It is possible that President Obama will nominate a gay American to the United States Supreme Court.
When asked about this, several Republican Senators gave answers suggesting that they need their heads examined.
Senator Jeff Sessions, the new ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee explained, “I’m not inclined to think that’s an automatic disqualification.”
Senator John Thune, the Republicans’ Chief Deputy Whip opined, “I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now… It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he’ll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.”
“It’s something I’d have to think through with respect to whatever issues might be forthcoming that the court may have to consider.” So says Senator Saxby Chambliss.
Are these people crazy? Republicans got butchered in the last election, in large part because of a perception among suburbanites that they are hostile to gay citizens. And they can’t nail this softball?
It should not be this difficult. Conservatives, let’s take it from the top.
I don’t care if the nominee is a man or a woman, gay or straight, Catholic or Jewish, black, white, Latino, or Asian. So long as he or she is competent and committed to the rule of law, rather than to an amorphous understanding of the Constitution that evolves at the whim of five judges, I would be happy to confirm the President’s nominee, whatever his or her race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
This, by the way, is an answer entirely in keeping with the conservative position on judging and on affirmative action.
Instead, Republicans leave open the possibility that a nominee’s sexual orientation alone would be a potential disqualifier, a real tough issue for conservatives.
At some point we will see a Republican step to the plate and knock this issue out of the park. And when the paper tigers of the evangelical movement fail to inflict punishment on this courageous conservative, maybe Republican leaders will finally learn that they do not need to countenance the outsized discriminatory views of a minority of their coalition.
And maybe then they will start winning back some voters.
20 responses so far
1 erasmuse // May 6, 2009 at 8:20 pm
“Republicans got butchered in the last election, in large part because of a perception among suburbanites that they are hostile to gay citizens. “
Evidence, please? How is it that in California a proposition to stop gay marriage did far better than the Republicans? And what anti-gay Republican politicians are you talking about? As the quoted article shows, the Republicans’ problem is that they are too scared of homosexuals, not that they aren’t scared enough.
The Republicans have a winning issue here, if they’re willing to defy the liberal elite.
2 dragonlady // May 6, 2009 at 10:35 pm
You’re dead on erasmuse. Polls show the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Obama has stated he opposes it. What is Frum talking about?
3 danbmil99 // May 7, 2009 at 12:52 am
“What is Frum talking about?”
He’s talking about coming off like a bunch of bigoted jerks. Regardless of your position on gay marriage, in this day and age it’s not acceptable to say someone is disqualified for something *solely* because of his/her sexual preference, if they are qualified in every other respect.
The GOP has to get over its homophobia. What Frum is worried about is the under-40 crowd, who by and large consider homosexuals to be human beings, with the same rights as other people.
4 esurience // May 7, 2009 at 1:50 am
It’s like saying a black person should be disqualified from the Supreme Court because they might be favorable to affirmative action.
5 ChristianMiller // May 7, 2009 at 4:56 am
This is a non-issue. Gays vote predominantly Democrat and whatever Republicans say or do won’t change that fact. The gay marriage issue is overblown (sorry for the pun) and most Americans (including a predominant number of blacks) are against it.
The emphasis should be on qualifications anyway and seeking out a representative from this tiny minority of out-of the closet jurists narrows the field way too much. Besides Americans are tired of identity politics , which should CERTAINLY be kept out of our court system.
The very fact that people take this suggestion seriously reveals them to be politicizing the court system and not sufficiently schooled on our American ideals.
6 midcon // May 7, 2009 at 5:41 am
We have serious problems in this country and we need serious people to address them and we are going to talk about gays? Does anyone honestly pay any attention to gays? The world is collapsing, extremists hold sway everywhere, China is become the only super power, and we are talking about gays? Oh Lord, is there no one who can save us!
7 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 6:00 am
Hank,
Ya wanna name a few gay judges who you believe are in contention?
(*SNORT*)
The Politico runs this sort of stuff all the time.
Here… from today’s “Billitico,” published from my home office in beautiful Harriman NY…
“EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! OBAMA NOT POISED TO APPOINT FIRST OPENLY GAY U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!”
Got it….???
(*SMILE*)
As to that link you provided to the Hill article…
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
What precisely are you pointing to in saying several Republican Senators need to have their heads examined…???
(Note: I’m not disagreeing with you in GENERAL terms… just in regard to this topic.)
(*WINK*)
BILL
8 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 6:10 am
Re: Erasmuse; 8:20 PM –
“How is it that in California a proposition to stop gay marriage did far better than the Republicans?”
How DARE you muddy the waters with facts!
(*SMILE*)
Re: Esurience; 1:50 AM –
OK… ok… now that’s a reasonable analogy. (*NOD*)
Re: Franco; 4:56 AM –
“Gays vote predominantly Democrat…”
No doubt that’s true, but it needed be true always and indeed, the GOP is in theory the natural Party of successful gays – and gays who want to be successful – just as it is the natural Party for straights (and blacks, and women, and minorities…) who are successful or want to be based upon their own hard work and skills.
BILL
9 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 6:12 am
*CORRECTION*
“No doubt that’s true, but it needed be true always..”
I meant “needn’t”
As in… “need not.”
(*WINK*)
BILL
10 sinz54 // May 7, 2009 at 7:24 am
Obama’s not that stupid.
He’s not going to squander his 60% approval rating on a divisive nomination like that.
End of story.
11 sinz54 // May 7, 2009 at 7:26 am
This is a courtesy bow to Obama’s supporters: “For this nomination, of course we’re considering gays, lesbians, antiwar activists, Muslims, and Truthers.”
12 dragonlady // May 7, 2009 at 10:18 am
danbmil99, I don’t see any Republican senators saying you can’t serve on the Supreme Court b/c you’re gay. All the statements suggested they would examine the nominee’s background vs their sexual orientation.
13 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Re: Dragonlady; 10:18 AM –
“I don’t see any Republican senators saying you can’t serve on the Supreme Court b/c you’re gay. All the statements suggested they would examine the nominee’s background vs their sexual orientation.”
Note my earlier question to “Hank”:
Barker13; 6:00 AM: “What precisely are you pointing to in saying several Republican Senators need to have their heads examined…???”
Perhaps you’ll get an answer from Dan. So far nothing from Hank. (*SNORT*)
BILL
14 Henry Clay // May 7, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I am just going to repost Senator Thune’s comment…
I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he’ll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.
So let me get this straight…”people” would react “very negatively” if the President nominated a gay person. It would be a “bridge too far” if a gay citizen was nominated to the Supreme Court.
Why? Not, according to these quotes, because of the nominee’s activism. Nope. The mere fact that the nominee is gay would be divisive.
Senator Sessions says he is not “inclined to think” being gay would be an “automatic disqualification.” Why would it be any kind of disqualification? Why is this something you would even have to think about?
As I said, the proper answer to this is, ‘who cares if the person is gay so long as he would be a good judge.’ But the Republicans quoted did not say this. They hemmed. They hawed. Senator Thune more or less suggested that a nominee’s sexual orientation would be a deciding factor for many people.
Sorry guys, but the evidence on this one is pretty damning.
15 Henry Clay // May 7, 2009 at 1:34 pm
And I would add one more point. As I have argued previously, it may be the case that a majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage. I for one have never written here in support of gay marriage.
I am also certain, however, that one of the features of the contemporary Republican party that makes it unattractive to educated middle-class professionals in states like VA, NC, and FL (states the GOP needs in its column), is its apparent hostility to gay citizens.
It is one thing to argue that traditional marriage should be maintained.
It is another to argue, while pandering to your base, that a gay citizen is somehow a non-starter as a Supreme Court nominee.
16 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Re: Henry Clay; 1:24 PM –
“…a bridge too far…”
That’s it? That’s it…?!?!
As for… “A lot of people would react very negatively.”
Umm…
Well…
They would.
I’m not saying they’d be right to (unless they do so as a matter of principle opposing ANY “group set aside” Supreme Court seat), but I do acknowledge the reality of the situation. Thune’s statement was accurate.
