May 29, 2015 1:00 pm -


Tom Delay, like a number of other conservatives, has decided in advance that the Supreme Court will likely rule for gay marriage and, like them, is very nervous about it; so nervous that he’d like to foment a rebellion.

Tom DeLay stopped by Houston talk radio host Sam Malone’s show last week to discuss his efforts to stay active in politics since leaving the House of Representatives in a cloud of corruption accusations, or, as Malone called it, “the persecution of Tom DeLay.”

…“The Supreme Court is about to put out a ruling on marriage and they have no jurisdiction to do so, they shouldn’t have even heard this case, they have no right to redefine marriage and hopefully the American people will rise up and really undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,”



D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

47 responses to Tom DeLay: Americans Must ‘Rise Up’ Against SCOTUS If They Approve Gay Marriage

  1. alpacadaddy May 29th, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    So Tom, people should rise up in open defiance of America’s highest court promoting equality, yet it’s perfectly fine for them to subvert democracy and dilute the voice of individuals by allowing corporate bullies to purchase elections with unlimited and untraceable money from around the globe?

    Republican’s are morally bankrupt!

    • katkelly57 May 29th, 2015 at 1:23 pm

      Morally corrupt as well.

      I would like to send them all away somewhere…but I heard even a parallel universe wouldn’t take them.

      • alpacadaddy May 29th, 2015 at 1:36 pm

        …but DO the willfully ignorant have a home in an intelligent universe?

        • bpollen May 29th, 2015 at 3:40 pm

          Why, yes!
          We call it the Republican Party…

      • Larry Schmitt May 29th, 2015 at 2:11 pm

        Maybe Bizarro World, where everything is backwards?

        • katkelly57 May 29th, 2015 at 8:33 pm

          I don’t wanna piss off Superman.

    • Mainah May 29th, 2015 at 1:31 pm

      I voted for marriage equality so … that leaves me out of the “rising up” or as I like to call it … persecuting people because they are homosexuals.

  2. allison1050 May 29th, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    Delay the criminal suggesting that there be an uprising I’m not surprised.

  3. Mainah May 29th, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    SCOTUS has no right to rule on equality issues? Are you sure Tom? For someone who wants to focus on the Constitution, maybe you should try reading it. Where does it say that SCOTUS has no right to hear this case? It’s been voted on by the people. Hell, we voted for it and it passed. Where is it written that they can’t define equality? Dumbass.

    • majii May 29th, 2015 at 4:01 pm

      This tool was willing to push his own case to the Supreme Ct. if he didn’t get the result he wanted at the state level. How much of a hypocrite can one get if one wants the SCOTUS to weigh in on one’s own case but not others, especially one as important as the civil rights of some of our citizens?

      • Mainah May 29th, 2015 at 4:07 pm

        It sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Yet here we are. The age of digital recorded words that can never be truly erased, able to be replayed. The stupid. It just burns.

  4. Suzanne McFly May 29th, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    I will laugh when this law is passed and we all wake up the next day and our lives continue the same as it did the day before.

    • Larry Schmitt May 29th, 2015 at 2:14 pm

      That’s what makes all their hand wringing and swooning so laughable. It’s all so unnecessary. Giving people freedoms doesn’t make the rest of us less free. It’s like love or a cold. It spreads very easily, but you don’t have any less of it.

    • Jimmy Fleck May 29th, 2015 at 4:30 pm

      What law is the SCOTUS going to pass? I didn’t think laws were passed by the courts.

      • anothertoothpick May 29th, 2015 at 4:50 pm

        You mean equal rights are already in the constitution?

        • Jimmy Fleck May 29th, 2015 at 5:01 pm

          I mean laws are passed in the Legislative branch, executed by the Executive branch, and adjudicated in the Courts. Simple civics really. And to be honest, in regards to marriage, yes equal rights currently exist. Any man can marry any woman if they are not too related to each other. That is an equal right for all people regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, etc.

          • F_cons May 29th, 2015 at 5:10 pm

            and yet your party thinks they should ignore what the SUPREME court rules

          • Jimmy Fleck May 29th, 2015 at 5:17 pm

            My party? I don’t belong to a party. The Democratic party seems to be ok with Obama ignoring laws he doesn’t like. The Republican Party seems to be ok with past Republican presidents ignoring laws they didn’t like. Why is this any different?

            The state of Colorado has passed a law legalizing a substance that the Federal government has ruled is illegal. Why does Colorado get to ignore Federal Law? Do you think that is ok?

          • F_cons May 29th, 2015 at 5:35 pm

            Yea, I know, talking point 22, they both do it. No examples but it sounds good (as it bounces back to you and yours off the bubble)

          • Jimmy Fleck May 29th, 2015 at 5:51 pm

            ” No examples but it sounds good ” Such as the example of Colorado ignoring Federal Law that you failed to address?

            Ok examples of Obama ignoring laws –


            Bush ignoring laws –


          • Dwendt44 May 30th, 2015 at 3:01 pm

            There’s no comparison there bunky. The Administrative branch has the authority to enact laws anyway they want. Slowing down or pushing ahead. Bush signed those famous (or infamous) signing statements that clearly said he wasn’t going to do what the law says.
            The dailysignal? really? That’s your ‘reliable source’ for anything?
            I would think you’d be embarrassed to even mention that rat hole as a source at all.

          • bpollen May 30th, 2015 at 4:11 pm

            Any man can marry any woman if they are not too related to each other. That is an equal right for all people regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, etc.

            That’s like saying you have freedom of religion as long as it’s Christianity. Or maybe: you have a right to vote, as long as it’s Republican. Or you can read whatever you want as long as it’s the bible. Shows an absolutely abysmal understanding of what equality is.

