Bob’s world: family policy proposal #2

2009 Gubernatorial Race, Local, Politics, Virginia 2 Minutes

Bob McDonnellMake adherence to constitutional interpretivism, a covenant view of marriage and family, and a deep respect for parental authority, the first areas of scrutiny in the selection of federal and state judges.

The General Assembly gets to appoint state judges. As chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee, no doubt Bob McDonnell had many opportunities to apply his standard, as all the judgeships came through that committee.

Perhaps the most public case to come through was that of Verbena Askew, a Newport News judge who was not reappointed in 2003. (Here is a pretty good summary of the case. Here is an article specifically regarding McDonnell on the case.)

From the Post’s earlier article:

One controversy that drew wide attention was an effort in the General Assembly in 2003 to end the judicial career of Verbena M. Askew, a Circuit Court judge from Newport News who had been accused of sexual harassment by a woman who worked for her. As chairman of the Courts of Justice Committee, McDonnell led the effort in the House. He said he was opposed to Askew’s reappointment because she didn’t disclose, as required, that she was a party to a legal proceeding.

McDonnell was widely quoted at the time as saying that homosexual activity raised questions about a person’s qualifications to be a judge. Spokesman Tucker Martin said McDonnell was misquoted and does not consider homosexuality a disqualifying factor for judgeships or other jobs.

Askew, who was not reappointed, denied any wrongdoing and was never found by a court to have harassed the employee.

McDonnell and his counterpart in the Senate, Marty Williams, officially denied the reappointment because they believed Askew should have disclosed the civil proceeding on the questionnaire required of all judge applicants. However, her attorney, Robert Nusbaum, disagreed.

Nusbaum said the judge answered the question accurately. The complaint is not a civil proceeding, he said. And he has emphasized at least since December 2000 that Askew is not a party to the proceeding.

In his thesis, Bob admits that “the voting American mainstream is not willing to accept a true-pro-family ideologue” and must use “creative marketing” to sell this to average citizens. In Bob’s world, getting rid of a judge you think may be gay is not the way to sell this; better to say that the judge lied about it on her questionnaire.

UPDATE: The Daily Press has pulled from its archives another poignant post from the time of the Askew hearings. Check it out.

Published

6 thoughts on “Bob’s world: family policy proposal #2”

  2. Regarding the glapn.org article you cite:

    Virginia’s “crimes against nature” law bans all oral and anal sex regardless of the gender of the parties involved. It has been criticized as an antiquated statute that intrudes into private lives and that is likely to be used only against gay people.

    That’s because the anti-fornication law (also still on the books) was used against unmarried heterosexuals. (A co-worker of mine was charged with that one TWICE, once in ’68 and once in ’69.)

    The canons are a guideline for how judges should behave, and violations can result in removal from office.

    This was not a case of removal, but of not being reappointed.

    Asked if she had violated the crimes against nature law, Askew refused to comment.

    She was not accused of doing so, so there was no reason to ask, and certainly no reason she should answer. You’d think we could get such silly laws off the books. Here’s an idea — in even-year sessions, the GA passes laws, in odd-year sessions, they can only repeal laws.

    Asked if he had ever violated the law, McDonnell said, “Not that I can recall.”

    Translation: “Well, I was really</I. drunk, so I don't really know what happened that night, but there was this woman named ‘Lola’….”

    “There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law,” McDonnell said.

    Uh, no. The statue applies to both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy, and there is no exemption married couples, either.

    All that aside, McDonnell was not the only member of the committee. May I assume this was a party-line vote?

  3. McDonnell was widely quoted at the time as saying that homosexual activity raised questions about a person’s qualifications to be a judge. Spokesman Tucker Martin said McDonnell was misquoted and does not consider homosexuality a disqualifying factor for judgeships or other jobs.

    Here we have a spin-doctor at work.

    McDonnell spoke of “homosexual activity,” while the spin doctor says “homosexuality.” They are two very different things, just as fornication is different from heterosexuality. One is action, the other is inclination. The law governs actions, not inclinations.

    If we were all punished for what we want to do, who would be left to lock our cells?

  5. Maybe this explains the “not that I can recall” answer we get from so many politicians these days.

    Apparently, it’s contagious — at least among politicians.

Comments are closed.