Connect with us

Brad Wilcox And The Anti-Gay Regnerus Study Scandal

Published

on

WHAT IS THE REGNERUS  STUDY SCANDAL?

Mark Regnerus is a notorious anti-gay-rights figure at the University of Texas at Austin.

The anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute long cultivated a relationship, with Regnerus before approaching him to commission a study that would demonize gay people and be available in time for pernicious exploitation during the 2012 elections.

The study — published on June 10, 2012 — was ostensibly, but not actually, on gay parents’ child outcomes.

And, it was purpose-designed and booby trapped against real-life gay parents in the present day, though it did not study them.

Top officials of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute also have positions of authority over the anti-gay-rights National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

NOM’s founder and mastermind Robert P. George, moreover, is a senior fellow with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, as well as a board member of the Family Research Council (FRC), a Southern Poverty Law Centercertified anti-gay hate group known for spreading malicious falsehoods against its umpteen millions of victims, the entire LGBT community and heterosexuals supportive of LGBTers’ equality.

Since the publication of the fraudulent Regnerus study, enemies of gay rights — led by Robert George‘s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, NOM and FRC — have been using the “study” as a basis for their anti-gay fear-and-hate-mongering disinformation campaigns.

In response to these anti-gay hate groups’ disinformation campaigns based on the fraudulent Regnerus study, responsible scientists have taken action to correct the scientific record to the public.

A Golinski-case amicus brief analyzing the Regnerus study as scientifically invalid, for example, was jointly filed by 1) the American Psychological Association; 2) the California Psychological Association; 3) the American Psychiatric Association; 4) the National Association of Social Workers; and 5) its California Chapter; 6) the American Medical Association; 7) the American Academy of Pediatrics; and 8) the American Psychoanalytic Association.

Separately, over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sent a letter to the journal Social Science Research, which published the fraudulent Regnerus study, complaining of its lack of intellectual integrity and its suspiciously rushed publication schedule. An audit revealed that the Regnerus submission had only gotten published through corrupt peer review.

In an echo of when the American Sociological Association banned Paul Cameron and declared that he is not a sociologist, due to his intentional distortions of the scientific record, the ASA is poised to take action against the Regnerus study.

Authorities of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon, NOM and FRC are notorious for wielding Cameron’s distortions of the scientific record as a weapon against their gay victims.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE REGNERUS STUDY IS FRAUDULENT?

Though the Regnerus study is an avalanche of anti-gay — and other — fraudulence, individual aspects of its fraudulence can be isolated and accurately described as fraudulent.

And, one element of fraudulence in the Regnerus study can easily be grasped through an analogy to shopping for stereo loudspeakers.

Once you have determined that you are going to buy one of two pairs of stereo speakers, you want to listen to them carefully — in an A/B comparison test — to know what acoustical qualities each pair of speakers has.

In order to judge the acoustical qualities of each pair of speakers in an A/B comparison test, you have to listen to them in the same listening environment.

If you listened to the one pair of stereo speakers up in a penthouse, but to the other pair on a busy subway platform, you would not have any rational basis for understanding how the one pair sounds compared to the other pair.

And obviously, the penthouse stereo speakers would benefit from insurmountable acoustical advantages over the subway speakers, even though in reality, that second pair of speakers might actually sound equally good — or better — were it heard up in the penthouse.

Now, here is the question Regnerus alleges he wanted to answer with his study:

“Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?”

To answer that question, Regnerus did the equivalent of a stereo speaker A/B test, but he did it by comparing children of heterosexual parents to children of  (improperly labeled) “gay” parents.

And, in his study, Regnerus did the equivalent of putting all of his heterosexual “control group” up in a luxurious penthouse while throwing all of his gay “test group” down onto a busy subway platform.

Then, Regnerus concluded that the children of gay people — whom he had thrown down onto the busy subway platform — looked worse and had less money than the heterosexuals he had put up in the penthouse.

For a more detailed explanation of how the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute and Regnerus booby trapped their study against gays, go here.

For an examination of the anti-gay Regnerus study as a one percenter’s dirty campaign trick, go here.

WHO IS BRAD WILCOX, AND WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO DO WITH THE REGNERUS SCANDAL?

W. Bradford Wilcox is Director of The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.

Wilcox holds positions of authority with many of the institutions caught up in the Regnerus scandal.

For example:

1)
a) Wilcox is the Director of  the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute‘s Program on Marriage, Family, and Democracy.
b) Wilcox’s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute authorities — by coincidence — arranged for Regnerus’s $785,000 of study funding:     

 2)
a) Wilcox is Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia
b) Regnerus’s study says that “leading family researchers” including at least one from — by coincidence — Wilcox’s University of Virginia designed his (booby trapped) study:

3)
a) Wilcox is on the editorial board of the journal Social Science Research
b)
 The fraudulent Regnerus study was published through corrupt peer review in — by coincidence – Social Science Research

4)
a) Wilcox 
is on the editorial board of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute’s publication Public Discourse
b) After Regnerus contacted and cultivated a relationship with the gay basher Robert Oscar Lopez, a gay bashing essay by Lopez in support of the Regnerus study was published — by coincidence — on Wilcox’s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse.

WILCOX’S BAD FAITH PROMOTIONS OF THE ANTI-GAY REGNERUS STUDY

Any trained sociologist would recognize the baseline scientific failures of the Regnerus study.

Regnerus compared a cherry picked heterosexual control group to a test group loaded up with confounding variables. Every Sociology 101 class teaches the necessity of eliminating lurking — to say nothing of glaring — variables.

Nonetheless, Wilcox signed a letter of support for Regnerus, published by the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, a school described as “A private Baptist university.”

By way of background on Baylor University:

On April 18, 2011, a New York Times article – Gay Rights at Christian Colleges Face Suppression — quoted Baylor University spokeswoman Lori Fogleman as saying:
“Baylor expects students not to participate in advocacy groups promoting an understanding of sexuality that is contrary to biblical teaching.”

Then in November, 2011, Baylor University was criticized for hosting a special sociology course of study titled Homosexuality as a Gateway Drug.

The Baylor letter tells lies about the Regnerus study.

For example,  the letter compares the Regnerus study to another study on gay parents’ children’s outcomes by researcher Daniel Potter.

Like the Regnerus study, the Potter study relied on unscientific speculation on whether the children considered actually had gay parents. Coincidentally, Potter is a recent product of Brad Wilcox’s University of Virginia.

The Potter study actually found that differences between children of gay and heterosexual parents are “nonsignificant.”

But, 1) in talking about the Potter study’s findings; 2) Brad Wilcox and his fellow anti-gay propagandists; 3) cut the word “nonsignificant” out of Potter’s published wording, in order to; 4) falsely allege that Potter’s findings prove that Regnerus was; 5) correct to conclude that gay parents’ children do worse than heterosexual parents’ children.

In the Regnerus and the Potter studies, the failure properly to ascertain whether children’s parents were verifiably gay parents reduces the studies to vicious gossip against gay people.

ONE OTHER EXAMPLE OF A LIE IN THE BAYLOR LETTER IS WORTH DETAILING TO DEMONSTRATE HOW DEEPLY DISHONEST THE SIGNERS ARE:

A little background information is necessary:

A Stanford University sociologist, Michael J. Rosenfeld, produced a 2009 study titled Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School.

Rosenfeld drew several very important conclusions. One is that “children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school.”

Another of Rosenfeld’s conclusions involves the relative values of 1) sociological studies about gay parents based on “large sample nationally representative data” versus; 2)  studies based on smaller “convenience” and/or “snowball” samples.

Though smaller studies on gay parenting consistently find that sexual orientation per se does not impact child outcomes, critics allege that the smaller tests are not adequate to making that determination.  Crucially, then, Rosenfeld concludes his study by saying this:

“The analysis in this paper, using large sample nationally representative data for the first time, shows that children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school. The core finding here offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much debated, small sample studies.”

THE BRAD-WILCOX-SIGNED, BAYLOR LETTER IN SUPPORT OF REGNERUS DELIBERATELY MISLEADS ABOUT THE ROSENFELD STUDY

Rosenfeld’s study on gay parents’ child outcomes used data from the 2000 U.S. Census.

By contrast, Regnerus’s study used data collected through Knowledge Networks, a survey administering company.

In his audit of SSR’s publication of the Regnerus study, SSR editorial board member very strongly criticizes Regnerus’s sloppy, prejudiced abuses of data had through Knowledge Networks. Sherkat, moreover, questions whether the Knowledge Network survey respondent panel can truly be “nationally representative,” given that it is 67.3% female and 32.7% male, which obviously does not reflect gender distribution in the population.

Baylor, however, outright lies, by saying that Regnerus’s study comes “close to resembling the demographics” of Rosenfeld’s study.

The Baylor letter, though, does not state that Rosenfeld’s data came from the 2000 US Census, not from Regnerus’s Knowledge Networks.

Then, from talking about Rosenfeld’s gay parenting study not based on a Knowledge Networks panel, the Baylor letter immediately jumps to talking about a different Rosenfeld study — not on gay parenting — for which Rosenfeld used Knowledge Networks.

The idea Baylor is intending to convey is that 1) Rosenfeld did a gay parenting study and used Knowledge Networks, so that proves 2) that there is nothing wrong with Regnerus’s use of Knowledge Networks.

The criticism is not that Regnerus used Knowledge Networks, the criticism is that Regnerus was sloppy with the data had from Knowledge Networks.

The Baylor letter: 1) does not address, still less rebut, the substantive criticism made of Regnerus’s misuses of his Knowledge Networks data; and the Baylor letter also; 2) deliberately misleads by associating Rosenfeld with Rosenfeld’s gay parenting study, to allege that Rosenfeld and Regnerus had very similar approaches in their gay parenting studies, without mentioning that Rosenfeld did not use Knowledge Networks for his gay parenting study, and that in contrast to Regnerus’s haphazardly and slapdash labeling of people as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” though they were not known to be that, Rosenfeld studied children being raised by gay couples known for sure to have been together for at least five years.

In other words, by means of suppressing crucial information about the Rosenfeld gay parenting study, the Baylor letter wrongfully alleges that the Regnerus and Rosenfeld studies are equally valid studies of gay parents’ child outcomes.

WILCOX’S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN SIGNING THE BAYLOR LETTER IN SUPPORT OF REGNERUS

In signing the Baylor letter, Wilcox did not disclose the conflict of interest he had in signing it.

Because; 1) Wilcox is an official with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, and because; 2) the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute funded the Regnerus study, and because; 3) the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute is very heavily promoting he Regnerus study in anti-gay rights political contexts; 4) Wilcox behaved unethically in signing the Baylor letter without; 5) disclosing his status as an official of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute.

Moreover, Wilcox was not the only official of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute who signed the Baylor letter with that same conflict of interest.

The lead signer of the Baylor letter, for example, was Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion Director Byron Johnson, who also is a senior fellow with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute.

NOW ASK YOURSELF:

WHEN IT COMES TO EVALUATING STUDIES ABOUT GAY HUMAN BEINGS, WHO MERITS MORE SCIENCE-BASED TRUST?

I) A Baptist University in Texas that “expects students not to participate in advocacy groups promoting an understanding of sexuality that is contrary to biblical teaching;” (bolding added);

or

II) 1) the American Psychological Association; 2) the California Psychological Association; 3) the American Psychiatric Association; 4) the National Association of Social Workers; and 5) its California Chapter; 6) the American Medical Association; 7) the American Academy of Pediatrics; and 8) the American Psychoanalytic Association.

WHAT EXACTLY DO WE KNOW ABOUT BRAD WILCOX’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE REGNERUS SCANDAL?

1) We know that at least one “leading family researcher” from the University of Virginia was involved in designing the booby trapped Regnerus study, and we know that Brad Wilcox is a “leading family researcher” at the University of Virginia;

2) We know that at least two of the Regnerus study’s peer reviewers were paid Regnerus study design consultants, meaning that it is possible that Brad Wilcox was one of the paid study design consultants who also peer reviewed the study and approved it for publication; (note that the journal that published Regnerus, Social Science Research, uses “blind” peer review and refuses to disclose the identities of its peer reviewers. Many scientific publications with reputations better than that of Social Science Research use open peer review, in which the peer reviewers’ identities are known.

3) We know that Brad Wilcox is a program director at the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, we know that the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute helps to fund Wilcox’s National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, and we know that Wilcox’s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute has been heavily promoting the fraudulent Regnerus study in anti-gay-rights political contexts.

4) We know that Brad Wilcox is an editorial board member of Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, and we know that the Regnerus study got introduced to SSR’s editor James Wright by some currently mysterious means and then rushed into publication through corrupt peer review on an unprecedentedly rushed publication schedule.

5) We know that without disclosing his conflict of interest in signing the Baylor letter, Wilcox signed the Baylor letter, which is crammed with distortions of information related to scientific studies, and that all of those distortions are used in attempt support of the (invalid) Regnerus study.

6) We know that Wilcox and Regnerus previously have collaborated professionally; see here for an example. That study co-authored by Regnerus and Wilcox, with others, in fact won the ASA’s 2001 Distinguished Article award in the Sociology of Religion category. (Ironically, though Regnerus in his gay parenting study was cavalier and reckless about his improper classifications of people as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” his study with Wilcox consists of a proposed new scheme for classifying religious traditions, so that studies of religious traditions can be more accurate.

 

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

COMMENTARY

Trump An ‘Enemy of the Constitution’ Declares Nicolle Wallace, Blasting Call to ‘Terminate’ Nation’s Founding Document

Published

on

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace slammed Donald Trump as an “enemy of the Constitution” on Monday after the ex-president, over the weekend, called for the U.S. Constitution to be terminated.

Trump demanded “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” in light of his most recent – and false – claim the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

That was Saturday, on his Truth Social account.

On Monday, Trump denied having ever said it, despite the post still being up.

Wallace characterized Trump’s call to terminate the Constitution “an extraordinary statement even by the standards of a failed wannabe autocrat who plotted a coup against his own government and recently dined with white supremacists.”

READ MORE: ‘Venom’: Experts Shocked as Gorsuch Angrily Accuses Colorado of Forcing Anti-LGBTQ Baker Into ‘Re-Education Program’

“The disgraced ex-president made his contempt for our democracy as clear as ever, when he called for the United States Constitution to be ‘terminated.'”

Quoting The Washington Post, Wallace said: “Trump’s message on his Truth Social platform reiterated the baseless claims he has made since 2020, that the election was stolen, but he went further by suggesting that the country abandon one of its founding documents.”

She also played a clip of Republican Congressman Dave Joyce of Ohio from Sunday’s ABC News.

Rep. Joyce in the clip twists and turns but ultimately admits that if Trump is the GOP nominee for president in 2024 he will vote for him.

READ MORE: Anti-LGBTQ Slurs on Twitter Up Over 800% as Musk Allows Thousands of Previously Banned Users Back: Reports

“Well, again, it’s early I think there’s gonna be a lot of people in the primary I think at the end of the day, you will have — wherever the Republicans tend to pick up I will fall in behind because that’s –”

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos interjected, asking,”Even if it’s Donald Trump, as he’s called for suspending the Constitution?”

“Again, I think it’s gonna be a big field. I don’t think Donald Trump’s gonna clear out the field like he did in 2016.”

“I will support whoever the Republican nominee is,” Joyce added.

“And I don’t don’t think that at this point he will be able to get there because I think there’s a lot of other good quality candidates out there.”

“He says a lot of things,” Joyce continued, refusing to denounce Trump.

“Let’s not speed past that moment,” Wallace urged. “This is exactly how Trump happened. All the Republicans in Washington and around the country said, [Trump] ‘says all sorts of stupid you know what. Dorsn’t mean he’s going to do it.'”

“He did all of it, all of it. And then some,” she chastised.

Watch below or at this link.

Continue Reading

'REGURGITATING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS'

‘Venom’: Experts Shocked as Gorsuch Angrily Accuses Colorado of Forcing Anti-LGBTQ Baker Into ‘Re-Education Program’

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared angry and even hostile at several points throughout Monday’s oral arguments in a case brought by a Colorado right-wing evangelical Christian website designer who is suing the state because she wants to be able to discriminate against same-sex couples who are getting married.

The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, promises to be one of the most important of the term, and arguments extended more than two hours.

During one of the more heated moments, conservative Justice Gorsuch attacked Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson, claiming the state forced an infamous anti-LGBTQ baker who also went before the Supreme Court, winning his 2018 case in a very narrow ruling, into a “re-education program.”

RELATED: ‘What the Hell, Sam’: Justice Alito Slammed for Making ‘Joke’ About Black Children in KKK Costumes

Jack Phillips, a business owner who refused to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, citing his religious beliefs, was required to attend a class so he could become familiar with Colorado anti-discrimination law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling at the time called it, “additional remedial measures, including ‘comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section'” of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

RELATED: 5 Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Ruling in the Gay Wedding Cake Case

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”

Continue Reading

'INAPPROPRIATE'

‘What the Hell, Sam’: Justice Alito Slammed for Making ‘Joke’ About Black Children in KKK Costumes

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in one of the most important cases of the term, a case that will determine if the nation’s highest court will or will not allow a person citing their personal religious beliefs to openly discriminate in the marketplace against same-sex couples.

In likely the most salient and important hypothetical example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described in great detail a photographer wanting to re-create scenes from 1940’s Christmases with Santa Clauses and children, in sepia tones, and making them historically accurate.

She asked the attorney representing the right-wing Christian website designer who does not want to have to provide her product to same-sex couples, if under her legal theory the hypothetical photographer would have to create photos of a white Santa with Black children.

Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom‘s attorney arguing in favor of anti-LGBTQ discrimination, was forced to admit that the photographer would be able to say they would not take photos of Black children with a white Santa.

RELATED: Listen Live: SCOTUS Hears Christian Right Religion vs. LGBTQ Civil Rights Challenge

Later, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the Court’s most far-right jurists, decided to use Justice Jackson’s hypothetical analogy to make a point, and he did so by mockingly joking about Black children wearing KKK costumes.

“Justice Jackson’s example of that, the Santa in the mall who doesn’t want his picture taken with Black children,” Justice Alito began, getting the basics of the analogy incorrect.

“So if there’s a Black Santa at the other end of the mall, and he doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who is dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, now does that Black Santa have to do that?”

Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson replied, “No, because Klu Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws.”

READ MORE: ‘Anathema to the Soul of Our Nation’: Trump Pilloried for Demanding ‘Termination’ of the US Constitution

“And presumably,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected, “that would be the same Ku Klux Klan outfit regardless whether if the child was Black or white or any other characteristic.”

That’s when Alito decided to make a “joke,” while thousands of Americans were listening to the Court’s live proceedings.

“You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time,” he said, presumably sarcastically.

He then laughed, and some viewers in the gallery joined with him.

Many on social media were outraged and offended.

“He is so inappropriate today. And offensive,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, the former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). “The Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits? Not funny. Is this the highest Court of the most powerful country in the world? Good grief.”

Minutes later, NYU School of Law Professor of Law Melissa Murray weighed in, saying, “I’m going to need Justice Alito to stop joking about seeing ‘Black children in Ku Klux Klan costumes.'”

“Seriously, what am I listening to?” she asked, to which Ifill replied, “Just awful.”

“The joke about Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits?” Ifill also lamented. “No Justice Alito, these ‘jokes’ are so inappropriate, no matter how many in the courtroom chuckle mindlessly.”

Columbia University Professor of Law Katherine Franke tweeted, “Justice Alito is resorting to KKK jokes. Ha ha ha. As if what’s at stake here is funny, and isn’t taking place in a context in which LGBTQ people feel like we have a target on our backs. And, ahem – Klan jokes aren’t funny under any context.”

The Rewire News Group tweeted, in all caps, “I knew Alito wouldn’t be able to resist bringing up the Ku Klux Klan,” and then: “What the hell, Sam.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.