in the bedroom. I would laugh my arse off (if it were not such a serious decision)if a Hispanic/pro-choice/gay chief justice was named to the Supreme Court. The far right bigots in the Republican Party would probably be convinced that armeggedon had arrived.
    By Rainbow Warrior @ 05/06/09 09:38:10 AMreport abuse
  • BS
    Neal, I gotta call BS on you making fun of a gay Justice, now or in the past. As a decidedly heterosexual Libertarian, I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but I respect the choice of anyone who is openly gay.

    If you truly believe in Libertarian concept, you need to back off on poling fun at gays. You are undermining your credibility.
    By Steve @ 05/06/09 08:32:22 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement