After Sen. Thune expressed his sexual preference SCOTUS litmus test, I couldn’t come up with a good way to express just how ludicrous it was in a succinct fashion for watercooler chitchat.

Behold, the power of snark.

Comment of the day from yesterday goes to VictorLaszlo:

How about a candidate who isn’t really gay, but experimented a little in college? Would that be acceptable to Thune, I wonder?

Think we can find a journalist to ask Thune what he’d think about a SCOTUS nominee who may have crossed over after one to many brewskis at the frat party?

Or what about a nominee who participated in the "four year plan" in college?

While we’re all worrying about the plight of the poor, white male, shouldn’t we contemplate the plight of the poor white male who has "friends with benefits" but he can’t discuss them because his bigoted political colleagues keep stuffing him back in the closet?

Honestly, how do we know we haven’t already had a gay SCOTUS justice?  Not that I care, but really, how do we know? Is Thune absolutely, totally, completely and unreservedly certain we haven’t already crossed the "bridge too far?"

The ludicrosity never ends, does it.

In case you were wondering, bigotry is apparently alive and well for some in the GOP when considering a hypothetical SCOTUS appointment.  One that hasn’t even been made yet. 

Via Steve Benen:

As [Thune] put it, the nominee has to be straight, otherwise the would-be justice "would be a bridge too far right now." Honestly, what the hell does that mean? Thune, as a practical matter, is establishing a litmus test — qualifications and merit are important, but homosexuality, regardless of any other factor, is more important. Why? Because Thune says so.

Well, I guess that leaves Big Gay Al out of the running.

How far over the edge have you gone when even Jeff Sessions runs away from your idiocy?  I mean, honestly, that’s really saying something. 

Gay bigotry. It’s not so super, thanks for asking. 

Especially when you are talking judicial temperament. 

Guess we all have a good idea where Thune stands on privacy rights, don’t we? Given his legislative voting record, I can’t say I’m shocked by this sort of sexual preference litmus test.  Especially since Thune’s already used this tack in his last electoral fight.

It’s just that usually the bigoted and oppressive try to at least couch their crapola in more palatable terms.  Hell, even Strom Thurmond knew to do that for the most part.

Let me just say for the record, I don’t care who the judge I’m arguing before sleeps with, so long as it isn’t opposing counsel. 

If s/he does their job well, neither should you.  How about we raise the bar on competence, justice and fairness instead of constantly trying to peek under people’s robes?  Or is that just too much to ask?

The WSJ attempted a character assassination on Bill Moyers in an unsigned, vicious editorial a while back. 

It was notable for two things: (1) that it tried to connect dots between Moyers, who was then LBJ’s chief of staff, and Hoover’s "exploits" (their word) via Lawrence Silberman (yes, THAT Lawrence Silberman) with a series of half-fleshed-out innuendos.

And (2) that whomever wrote it had considerable disdain for Bill Moyers’ particular calls for those who serve in government to adhere to any particular code of ethics.  Especially a call to anyone in the GOP or the now-gone Bush administration.

As it was an editorial, there was no call for a quote from Moyers on the allegations therein.  Color me shocked.

It was petty, vindictive, unbalanced, snotty, puffed up with faux moral indignation and spiteful. Which is pretty much what I’ve come to expect from the WSJ opinion page in the last few years.

Moyers has responded. An excerpt:

…First of all, recall what a bizarre situation we in the Johnson White House had on our hands back in 1964. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was sending us a constant stream of unsupported allegations from "anonymous informants" about people in the administration (and others) rumored to be gay. In those days, this was no small matter. The mere accusation was sufficient to end a career. Several years earlier, as I worked one afternoon at the Senate office building, I heard the crack of a gunshot one floor above as a U.S. senator committed suicide over his son’s outing. I have never forgotten that sound. 

(more…)