# Sen. Sam Brownback--You're a fuckwit. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 19, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825 "2006-12-19T19:50:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/21 "2006-12-20T00:33:45Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] Don’t be so hard on yourself. Fifteen, twenty minutes of practice to work on your technique and loosen up your arm, and you might be able to score a direct hit… 😃 [/QUOTE] Hmmm…when ya put it that way, it sounds much more fun. I used to throw a fair to middling heater back in the day… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/22 "2006-12-20T01:21:10Z")
Brownback: what comes after Santorum. ---
**Author:** ![myskepticsight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@myskepticsight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myskepticsight)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/23 "2006-12-20T01:45:57Z")
[QUOTE=Sublight] Brownback: what comes after Santorum. [/QUOTE] Bwahaha. Hopefully I’m getting the joke you intended (if there was one), otherwise I’m just gross. Yeah this is pretty much bullshit. Why the hell should it matter if she attended a civil union? Argh! Can’t we just fast forward in the social sense and legalize it? It’s very hard for me to understand why people so strongly oppose it still. This lady could go to the Church of Satan in her free time for all I care, as long as she is a good and fair judge. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/24 "2006-12-20T02:05:37Z")
I have to cop to mixed feelings on this. After all, if the Shrub thinks she’s the best candidate for the bench, my first instinct is to think, “no she isn’t.” I gotta not let that asswipe determine all of my positions for me… Blind pigs and truffles and all that. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/25 "2006-12-20T02:18:36Z")
As Judge Neff is from my neck of the woods and is a highly respected jurist as well as a friendly and popular person, this Brownstain abortion has been reported in the local paper for some time now, as this thing’s been going on and on. Fuckasswithole indeed. Our Michigan senators, Democrats Levin and Stabenow, rightly took great umbrage at this foreign intrusion, especially since we’ve been short of the requisite judges for a ridiculously long stretch of time and it took hard work for them to negotiate with Our Great Leader to even get them to the committee in the first place. But OGL approved Neff himself, so the Backstain’s subsequent interference was nothing more than grandstanding, pandering cocksucking of America’s sanctimonious fag-bashers. Sure, it could be seen by some as a bit petty, but I think Levin and Stabenow did the right thing by declaring that the difficult compromise deal reached with Bush was a “package deal” and would only accept the whole package. So after trying futilely for some time to get the Stain out, they placed their own “hold” on the two other nominees until Neff’s nomination reached the floor for a vote. I don’t think he’d have ever relinquished without it, though I’m sure neither senator is particularly proud of having been forced into that action. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/26 "2006-12-20T02:23:22Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] I have to cop to mixed feelings on this. After all, if the Shrub thinks she’s the best candidate for the bench, my first instinct is to think, “no she isn’t.” [/quote] Oh, it wasn’t that easy. Levin and Stabenow were forced by Our Great Leader to accept _two_ uglyconservatives to get just _one_ of their own choices through. So your standards don’t need any adjustment after all. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/27 "2006-12-20T03:27:35Z")
[QUOTE=myskepticsight] Bwahaha. Hopefully I’m getting the joke you intended (if there was one), otherwise I’m just gross. [/QUOTE] Fully intended. My first thought when I saw the CNN story was “Dan Savage doesn’t even need to hold a contest to come up with a slang meaning for this guy’s name. It’s already there.” You’re still gross, but you’ve got company. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/28 "2006-12-20T04:40:51Z")
I am mortified to be in such depraved and corrupt company. I resolve to find a better class of people to interact with. Pretty soon. Maybe New Years. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/29 "2006-12-20T04:40:55Z")
This will be added to the dictionary as an illustration in at least four separate places–alongside the verbs “to grandstand” and “to pander”, and after the phrases “having shit for brains” and “hitting rock bottom”. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/30 "2006-12-20T12:39:02Z")
[Holy shitstains!](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator/) :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/31 "2006-12-20T12:43:36Z")
I read in Thomas Frank’s excellent book “[What’s the Matter with Kansas?](http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/sr=8-1/qid=1166618476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2400964-8847367?ie=UTF8&s=books)” that Sen. Brownback once attempted to emulate Jesus by forcibly and literally washing the feet of an assistant who was quitting the campaign. The recipient of this act was reportedly horrified and bewildered. ---
**Author:** ![cards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@cards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cards)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/32 "2006-12-20T14:00:48Z")
[QUOTE=Giraffe] Actually, I was wandering by and noticed the thread was still open, so I closed it. I didn’t notice the two threads had been merged. I am not observant. [/QUOTE] So when is **fluiddruid** going to come by and close this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/33 "2006-12-20T14:45:59Z")
[QUOTE=fetus] I read in Thomas Frank’s excellent book “[What’s the Matter with Kansas?](http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/sr=8-1/qid=1166618476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2400964-8847367?ie=UTF8&s=books)” that Sen. Brownback once attempted to emulate Jesus by forcibly and literally washing the feet of an assistant who was quitting the campaign. The recipient of this act was reportedly horrified and bewildered. [/QUOTE] Ha! This sums up why, IMHO, “fundamentalist Christians” are so totally off key. Back in Jesus’ day and in that part of the world, most people had no shoes. There were no paved roads to speak of. Heck, most houses had dirt floors. So people spent their lives barefoot walking through dirt and mud and shit. The feet of someone who lived in a city would pretty much be continually nasty. Cleaning someone’s feet would be not only an uncommon act of kindness, but an act of humility as well. By trying to _literally_ (and _forcibly_) repeat Jesus’ act in modern Kansas, this fuckasswithole has shown he doesn’t understand one of the most basic messages of the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/34 "2006-12-20T16:04:44Z")
[QUOTE=Ponder Stibbons] Ha! This sums up why, IMHO, “fundamentalist Christians” are so totally off key. Back in Jesus’ day and in that part of the world, most people had no shoes. There were no paved roads to speak of. Heck, most houses had dirt floors. So people spent their lives barefoot walking through dirt and mud and shit. The feet of someone who lived in a city would pretty much be continually nasty. Cleaning someone’s feet would be not only an uncommon act of kindness, but an act of humility as well. [/quote] This is close but a little bit off. People generally wore sandals rather than going absolutely barefoot but obviously they still ended up with dirty or sandy feet when they walked anywhere. As a resul, it was a common courtesy for hosts to offer their guests a pitcher of water to wash their feet with. Those who could afford them would assign servants to wash the feet of their guests. Washing the feet of another put you in a subservient position and could either signify submission or freat affection. When Jesus washed the feet of his disciples it reversed social expecations because the “master” was making himself subordinate to his followers (as well as showing affection, of course). It wasn’t that uncommon for one person to wash another’s feet. It was fairly standard practice. What was uncommon was for anyone to do the “slave” work of washing the feet of his social “lessers.” > [@](#): > > By trying to _literally_ (and _forcibly_) repeat Jesus’ act in modern Kansas, this fuckasswithole has shown he doesn’t understand one of the most basic messages of the Bible. That’s for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/35 "2006-12-20T17:50:57Z")
[QUOTE=Oakminster] I would send him a law school text on Federal Jurisdiction, but it would go whooshing right by his empty head. The Federal Courts aren’t very likely to be deluged with an enormous number of SSM cases, seeing how marriage is generally a matter of state law. Some Judge will eventually hear a “Full Faith & Credit” case on the matter, but the issue presented is going to be whether a State must grant full faith & credit to a SSM from another State and whatever that Judge rules will be appealed before the ink has dried on the page anyway. [/QUOTE] A number of people on these boards have suggested that the federal Equal Protection Clause _requires_ all states to recognize same-sex marriage. A lesser number have suggested that the Due Process Clause creates a requirement for state recognition of same-sex marriage. I agree with your view, but I disagree that it’s so obvious that every federal jurist will automatically agree. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/36 "2006-12-20T18:05:27Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] A number of people on these boards have suggested that the federal Equal Protection Clause _requires_ all states to recognize same-sex marriage. A lesser number have suggested that the Due Process Clause creates a requirement for state recognition of same-sex marriage. I agree with your view, but I disagree that it’s so obvious that every federal jurist will automatically agree. [/QUOTE] Rick, **Oakminster** , and other interested parties: May I ask for revival of a topic dormant for a while: whether Federal DOMA and the state DOMAs and amendments violate the FF&C clause, given that we now have a state which recognizes SSM and two or three states (Connecticut?) which have civil unions defined as \*illegally equivalent to SSM. F’r example: Tom and Paul establish a New Jersey civil union. Two years later, they move to, say, Kansas, and attempt to buy a home there as tenants by the entireties. Kansas, of course, refuses to recognize their status as a couple in a legal civil union, and refuses to file the title defining them as such. They thereupon petition the State of New Jersey to bring an _ex parte_ suit compelling Kansas to recognize their civil union as granted by New Jersey, under the FF&C doctrine. Kansas counters with the _“public policy exception”_. Chief Justice Roberts, recognizing your wisdom, requests you to file an _amicus curiae_ brief. What will you say in it? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/37 "2006-12-20T20:11:51Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] A number of people on these boards have suggested that the federal Equal Protection Clause _requires_ all states to recognize same-sex marriage. A lesser number have suggested that the Due Process Clause creates a requirement for state recognition of same-sex marriage. I agree with your view, but I disagree that it’s so obvious that every federal jurist will automatically agree. [/QUOTE] I’ve advanced the Equal Protection argument elsewhere, may have done it here as well. I still don’t expect a large number of those cases. In theory, it would only take 2-3 from different circuits with different results to interest SCOTUS. As such, the odds of any particular District Judge getting such a case seem small. I don’t see it as a valid concern when considering a candidate for the federal bench. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/38 "2006-12-20T20:34:17Z")
[QUOTE=Oakminster] I’ve advanced the Equal Protection argument elsewhere, may have done it here as well. I still don’t expect a large number of those cases. In theory, it would only take 2-3 from different circuits with different results to interest SCOTUS. As such, the odds of any particular District Judge getting such a case seem small. I don’t see it as a valid concern when considering a candidate for the federal bench. [/QUOTE] The specific issue? Yes, not so much. But in my view, it’s VERY valid to ask a potential judicial nominee what his or her philosophy of judicial construction is when confronted with an issue like this. Does he believe that courts should tak eit upon themselves to right social wrongs, crafting whatever rationale seems appropriate, or does he believe that the legislature is the proper venue to solve social problems? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/39 "2006-12-20T20:45:54Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] Rick, **Oakminster** , and other interested parties: May I ask for revival of a topic dormant for a while: whether Federal DOMA and the state DOMAs and amendments violate the FF&C clause, given that we now have a state which recognizes SSM and two or three states (Connecticut?) which have civil unions defined as \*illegally equivalent to SSM. F’r example: Tom and Paul establish a New Jersey civil union. Two years later, they move to, say, Kansas, and attempt to buy a home there as tenants by the entireties. Kansas, of course, refuses to recognize their status as a couple in a legal civil union, and refuses to file the title defining them as such. They thereupon petition the State of New Jersey to bring an _ex parte_ suit compelling Kansas to recognize their civil union as granted by New Jersey, under the FF&C doctrine. Kansas counters with the _“public policy exception”_. Chief Justice Roberts, recognizing your wisdom, requests you to file an _amicus curiae_ brief. What will you say in it? [/QUOTE] I’ll remind the Court of its own words: > [@](#): > > We have held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel “‘a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.’” Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 722 (1988) (quoting Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 501 (1939)). I’ll go on to point out that the Court has long recognized this distinction, and termed it a “public policy exception”. > [@](#): > > And in the case of statutes, the extrastate effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n I’ll point out that “unavoidable” is precisely the right word to describe the Court’s conclusion; if the Constitution truly compelled the opposite result – that every state’s marriage laws were binding in every other state – it would effectively eviscerate the ability of any state to regulate marriage; the “least common demoninator” would effect apply, and the state with the most permissive age, consanguinuity, and other requirements would be able to set the legal bar for the entire country. This is a nonsensical result. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825/40 "2006-12-20T20:53:03Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I’ll point out that “unavoidable” is precisely the right word to describe the Court’s conclusion; if the Constitution truly compelled the opposite result – that every state’s marriage laws were binding in every other state – it would effectively eviscerate the ability of any state to regulate marriage; the “least common demoninator” would effect apply, and the state with the most permissive age, consanguinuity, and other requirements would be able to set the legal bar for the entire country. This is a nonsensical result. [/QUOTE] What’s the use of the Full Faith and Credit bit, then? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-sam-brownback-youre-a-fuckwit/384825.md?page=3)