Ken Starr is an even bigger prick than we'd thought

We already knew Ken Starr was one of the biggest pricks of the Clinton era, but now it turns out he's even worse than I'd imagined.

via Raw:
California's battle over same-sex marriage went before the state's highest court Thursday, with civil rights lawyers seeking to overturn a voter-approved ban on gay weddings.

But it was Ken Starr, best known for prosecuting President Bill Clinton, who stole the show on Thursday after leveling an argument that a simple majority vote is enough to remove any right from a minority group.

...

Chief Justice Ronald George posed a hypothetical: what if the majority demanded the right to free speech be revoked?

"After much banter back and forth, Starr says they do," reported Advocate.com. The Los Angeles Times reported similarly on Starr's alarming response.

"So, what Starr is saying is that if the people had stripped all civil rights from gays and lesbians, he would argue to uphold that," opined the blog GayWired.

Now, there's some small chance that the media is putting words in his mouth, I suppose. But he should be familiar with that - he encouraged them to do so with Clinton. In fact, Starr's track record shows that he's not merely familiar, he's positively obsessed with what people put in their mouths. Or other orifices. And then back in their mouths afterwords.

Where was I? Oh, right, there's a chance he didn't mean to sound like the bigoted homophobic hate-monger that he probably is. He may have meant to be less transparent. There's a chance he'd much rather be remembered as just a cigar-obsessed pervert.

And, yes, as he asserts, The People can Amend the Constitution - and if some toxic meme grips us all in mass hysteria, The People can make some really dumb Amendments that would have horrible implications for everyone. But there's a process for that, a National process, and it's not what California did. Therefore, while the prick may be technically correct that The People could restrict rights, he's more-than-technically inaccurate because the law being argued is just a State Law, and the Constitution (and it's existing Amendments) is a higher law than State's laws. That's a fundamental principle of our legal system - one you'd think any lawyer with his credentials would already be aware of - but, of course, the big bigoted prick already knew that before he opened his mouth in court and shoved his foot in it. Or some other body part.