Bricker, frankly, when you first appeared, I got the impression you were just another hard right winger and I felt a strong dislike for your opinions (no problem with you as a person, just your politics). It’s been very pleasing over the last couple years to see you loosen up the hard façade and let your humanity out. When you spoke up for gay rights, I had a change of heart toward you because it was the first time I felt like I saw the man behind the curtain instead of Mr. Tough Conservative Lawyer.
Dopers, we keep demanding two different things from Bricker, and I think he’s really trying to accommodate us, but maybe our demands of him are a little confusing. Any time we need to delve into the law around almost anything, the cry goes up: Get Bricker. Like Qadgop for medical topics. (Personal plug: I am the “go-to” gal for Arabic language.) But we also want Bricker to drop the lawyer stuff and just be a regular guy like the rest of us.
So at any given moment, how is he supposed to assess which of the two Brickers is called for? The guy has a remarkable ability to turn off his human emotions when doing law. You can practically hear the click as his brain switches into legal mode. Above, he probably thought Legalistic Bricker was called for. He put on his navy power suit, red tie, and suspenders, and pontificated for us. Then we go, No, cut it out, we wanted Human Bricker! Give him credit for making a sincere effort to play along with our demands.
What she said. I have personally seen Bricker’s mind go through the process of changing on the gay marriage issue (in a thread which I can’t go find right now, several years ago). The man is no homophobe. Admittedly, on occasion, I find myself wanting to figuratively strangle him for being so damnably legalistic in general, a legalism which makes him look homophobic if you aren’t familiar with the body of his presence on this board. He is NOT homophobic. This message was brought to you by a big ol’ bear-queen, 'kay, just to provide my bona fides?
Johanna, if you want me to write a script that will automatically post into threads “what was done was perfectly legal. Why are you questioning it?” I can be the legalistic go-to guy, too.
Given that the OP’s article said they gave no explanation, that doesn’t excuse them. It was by design.
Later, quietly, they said it was…um, because once upon a time they hung out with the manboylove group. Now that they have told us precisely what considerations motivated the administration’s position, what do you say?
Except when it comes into conflict with what is to him a higher, perhaps even the highest, principle: absolute loyalty to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.
Whenever his more-reasoned and more-reasonable, on both humanistic and legal principles, views are in conflict with automatically supporting the administration’s actions, we can practically hear the gears grinding and see the smoke pouring out from the agonizing conflict. Usually he resolves it here by simply not saying anything further.
It would be easier if you just started your own thread called “I Hate Bricker” and bumped it every week wth a new message, saying “I Still Hate Bricker.” That’s pretty much the only thing you ever post anyway.
