Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The award for the most ridiculous overreaction to the overturning of Prop 8 goes to -- drumroll please -- Larry Klayman!
Clearly, the federal judiciary in particular is out of control. It has broken away from "We the People" and become a "renegade" terrorist group of former lawyers who not only think and act as if they not are "above the law," but above God and His teachings.
OMG, Judges are terrorists now! Even funnier is that he claims this while making the same argument that Islamic terrorists do, that the law and the constitution should be subordinated to the will of God. And now you have your recommended daily allowance of irony.
And then he really gets riled up:
I, for one, will not sit by on behalf of the American people and wait for more bad things to happen in our courts or elsewhere. Now that the U.S. Senate, a bunch of do-nothing, overstuffed, hair-dyed "nebbishes" ( that's the incomparable Yiddish word for worthless zeros) has chosen to confirm Elena Kagan, Freedom Watch, Declaration Alliance, other concerned citizens and I will go to phase two and commence an impeachment campaign against her, in addition to prosecuting the complaint to have her disbarred before the same Supreme Court of which she will soon be a part. The stakes are too high just to sit back and complain about the state of the nation and our judiciary. Now is the time for action!
You go, boy! You run right out there and file complaints and petitions and have a grand old time. Would you care to make a bet on whether you'll actually succeed in getting Kagan disbarred or impeached? I'll put my net worth up against yours. Deal?
I am not a homophobe - and gay and lesbian people have made significant contributions to our society and should be respected as fellow citizens and children of God - but I also believe firmly in my heart, as do the majority of Americans, that they should not have any role in raising children. Nor do I believe that they should be married. If they want to enter into contracts with each other, that is their business. And, what they do among themselves in the privacy of their homes is also their business.
Ah, echoes of Joe the Plumber -- "I like gay people, I just wouldn't allow them around my children." Hey Larry, gay people are already raising hundreds of thousands of children in this country. And guess what? They're every bit as good (or bad) at it as straight parents.
Politics
Comments
So on what grounds is this idiot attempting to impeach/disbar Kagan? Attempting to impeach a SCOUTS Justice who hasn't even sat for a single case is certainly a novel approach.
Posted by: Hilarious | August 9, 2010 10:16 AM
Dear God, no! Not Phase 2?! Please, anything but that!
For entertainment's sake let's hope they get all the way to Phase 9 before they're done.
Posted by: Imrryr | August 9, 2010 10:17 AM
Nobody expects the Phase 2...
Posted by: Tyount | August 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Is phase three holding your breath until you get your way?
Posted by: Mr Ed | August 9, 2010 10:23 AM
And I'm not an antisemite, either!
And if that doesn't work, then it's time to wage a war of attrition to overthrow the federal government and establish a theocracy, using massive civilian casualties as our primary strategy! It's the only way to stop the terrorists!
Posted by: rob | August 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Heaven forfend the supreme court have one source of ideological tension.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Hilarious asks:
Another "exclusive" from the WND; damn they're find journalists! Klayman:
I have no idea how accurate or important Mr. Klayman's assertion is.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 9, 2010 10:24 AM
Did anyone else think of the following when reading the above quotes?
Posted by: Chilidog | August 9, 2010 10:28 AM
While this is funny, what's also sad is that this argument by Mr. Klayman in response to the Perry ruling should resonate with up to 28% of U.S. voters if they're exposed to it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 9, 2010 10:30 AM
"r do I believe that they should be married. If they want to enter into contracts with each other, that is their business. "
But that's what marriage is!
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 9, 2010 10:31 AM
Don't these fucking morons get it. You cannot start a paragraph with, I'm not a [add bigoted qualifier] but, and then have any reasonable person not take you for what you just said you aren't.
Note to Larry, saying you aren't a bigoted asshole just before you say bigoted asshole shit doesn't give you immunity from being a bigoted asshole.
Posted by: Doug Little | August 9, 2010 10:35 AM
So on what grounds is this idiot attempting to impeach/disbar Kagan?
Well, there's always that old standby: "Subornation to false muster!"
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 9, 2010 10:38 AM
I wonder what it is like to be the type of human being whose greatest contribution to this world will be their eternal departure from it.
Let's ask Larry Klayman.
Posted by: Bill | August 9, 2010 10:38 AM
Someone needs to explain basic physiology to this guy; the heart doesn't believe anything.
Posted by: Julian | August 9, 2010 10:58 AM
Stoonad (that's the incomparable Italian-American word for stupid.)
Posted by: Dr X | August 9, 2010 10:59 AM
Larry Klayman's diatribe against Gays sounds like Harry Anslinger,the first Commissioner of the Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930.
Anslinger convincing Congress in 1937 to make marijuana (a drug, recognized as beneficial even then) illegal:
People like Klayman must be thinking: "Boy howdy, I wish I could speak in public like they did back then."
Posted by: Pinky | August 9, 2010 10:59 AM
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire ... the J-Team.
Posted by: Phillip IV | August 9, 2010 11:05 AM
Mr Ed "Is phase three holding your breath until you get your way?"
No. Phase 3 is remaining blindly partisan in 2012 when president Palin re-nominates Bork.
Michael Heath "I have no idea how accurate or important Mr. Klayman's assertion is."
Dibs on "bunk"! And put a fiver on "spin".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 9, 2010 11:11 AM
To be fair, this is probably true. But he says it like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: chris | August 9, 2010 11:17 AM
You should know by now that when guys like him say they have a problem with an Islamic Theocracy, it's not the Theocracy part they have a problem with!
Posted by: LtStorm | August 9, 2010 11:21 AM
The template for unwitting bigots:
Posted by: pough | August 9, 2010 11:24 AM
True, Anslinger was frustrated it never worked for him with white women.
Posted by: Pinky | August 9, 2010 11:25 AM
"I will go to phase two" and then he'll go to PLAID.
It may be that the purpose of Larry's life is to serve as a warning to others.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | August 9, 2010 11:31 AM
Michael Heath @ 7- Here is another take on that falsified report issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2259495
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | August 9, 2010 11:36 AM
All you bastards making fun of Phase II are now on Double Secret Probation.
Posted by: Taz | August 9, 2010 11:41 AM
Some of the most prominent groups that are eminently qualified on this matter have determined that children raised by gay parents are just as well-adjusted as children that are raised by straight parents. In some cases, it has been said that children raised by gay parents develop stronger social skills ahead of their peers. So, we can conclude that Larry Klayman is judging on a subjective moral basis regarding same-sex marriage, which simply won't do. Moral disapproval is not necessarily a solid basis for judging the legality of something.
He also makes one of the more frustrating arguments from individuals that oppose gay marriage: "I have gay friends and [insert complimentary remark about how good they are as individuals]", but apparently said friends aren't good enough to enter a marriage, despite all facts to the contrary.
Posted by: Matt | August 9, 2010 12:08 PM
i read the full ruling yesterday and was impressed with the reasoning and substance.... If this is what renegade former lawyers produce we need more of them!
Posted by: Bowser The Cat | August 9, 2010 12:09 PM
Klayman reminds me of this rant, modified for a new context:
Klayman: The federal judiciary fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Klayman when self-righteous hysterics are on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Posted by: John Hinkle | August 9, 2010 12:37 PM
Michael Heath @7, re: allegations of Kagan lying.
SCOTUSblog did a thorough analysis of all of the available evidence and made the obvious conclusion: nothing noteworthy or "remotely inappropriate" happened. It's just a common attack for ignorant blowhards to use because most people won't know enough to contradict them.
Posted by: Wesley | August 9, 2010 12:57 PM
Larry says gay parents have no business raising children yet he fails to mention that, although he is heterosexual, he's such an abusive "parent" that a judge has ordered strictly supervised visitation with his poor kids who incidentally hate him and don't want anything to do with him.
Posted by: Mecmel | August 9, 2010 1:07 PM
There are a certain strings of words that cause me to pigeon hole or characterize an argument when I see or hear them. These strings are nothing but charged words chosen to inflate rhetoric and they often disclose one's biases and/or lack of substance in any argument. Exemplary to a lack of substance are the following words: "as do the majority of Americans". This over-used string of words actually means nothing. It's nearly impossible to put a finger on the pulse of what Americans want. But even worse, it's used for nearly every argument in a "we the people" context regardless of political or social leanings which renders it absolutely meaningless.
Posted by: MartyM | August 9, 2010 1:11 PM
I am not a white woman but "sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others" sounds like a pretty good deal to me. With or without the influence of marijuana.....but that's just me.
Posted by: Big Boppa | August 9, 2010 1:16 PM
Wesley @ 29,
Excellent citation, thanks.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 9, 2010 1:21 PM
"I am not a homophobe, but [homophobic statement goes here].
I am not a racist, but [racist statement goes here]."
I am not a goatf*^ker, but ...
...hmm, didn't work, I still feel the same.
Anyway, re Klayman, I'm constantly amazed how some folks are able to be coherent enough to get a degree/certification/somesuch and work in a professional capacity in their field, and yet be so batsh!t insane about soooo many other aspects of life.
Chris
Posted by: Christopher Letzelter | August 9, 2010 1:23 PM
Phase 3 is supposedly "Profit," but I suspect this loon would spell it "Prophet."
Posted by: --E | August 9, 2010 2:53 PM
I have no idea how accurate or important Mr. Klayman's assertion is.
As a rule, it's safe to assume that someone who accuses ACOG of professional misconduct is an utter moron.
And while the SCOTUSblog post linked at #29 is a good effort, it misses one important point.
The evidence for ACOG's position that an intact D&E may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman was offered by ACOG’s representative (Dr. Cain) and by expert clinicians (Chasen, Hammond, Westhoff, Paul, Weiss, Johnson, Frederiksen, Creinin), *under oath*, in the New York trial (p 15-20). (As a relevant aside, the government’s expert witness, Dr. Lockwood, was in agreement.)
One last thing, in the interest of accuracy:
As almost everyone knows, so I won’t recount in detail here, [an Intact D&X] is a particularly gruesome, late-term procedure that Congress has banned, including because of its visceral parallel to infanticide.
An intact delivery is no more gruesome than first dismembering the fetus in utero and then delivering the bits. What Congress did is it declared dismemberment to be the standard of care and it banned intact deliveries.
Posted by: ema | August 9, 2010 2:56 PM
I'm not an idiot, but dih dah dur duh.
Posted by: feralboy12 | August 9, 2010 2:57 PM
"lawyers who not only think and act as if they NOT are "above the law,"
um, isn't that how they, and the rest of us, are supposed to act? Damn, fundies have a poor control of language. Or proofreading.
Posted by: Fraser H | August 9, 2010 5:11 PM
Actually went ahead and emailed him.
He responded with the usual claptrap. The "second amendment solution doesn't actually mean kill my opponent" type claptrap. He doesn't want violent revolution, oh no. But if it were to happen, I suppose he'd feel it was righteous.
Guy's an ignorant nut. All I'll say about him.
Posted by: Cokehead | August 9, 2010 8:27 PM
Very good Thank you
Posted by: ek gelir | April 3, 2011 5:30 PM