Barney Frank spews hate at ScaliaPolicy

Rep. Barney “My Boy Lollipop” Frank is into calling Supreme Court Justices names when he doesn’t get his way, so instead of running the national mortgage industry into the ground while telling everyone what a great investment Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, he’s whining about gay marriage and calling Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe.”

“I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court,” said Frank. (more Barney Frank hate here)

See, Democrats don’t call people names. Democrats are good, nice people that only want peace, love, harmony and high taxes.

Until they get a microphone. Then all hate breaks loose.

Homophobe – fear of homosexuals. Scalia’s judgment on gay marriage is that judges should not take the place of elected legislators on issues about which the Constitution is silent.

I don’t see any fear there. I just see an old, disheveled, useless as yesterday’s newspaper Congressman who is a walking argument for term limits (28 years and counting for those at Guinness) spewing names and hate like he was getting paid for it.

Of course, if Barney Fife-Frank would like to rejoin the rest of us in the “what matters” world, he’d wonder where he was when he was encouraging this:

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people” (NYT 1999)

Then again, how smart can you be when your boyfriend runs a male prostitution ring out of your house and you never notice.

By the way, Barney, what would those wedding vows be? “I promise to be true to you, in sickness and in health, and to tell you when I run a prostitution ring from the basement.”

This post has nothing to do with gay marriage. It truly has nothing to do with anyone but Barney Frank, and his recent attack on a Supreme Court Justice, and the fact that no Democrat is going to do anything, or even say anything, about it.

Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut

  • Saqib Ali

    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:

    “To 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.