O'Reilly just said . . . .

[liberal72]

Judge James Warren, the SF judge hearing the gay marriage licence case, should have recused himself because he is reportedly gay. He also had no problem mentioning he is related to former Chief Justice Earl Warren, which is an obvious attempt to appeal to his core voters.

[Exultant Democracy]

1. He should be taken off the air for that.

Makes me sick.

[AlFrankenFan]

4. Should've been taken off the air a while ago n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

14. good point, I stand corrected.

[sacman]

15. free speach

can be a bitch can't it ??

[tkmorris]

17. Yes, it can be

And, for what it's worth, I believe Limbaugh should say whatever he wants to. I also believe that this particular statement is fairly foolish. He should recuse himself because he's gay? Why? Heterosexual people are just as biased are they not? At least, the argument could be made.

Oh, one more thing. It's "speech", not "speach". No offense but that sort of thing drives me bats.

[Exultant Democracy]

18. slander is not included in free speech

To say that a Judge is unfit to serve due to reports that he might be gay is not included under protected speech.

[bobbyboucher]

19. Don't bother them with details.

Deaf ears, you know.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. So should male judges recuse themselves from hearing cases

concerning men? What a stupid fucknut! Yet no comment on Cheney's obvious conflict of interest.

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. O'Reilly's a dick

head. Besides, Bush has been screwing him and he hasn't even noticed.

[Chicago Democrat]

5. OReilly should recuse his head

from his ass.

[MurikanDemocrat]

6. Wonder how he feels about Scalia hearing the Cheney Energy case

Or the Gore v Bush case that his son was a part of. Or about Thomas on the Gore v Bush case when his wife was working on a Bush re-election committee. Or their political affiliations. Associations with the Federalist Society.

Nah, those things don't count, but a Judge's sexual orientation does. Hmmm.

[BillZBubb]

7. Does that mean...

that religious judges must recuse themselves from any case that deals with religion in government? Sounds like similar reasoning.

Maybe O'Really doesn't want Scalia involved in the Pledge of Allegiance "under God" case? Yeah right.

O'Really is an idiot.

[UTUSN]

8. O'REILLY Spun So Much Throughout This Show

he must have gotten dizzy. First, he had Newt GRINCH on in a segment supposedly about the sanctity of marriage------GRINCH who is a shameless hypocrite, doing his own cheating while preaching against CLINTON, not to mention his treatment of his previous wives.

Next, he claimed to GRINCH that he (O'R) could make a case against Shrub's being a true Conservative (the spending wildly, the big government, whatever). He NEVER takes sides AGAINST Shrub.

Late in the show, in his Mel GIBSON tape, he claimed it was "a CABLE Exclusive," since Diane SAWYER got the actual, true "Exclusive" on a real network. He must be galled over that, since he brags about being GIBSON's "associate" because GIBSON bought his novel for a possible future movie.

This is only the tip of the O'Whorely iceberg.

[eleny]

9. B.O. blows

[liberalnurse]

10. That statement is so utterly ridiculous!

You can also look at any heterosexual judge and request he or she recuse themselves....that is prejudicial as well.

[abbyhoffman]

11. Other talk show

Host in San Francisco were saying the same thing last week I don't see the Big deal he is openly gay & he is Earl Warren Nephew

If he were straight & ruled against the gays some gays would be saying he should rescue himself because he's straight

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. Has OReally, Celebrity Journalist to the Stars ...

... told us anything about Bennifer breaking up? We're dying to hear the scoop, Mr. Inside Edition!!!

[mondo joe]

13. Shouldn't hetero judges also recuse themselves then?

If the assumption is that someone's orientation will bias them, shouldn't hetero judges also recuse themselves?

[ComerPerro]

16. I agree

After all, they bring their own biases on marriage and sexuality. Right OReilley?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I would guess his line of reasoning

is that a gay judge would stand to gain personally from allowing gay marriage. But since it's a broad group that will gain, and we don't even know if he does want to get married, I wouldn't have thought it was a problem (you don't have to use only poor judges when it's a case that would benefit rich people).