Most of us here in Virginia have figured out by now that Virginia Attorney General Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli is a dangerous, ignorant ass. But Kookinelli seems Hell bent to continue to take his insanity to new levels - now maintaining that Virginia can ignore U. S. Supreme Court decisions that apply 14th Amendment protections to LGBT citizens. Religious extremism combined with Kookinelli's tempestuous love affair with himself - and hearing himself pontificate - may yet cause Kookinelli to cross the line and set himself up for removal from office. The principal question will be how much damage is done to Virginia and its residents - not to mention how much money is needlessly squandered - before this lunatic is gone from office. Think Progress has a story on Kookinelli's latest comments which basically "flip the bird" to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here are some highlights:*
On Friday, Cuccinelli appeared at Boys State, where a high-school student asked him, “How is that not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?” Cuccinelli responded by suggesting that the amendment was not designed to protect gay people:
*
“State universities are not free to create any specially protected classes other than those dictated by the General Assembly,” Cuccinelli said. “Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment,” he said.
“State universities are not free to create any specially protected classes other than those dictated by the General Assembly,” Cuccinelli said. “Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment,” he said.
*
“There are judges who think these things ‘evolve,’ is the word they like to use,” Cuccinelli said, but the correct approach to making such a change would be a constitutional amendment, he said.
“There are judges who think these things ‘evolve,’ is the word they like to use,” Cuccinelli said, but the correct approach to making such a change would be a constitutional amendment, he said.
*
Despite Cuccinelli’s rather arrogant attempts to dismiss legal precedent and impose his own vision of the Constitution on America, the Court has found that laws motivated solely by anti-gay animus are unconstitutional — and Cuccinelli is bound by that case whether “the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment” “contemplated” about gays or not.
*
In 1996’s Romer v. Evans the court ruled that a Colorado law called Amendment 2, which rescinded recently anti-discrimination measures, violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause because animus towards a certain group of people does not constitute “a legitimate governmental purpose.”
In 1996’s Romer v. Evans the court ruled that a Colorado law called Amendment 2, which rescinded recently anti-discrimination measures, violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause because animus towards a certain group of people does not constitute “a legitimate governmental purpose.”
*
“‘[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.’ Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973),” the Court wrote. “Amendment 2, however, in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.
“‘[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.’ Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973),” the Court wrote. “Amendment 2, however, in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.
*
Given the ongoing rumors that the Cooch has played for the LGBT team in the past and his irrational homophobia (think George Rekers), I cannot help but wonder when he will find himself being outed in much the same manner that ended former Congressman Ed Schrock's political career. If the rumors are true, I cannot wait for some former trick to finaly say, enough is enough. Frankly, it cannot happen too soon in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment