On "homophobia"

Earlier today, Ed Whelan, in the Corner, took note of Congressman Barney Frank's casual slander of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank...was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called upon to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government to deny recognition to same-sex marriages.

"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.

Whelan later followed up:

In response to my criticism of the term “homophobe,” Andrew Sullivan asks: “[D]oes Ed Whelan believe that anti-gay animus doesn't exist? If so, what would he call it, if not homophobia? Seriously: is there a better term?”

For Frank and Sullivan, obviously not. It's the perfect term. It allows them to accuse anyone who disagrees with them on any aspect of the political "homosexual agenda" (whatever that might be) of a mental disorder. A "phobia" is a fear, not a normal fear, but a mental disorder. Allowing them to use "homophobe" or "homophobia" is allowing them to accuse their political opponents of a mental disorder. Of course Sullivan and Frank want to use "homophobe."

The rest of us ought not let them.

It matters who wins elections - part 79,521

Once again, a slim majority of the Supreme Court justices has decided that the Constitution and precedent are not enough to prevent them from enacting their own personal policy preferences. And, once again, we recognize that it matters who wins elections. While Republican Presidents have given us some mediocre (Kennedy) to bad (Souter) justices, the fact is that the originalist justices ONLY come from Republican Presidents. Are Justice Stephens and Justice Ginsburg still going to be on the bench in 2012? I'd wager that one or both will be gone before then. It matters who wins elections...

A couple of relevant quotes from the MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. decision...

Petitioners’ difficulty in demonstrating causation and redressability is not surprising given the evident mismatch between the source of their alleged injury — catastrophic global warming — and the narrow subject matter of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in this suit. The mismatch suggests that petitioners’ true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases — not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates.

- Chief Justice Roberts

The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.

- Justice Scalia

Republican Presidents have given us disappointing justices, but Democratic Presidents never give us justices like these. I'll happily take the .600 batting averages of Reagan, Bush and Bush over the .000 batting average of Carter and Clinton. It matters who wins elections...