Groups push for first gay Supreme Court justice

[jdobbin]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22106.html

Within hours of word of Souter's departure, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund was hailing the candidacy of a First Amendment scholar and former dean of Stanford Law School, Kathleen Sullivan. "Out lesbian a contender for Supreme Court," one of the group's web sites declared.

Another Stanford law professor on the "frequently mentioned" lists, Pam Karlan, has been open about being a lesbian, colleagues and former students say. In response to an e-mail from POLITICO, Karlan expressed no reticence about discussing her sexual orientation, though she downplayed talk about being a possible nominee.

Obama has appointed a few gay judges since taking office.

It seems very likely a female will be appointed this time to the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see the narrowing of the list in the next weeks.

[JerrySeinfeld]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22106.html

Obama has appointed a few gay judges since taking office.

It seems very likely a female will be appointed this time to the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see the narrowing of the list in the next weeks.

Great. The left elects a president based upon his colour, and now they're gonna appoint judges based upon sexual orientation.

And yet somehow, some way, the left escapes scrutiny about judgeing people based upon skin colour or sexual orientation.

It's the left that is MOST guilty of that.

This wouldn't surprise me at all.

[stevoh]

Great. The left elects a president based upon his colour, and now they're gonna appoint judges based upon sexual orientation.

And yet somehow, some way, the left escapes scrutiny about judgeing people based upon skin colour or sexual orientation.

It's the left that is MOST guilty of that.

This wouldn't surprise me at all.

Someday, sexual orientation won't matter. Or color. Where simply the best person for the job is the best person for the job. Where Obama isn't remarkable because he is black, but because he is an outstanding president.

Statements such as "The left elects a president based upon his color" however, point out that we are a long way from that day.

[Borg]

Nothing like ignoring the best to hire into special interest groups

Almost like trying to get a fed job in Canada as an Anglo

Borg

[sharkman]

Someday, sexual orientation won't matter. Or color. Where simply the best person for the job is the best person for the job. Where Obama isn't remarkable because he is black, but because he is an outstanding president.

Statements such as "The left elects a president based upon his color" however, point out that we are a long way from that day.

You read a simple statement and miss the point.

Besides, you can't get to employment utopia by employing such faulty litmus tests. Whenever a person is selected for anything including university entrance on the basis of skin or sexual orientation, an injustice is committed.

[stevoh]

You read a simple statement and miss the point.

Besides, you can't get to employment utopia by employing such faulty litmus tests. Whenever a person is selected for anything including university entrance on the basis of skin or sexual orientation, an injustice is committed.

Whenever a person is denied access to anything on the basis of skin or sexual orientation, an injustice is committed. And that is the root of these affirmative action programs.

I don't LIKE the solution, but how else do we get employers to see past color, sexual orientation and gender and simply hire the best person for the job?

I am simply not niave enough to believe that race or sexual orientation is no longer an issue. You wouldn't point out Obamas race or the potential supreme court justices sexual orientation if it wasn't.

[Shady]

More identity politics, where qualifications are trumped by sex, sexual preference, race, and most recently so-called empathy.

[jdobbin]

Great. The left elects a president based upon his colour, and now they're gonna appoint judges based upon sexual orientation.

Think colour was not the only reason Obama was elected no matter how much the right insists it was.

And yet somehow, some way, the left escapes scrutiny about judgeing people based upon skin colour or sexual orientation.

It's the left that is MOST guilty of that.

And the right spends so much timing being intolerant that they make their judgments based on that.

[bush_cheney2004]

This thread's title is very presumptuous....how do you know that the US Supreme Court hasn't already seated a "gay" justice?

[M.Dancer]

This thread's title is very presumptuous....how do you know that the US Supreme Court hasn't already seated a "gay" justice?

Who knows what goes on in their private chambers....

[CANADIEN]

Let's face the truth, The appointment of a Justice of the United States Supreme Court has nothing to do with qualifications (even though they usually end up with people who are up to the task). It's about politics, and politics alone...

It is clear that many of those who are pushing for a lesbian candidate are concerned less about competency than politics. But let's not fool ourselves. There are plenty of people who will oppose her because of her sexual orientation, no matter how qualified she may be.

[kimmy]

It's not like selecting a Supreme Court justice based on criteria that have nothing to do with legal knowledge would be a precedent (see Clarence Thomas.)

I think the GALA/GLAAD/whatever types do a disservice to their own cause by campaigning for Ms Sullivan based on her personal life. It detracts from what sounds like a reasonably qualified individual. If she is eventually selected, the remainder of her career will be tarnished with the label "special interest selection", the same way "equal opportunity hire" is supposedly used to demean women or minorities in "old boys" professions.

-k

[WIP]

It's not like selecting a Supreme Court justice based on criteria that have nothing to do with legal knowledge would be a precedent (see Clarence Thomas.)

Yes, the right wing was willing to use race when they wanted to put an unqualified token black on the court, and then played the race card by accusing everyone who questioned his abilities of racial discrimination. And they did it again, when George Bush wanted to appoint a loyal hack lawyer as Attorney General.

In the last election cycle, the Republicans played the opposite side of the race card and tried to use Obama's race as a rallying point for their base of rural and suburban white voters.

[Muddy]

Sexual orientation should not be a qualifier to any justice department appointment. The question should never be asked nor is it any ones business. Discrimination is a two way street..

[Oleg Bach]

Sexual orientation should not be a qualifier to any justice department appointment. The question should never be asked nor is it any ones business. Discrimination is a two way street..

Having witnessed and befriended some urban gays of late - I can tell you one thing once you become a trusted confident of some of the more astute homo-sexuals (not that I believe in such a thing) - It is NOT the gays who push such silly initiatives into our social, political and judical institutions...they want no part of this...this is being done by cut throat opportunists who are NOT gay - The intelligent gays are getting real tired of being used and words put in their mouths...words are the last thing they want being shoved down their throats...no pun intended.

[sharkman]

Yes, the right wing was willing to use race when they wanted to put an unqualified token black on the court, and then played the race card by accusing everyone who questioned his abilities of racial discrimination. And they did it again, when George Bush wanted to appoint a loyal hack lawyer as Attorney General.

In the last election cycle, the Republicans played the opposite side of the race card and tried to use Obama's race as a rallying point for their base of rural and suburban white voters.

This is a typical knee-jerk response. Whenever the right wing does anything in regards to blacks, they are playing cards. This is like saying every time the left does anything with gay people, it's to have a token gay. Simply not true.

In the Thomas case, some of his worst critics were leftwing blacks calling him an Uncle Tom.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In the Thomas case, some of his worst critics were leftwing blacks calling him an Uncle Tom.

True...and all part of the same pawn moves in a political game. Justice Thomas still stands out after all these years because their "hi tech lynching" didn't work.

[WIP]

This is a typical knee-jerk response. Whenever the right wing does anything in regards to blacks, they are playing cards. This is like saying every time the left does anything with gay people, it's to have a token gay. Simply not true.

In the Thomas case, some of his worst critics were leftwing blacks calling him an Uncle Tom.

That's because he complained about his own experience with discrimination -- claiming that he wasn't able to get in to a good law firm after graduating from Yale, but later gave a blanket condemnation of affirmative action programs (like the one that helped him get his Yale degree). Is his conservative philosophy genuine? Or is he just in denial of the help he received -- preferring to view himself as a self-made man, and even claiming that affirmative action was a hindrance.

[Oleg Bach]

Damn it - the Supreme court is already chalked full of those that tacitly represent special interest groups and ideologies - we don't need more - just because a person is gay does not qualify them for everything - Is this potential Justice going to rule fairly on matters concerning the traditional family matters? I doubt it...and by the way - how do we know if this person is really gay or just adopted the life style in an opportunist political fashion?