(*SHRUG*)
Next…
“Senator Sessions says he is not “inclined to think” being gay would be an “automatic disqualification.”"
Yes. Senator Sessions says he is not inclined to think being gay would be an automatic disqualification.
(See how less sinister it looks when I remove those scary quote marks?!) (*GRIN*)
BILL
17 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Re: Henry Clay; 1:34 PM –
“And I would add one more point. As I have argued previously, it may be the case that a majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage.”
“May” be…???
(*CHUCKLE*)
Com’on, Hank… like it or not the American People in poll after poll, vote after vote, seem pretty clear in rejecting gay MARRIAGE.
“I for one have never written here in support of gay marriage.”
So…? What’s your point? Are you in favor of gay marriage? I am. (*SHRUG*) At least if it were a ballot proposition here in NY I’d vote for it.
Obviously the topic is of interest to you so… since you brought it up… are you or are you not in favor of gay MARRIAGE?
“I am also certain, however, that one of the features of the contemporary Republican party that makes it unattractive to educated middle-class professionals…”
Ya know, Hank… not everyone is an “educated” middle class professional. Just a point to ponder. Frankly I find the inference slightly offensive, especially considering how you’re dancing around the issue of gay MARRIAGE as far as your own support or non-support for it is concerned.
“It is another to argue, while pandering to your base, that a gay citizen is somehow a non-starter as a Supreme Court nominee.”
But, Hank… I’ve just demonstrated – using quotes YOU provided – that no one has said this… at least no one who you’ve identified and linked to such a statement.
BILL
18 MSheridan // May 7, 2009 at 5:27 pm
There are more women in law school than men, but if a woman were to be appointed to the SCOTUS, a lot of people would see it as a special set-aside rather than something normal, which says something odd right there. Barker13 has questioned whether there are even any gays in contention. I’ve seen two names mentioned: Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, both lesbians. I’m not advocating for either of them or for any specific person or demographic for the position, but this country is big enough and has a big enough pool of talent that we could probably find qualified people in almost any demographic we wished.
I don’t think there should be any set quotas for positions on the Court, but given that it acts somewhat like a national jury judging the law itself, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a President to deliberately select members from more than one or two subsets of the national population to make the court more reflective of the nation at large.
19 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“Barker13 has questioned whether there are even any gays in contention. I’ve seen two names mentioned: Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, both lesbians.”
Thanks!
“I don’t think there should be any set quotas for positions on the Court, but given that it acts somewhat like a national jury judging the law itself, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a President to deliberately select members from more than one or two subsets of the national population to make the court more reflective of the nation at large.”
Fair enough.
Just as an aside, if I were President…
(Stop laughing!!! Stop laughing damn it!!!)
(*GRIN*)
…prior to even having an opportunity to nominate anyone to an opening or approaching opening, one of my first “private” presidential actions would be to ask each sitting member of the Supreme Court to create for me a list of their individual top ten candidates to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
I’d ask the Justices to submit their lists as individuals – their recommendations to be held in confidence – and I’d ask that they revise their lists (or not, as needed) every six months.
Yes, I’m aware a President has his own people to pick and vet candidates and that’s all fine and dandy. I’m simply saying that as President I’d certainly ask “the experts,” the sitting Justices, for their input and I’d pay attention to it.
BILL
20 dragonlady // May 8, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Henry Clay, YOU assume Thune’s statement was referring to the nominee’s sexual orientation but it’s far from clear whether he was referring to solely that or an assumption that the nominee would be activist. I think regardless of who Obama nominates to the court, it’s going to be an activist. But let’s assume he meant lot of folks would have a problem with a gay judge. He’s stating a fact. Gallup shows while the majority of Americans think homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle, they are split down the middle on its morality. This suggests toleration and affirmation of personal freedom, but not necessairly widespread acceptance. I think fair minded voters would want to know if a gay nominee was an activist because they know it will affect traditional marriage if any such court case will be brought up to SCOTUS.
You must log in to post a comment.