For the record, “Queers on Courts” has been tried - nad produced egregious perversion of justice.
IIRC, Prop 8 was heard before a closeted queer who did not recuse himself.
Perhaps, the ban on queers as “an abomination” which allegedly came from a reliable source, might be worth consideration?
Rubio has made a good call in the case of ‘The Queer Who Would Be Judge” and arguably produce more rulings as did that other “Queer Judge”.
“Queer Judges” -Bah! HUMBUGGERY! !
” Senator Lee. Thank you.
With the Chair’s indulgence, I would like to just follow-up
on this a little bit more and make sure we have covered the
ground. Thank you for your answer and I appreciate and agree
with the fact that there are few issues that have been more
contentious in American history or that are more important to
our day-to-day lives than those issues that involve race
relations. And so I appreciate your concern for this issue.
I also appreciate your statement to the effect that as a
sitting judge, it would not be your inclination to make
statements like those ones again.
But I want to follow-up on another statement made in the
same speech on kind of a different vein. You refer to the fact
that on September 12, 1995, ``400 people protest outside the
home of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because of his
opinions in rulings affecting affirmative action and voting
rights, reminding us, lest we forget, how easy it is for some
of us to forget history.’’
So to some extent, I think what this is insinuating is that
that particular member of the Court, Justice Thomas, has
forgotten history.
So my question to you is, as an Article 3 judge within the
Federal judiciary, does this statement reflect or would you
otherwise experience difficulty employing decisions rendered by
the Supreme Court authored by Justice Thomas?
Judge Davis. Not at all, Senator. Actually, that particular
reference was to the sentiment as being expressed by the
protestors. I respect Justice Thomas as a sitting member of the
United States Supreme Court. When he is in the majority, his
decisions are the law of this land. And as a sitting judge,
Article 3 or otherwise, I’m bound to support and apply that
law, and that would be my—that has been understanding and that
would continue to be my intention, whether I am confirmed or
not.
As a judge, I think the Supreme Court’s authority, when
applicable, is controlling.
Senator Lee. So your criticism in there was not directed
toward the Justice, it was directed toward the protestors. Do I
understand that correctly?
Judge Davis. I was echoing the—I was echoing the criticism
of the protestors in trying to motivate an audience to action
around matters of race.
Senator Lee. Does this also fit into the category of
statements that, as an Article 3 Federal judge, you might not
be inclined to make?
Judge Davis. I think it does only because I am confident it
is improper for sitting judges to comment on the decisions and
disagreement with the decisions of sitting judges.
It not only would be proper as an Article 3 judge, my
acknowledgment to you today is that it was probably improper
for me to do it then.
Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg76131/html/CHRG-112shrg76131.htm
Not qualified.
Fudge backer of gay, Black judge.
“Slammed” by the CBC?
Badge of honor!
WHAT? 8% of 787 is 63.
95 is 12% of 787.
Stacy M. Brown is such a math wiz.