Bad Law Professor of the Day

Boston College’s Scott T. Fitzgibbon:

This guy obviously missed his calling – he should be teaching at Regent or Pepperdine.

Boston College Law Professor in Anti-Gay Ad [Above the Law]

“will create widespread…legal conflict”

And straight divorces don’t?

I dunno, my gaydar went off about when he raised his eyebrows on the emphasis in “whether they like it or not”…or maybe it was my srsly creepy dude-dar, I haven’t had either one tuned in awhile.

Isn’t BC a Catholic school? Do they even admit teh gheyz?

According to his profile, he recently wrote Procreative Justice and the Recognition of Marriage, which

proposes that fully procreatively just affiliations -– the ones which satisfy the criteria developed here — deserve special support and recognition. It proposes that procreative justice requires such recognition. This paper proposes that it is unjust to conflate and revise the usual categories so as to confuse procreatively just affiliations with other forms. It discusses the harm that ensues.

WTF? Infertiles and Non-breeders to the back of the bus!

Other highlights in his C.V. include:
— “The Formless City of Plato’s Republic: How the Legal and Social Promotion of Divorce and Same-Sex Marriage Contravenes the Principles and Undermines the Projects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Issues in Legal Scholarship. Symposium: Single-Sex Marriage. (May 2005) Available at [Access limited to subscribers]
— “Marriage and the Ethics of Office.” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 18 (2004) (Symposium on Marriage and the Law): 89-135.
— “Marriage and the Good of Obligation.” The American Journal of Jurisprudence 47 (2002): 41-69.

theres a storm coming. a gay storm. and me without my umbrella.

Speaking of The Law, Stinque overlords, check the tip in-box.

@SanFranLefty: Yeah, I’m considering dwelling on that in the morning. No time to study it right now.

(Also, I’m waiting for WND to pick up on it. They usually post fresh stories at 9 p.m. Pacific.)

@nojo: Okay, but can I be indulged to at least quote footnote 3 to give Stinquers a preview?

The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. See Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008, (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.
Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office.
See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).

@SanFranLefty: What I loved most about that was a Saxby Chambliss nominated judge wrote that opinion. He must be weeping at how he failed amurika.

@Just Jamie:
My favorite part:

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.

Take that, Orly!

@SanFranLefty: Go right ahead. No telling where I’m going with it.

@SanFranLefty: Ha! Love it! Chew the smegma off his nutsack, Natasha!

@SanFranLefty: Folks better get their Orly ya-yas out here. I’ve found something more amusing for the morning.

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment