Family Foundation’s claims disputed in Thorne-Begland controversy
RICHMOND–A Virginia lawmaker is challenging claims by social conservatives that the legislature’s judicial subcommittee did not have the opportunity to properly vet potential judges before they initially approved an openly gay nominee.
Prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland’s judicial nomination was thought to be uncontroversial through most of the process. He sailed through the bipartisan subcommittee’s questioning more than a month ago with no lawmakers raising concerns about his sexual orientation or activism.
But the nomination was derailed in the state’s House of Delegates last week after the Family Foundation of Virginia launched a last-minute campaign to keep him off the bench.
The Family Foundation raised concerns about Thorne-Begland’s advocacy for LGBT rights. The group pointed in particular to the fact that he was discharged from the Navy following his decision to come out as gay in 1992 in protest of the military’s ban on gay and lesbian service members.
Information on Thorne-Begland’s military history was widely available prior to the subcommittee interview. He wrote an op-ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch in 2010 explaining his decision to come out and discussed it in multiple other interviews over the past two decades.
But legislators and the Family Foundation expressed no concerns about his candidacy until just days before the full House of Delegates voted on his appointment, and as a result, Thorne-Begland and his supporters had little opportunity to respond to the criticism.
In an interview last week with The American Independent, Family Foundation official Chris Freund claimed that subcommittee process had been insufficient and that lawmakers didn’t have an opportunity to “vet him thoroughly.”
“They don’t have a lot of time,” Freund said of lawmakers on the judicial subcommittee. “They can ask questions but it’s just simply based on a resume that’s put in front of them and some paperwork and they kind of take the word of the legislators who have brought the individuals before the committee.”
But Democratic Del. Jennifer McClellan, who serves on the House Courts of Justice committee, disputes Freund’s assertions. McClellan tells TAI that lawmakers had time to prepare for the judicial interviews and could ask as many questions as they wanted.
“The judicial interviews are not under a time limit,” McClellan says. “I sat through interviews in which sitting judges and judicial candidates are grilled for sometimes up to an hour over concerns raised by the press, individuals, or lawmakers.”
McClellan said the case of Norfolk Circuit Judge Norman Thomas showed that lawmakers had the ability to go far beyond reviewing “resumes” and could have thoroughly investigated candidates they had concerns about.
Thomas pleaded no contest to a charge of violating a protective order in 2005. At his reappointment interview in December 2011, lawmakers asked Thomas to explain in detail his involvement in the incident and ultimately decided not to reappoint him, McClellan said.
McClellan said Thorne-Begland received one question during his subcommittee interview about a courtroom dispute he was involved in, but no questions about his discharge from the military, his decision to come out on television, or his gay rights advocacy.
“Delegate Cline asked him what kind of plane he flew when he was in the Navy,” McClellan said. “Given the way the Republican caucus talks, if anyone had concerns they would have asked more questions.”
leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena ave #h tustin ca 92780 submitted fake documents and 5000 dollars to a person name sandman at the US embassy in manila. she also submitted fake employment records to obtain a work visa. Her husband carlos b. morales also submitted fake documents (land titles and bank statements) to obtain a tourist visa. Her son carlo iii also used such and helped 2 other people to obtain a US tourist visa.
Oh come on… Loser Girl… at least try to provide some sutnbsasce. If your just going to resort to the stale tired sloganeering, I’ll just have to fire back…To better understand wingnuts like Loser Girl, one needs to know what right-wing criminal corruption actually does for the wingnut.Without right-wing criminality, Loser Girl would just be an obese, unemployable nutjob with no reason to get up each morning and ignorantly cheer FOX TV. Right-wing criminal corruption gives her absolutely no moral ground to stand on, yet perversely allows her to say that the right-wing criminals are too good and decent for jail. If only the playing field was more slanted, vis a vis more right-wing corruption, then all of the prosecutors could be fired.At the same time, right-wing corruption allows Loser Girl to justify acting like the uneducated ignoramus that she is, as the right-wing continues to destroy basic education standards by substituting religion for science in our children’s classrooms.Sorry, Loser Girl, it wouldn’t matter who was President, you’d still be the same uneducated ignorant nutjob supporting the lies and the criminal corruption of the right.The only hope for wing-nuts like Loser Girl (Loogie Girl) is to someday achieve the self-knowledge to accept that honesty, decency, and knowledge through education are important foundations of our society, and to realize that no normal honest person in this country believes any of her perverted criminal nightmares.
Oh they know they’re hurting you. At least the adutls who cyber bully do. Tell all you want, cops don’t care to hear about adult on adult bullying. And it was an adult who drove Megan Meier to kill herself. Because the adutls didn’t want to believe adutls do this sort of thing. Not to kids, and certainly not to other adutls. And Megan didn’t have to die. There was a solution posed in 2001 that would have made a difference for her,.