          • Jimmy Fleck May 31st, 2015 at 2:57 pm

            Based on your reasoning, why would we deny say a mother and son from being married? Or why does marriage include only 2 people? Why would we not let 5 men and 6 women all get married to each other if that is what they want? Aren’t we limiting their freedom of marriage otherwise?

          • bpollen May 31st, 2015 at 5:21 pm

            Oh, great, the Santorum man-on-goat response. You really need to work on your arguments, or at least where you get them from. There are laws and biological reasons why relatives shouldn’t marry. But step-mother and son? It’s happened. Legally.

            As far as plural marriages, I find them distasteful, but I don’t think they should be illegal.

            I’m pretty sure 1 in 10 people doesn’t want a plural marriage or to marry mom. In fact, the numbers would be infinitesimal.

            But, to close, I will say that your arguments have been used against inter-racial marriage, against inter-faith marriage. Both are done now with frequency, and society hasn’t collapsed. Fear Teh Gayz all you want, but they aren’t a threat to you (except maybe a threat to your sense of masculinity.)

          • Jimmy Fleck June 1st, 2015 at 9:56 am

            Laws and Biological reasons why relatives shouldn’t marry? Don’t we have laws and biological reasons against gay marriage as well?

          • Larry Schmitt June 1st, 2015 at 10:02 am

            Marriage has nothing to do with biology. If it did, old and infertile people wouldn’t be able to marry.

          • Jimmy Fleck June 1st, 2015 at 10:12 am

            Then why does bpollen think biology should rule out marriage between relatives?

          • Larry Schmitt June 1st, 2015 at 11:21 am

            Biology rules out sex between relatives, not marriage.

          • bpollen June 3rd, 2015 at 3:53 pm

            You are right, but that is one of the reasons why marriage between close relatives is a bad idea should you want to to reproduce.

          • Jimmy Fleck June 3rd, 2015 at 3:56 pm

            So are in you favor of allowing marriage between close relatives then? Marriage does not necessarily have to lead to children or else that is an argument against homosexual marriage as well.

          • OldLefty June 3rd, 2015 at 4:12 pm

            That is not what strait marriages call for.
            As for intention for reproduction… how would you control that?

          • bpollen June 3rd, 2015 at 4:38 pm

            Did I say that? Please show where I said “I approve of marriage between close relatives.” Otherwise, it’s just another BS smokescreen to deflect from the fact that you think equality means everybody gets one choice. Or, to put it more succinctly, you are a bigot but won’t admit it.

          • Jimmy Fleck June 3rd, 2015 at 4:55 pm

            I am asking if you are in favor of marriage between close relatives. You said there were laws and biological reasons against it but did not clarify. Please clarify why you think there should be laws against this type of marriage if that is what you believe. Please clarify what biological reasons there are to prevent close relatives from marrying. Why would these laws and biological reasons not also pertain to homosexual marriage?

          • OldLefty June 3rd, 2015 at 5:32 pm

            What does that have to do with gay marriage?

            Biological reasons are double recessive traits.

            Strait people are not asking to marry close relatives.

            This is simply about equal protection under the law.

          • bpollen June 4th, 2015 at 2:59 am

            Geez, more “hey, look over here!” BS. I indulged you once, but it’s time to put up or shut up. Are you a bigot with an abysmal understanding of equality as I assert? If not, explain in depth the inherent equality here:

            Any man can marry any woman if they are not too related to each other. That is an equal right for all people regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, etc.

            Or you can just leave the assertion unchallenged. No never mind to me.

          • bpollen June 3rd, 2015 at 3:53 pm

            Gee, why don’t you ask bpollen why bpollen believes or doesn’t believe specific things?

          • bpollen June 3rd, 2015 at 3:51 pm

            Name the biological reason gays shouldn’t marry. You claim there are, so what are they?

  5. Larry Schmitt May 29th, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    I had no idea that was how it worked: You ignore any laws you don’t like. Why call them laws then, and why have a Supreme Court? Someone get the man a dictionary, he doesn’t know the meaning of “supreme.” Without delay.

  6. majii May 29th, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    Yes, yes, yes, DeLay, the thing to do is to get some Americans so worked up that they react violently to the decision, get arrested, and find themselves having to spend money they don’t have defending themselves in court because they listened to an un-American shyster like you.

    • Bunya June 3rd, 2015 at 5:09 pm

      Well, let’s face it. Gay marriage is so much more heinous a crime than money laundering. And even though there’s nothing written in the bible about gay marriage, there’s even less written about criminal activity perpetrated by former Texas politicians. So it’s all good. He has God’s blessing.

  7. anothertoothpick May 29th, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    OK all you Texas cowboys.

    Makes me wonder who is the biggest assholes.

    Tom Delay

    Louis Gohmert

    or the Texas cowboys that vote for these guys.

    • Dwendt44 May 29th, 2015 at 11:05 pm

      There’s something in the water down that way.

      • CandideThirtythree May 30th, 2015 at 2:37 pm

        fracking fluid?

  8. Wahoo4480 May 29th, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    As a libertarian I am always disappointed when public officials (former one in this case) reveal their ignorance of the law and their disdain for our system.

  9. CandideThirtythree May 30th, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Too late, the republicans on the SCOTUS have already undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court with Citizens United plus they are always getting caught in unethical situations with the billionaire owners of the SCOTUS.

  10. Elliot J. Stamler June 2nd, 2015 at 10:19 am

    Here you have it: an open call for sedition and crime by a man who can correctly be called an American fascist. I read his biography years ago, entitled, I think, Never Retreat, Never Surrender. That he was the most powerful Republican in Congress shows how the Republican Party truly has become the party of fascism in this country.

  11. Jeb ==The Mexican Impregnator June 2nd, 2015 at 9:32 pm

    It’s it amazing how hypocritical these disgusting aholes are ?