Comments on: Too Gay For The Supreme Court?

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:48:28 +0000

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.

By: barker13

barker13 — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:14:58 +0000

"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

By: MSheridan

MSheridan — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:27:34 +0000

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.

By: barker13

barker13 — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:19:13 +0000

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

By: barker13

barker13 — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:09:46 +0000

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

By: Henry Clay

Henry Clay — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:34:23 +0000

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.

By: Henry Clay

Henry Clay — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:24:52 +0000

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.

By: barker13

barker13 — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:50:39 +0000

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

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:18:06 +0000

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.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 07 May 2009 11:26:22 +0000

This is a courtesy bow to Obama’s supporters: “For this nomination, of course we’re considering gays, lesbians, antiwar activists, Muslims, and Truthers.”