Ready For An Openly Gay Supreme Court Justice?

(10 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Would it matter to you if the nominee to the Supreme Court which President Obama is going to shortly pick were openly gay or lesbian? The Dog is going to assume his readers are liberal and would care less about a Justices sexual orientation than about her or his views on the law. After all, we don’t seem to care the current Justices are all heterosexual so what difference should it make, right?

Well we may get to see just how the Gopsaurs think about this very issue. Two of the lawyers rumored to be on the short list for nomination are lesbians. Kathleen Sullivan, former Dean of Stanford Law School and Pam Karlan, also of Stanford Law are both lesbians and on the short list.

It is early yet, so the Senate Republicans are not going full throat against the idea of a lesbian Supreme Court Justice. At this point they are just concern trolling, saying things along the lines of Sen. Thune:

I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now,” said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. “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.”

You can find the whole article in The Hill here.

The Dog tends to think this would get the Faux News crowd and there wingnut viewers spun into a right little tizzy. After all, the poster boy for these Citizens Joe The Unlicensed Plummer Wurzelbacher was quoted this week in Christianity Today (and no, there will be no link):

“I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.

This is the standard we can expect to start from and go down, down, down if one of the two Law professors who happen to be lesbians is chosen for the High Court. There will be non-stop pandemonium.

While there is the reactionary wing of the Republican Party it would hardly be fair to present just those we think are going to make this an issue. So in the interests of fairness and so there is a record incase there is a change of mind here are two Senators from the Hill article who seem to be sensible on this issue.

Sen Murkowski:

“It’s not been part of the calculus for me,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. “Right now the speculation is about a woman justice – something you won’t hear me voice much opposition about – but I don’t have any automatic disqualifiers. I don’t think that should be part of our consideration.”  

And unbelievably the new Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee Sen. Sessions (why is it that whenever the Dog hears Ranking Member in relation to a Republican he can’t help remembering Member is a euphemism for penis? Never mind on with the quote):

“I’m not inclined to think that’s an automatic disqualification,” Sessions said of a gay nominee. He said he intends to consider only the nominee’s legal judgment when deciding his support for Justice David Souter’s proposed replacement.


The Dog hopes Sen. Sessions will stick to this measurement, but he also finds it odd the Senator would have more problems with a Justice of color than a lesbian Justice. But far be it for the Dog to understand anyone who would willingly be a Republican. Call it a failure of empathy, but it just does not seem that fun to be one of them.

This may or may not be an issue but we will see if the President decides the best qualified for the post just also happens to be a lesbian.

The floor is yours.

Cross Posted At Square State


Skip to comment form

  1. in Dean Sullivan’s 1st Amendment ideas than her sexuality.  

    • Edger on May 7, 2009 at 01:14

    Who they like to screw is their business and nobody else’s, as long as it’s not the public and the Constitution.

  2. are preemptively accusing President Obama of playing identity politics with the Supreme Court nominee:

    I say we find a half Latina, half Persian lesbian who happens to knows the law and Constitution better than any other person in the country.

    Sorry, old straight white guys. Justice also demands that the justice system somewhat reflect the ethnic make up of the community. (In this case, the community would be the entire country.) There is a reason why newspaper accounts of trials routinely report the gender and ethnic make up of juries.

    The only potential bias I see is an influence on gay rights cases. But, how much different is it for an African American ruling on a civil rights issue or a woman ruling on cases involving reproductive rights or equal pay?

    So sayeth this straight white guy.

  3. ……if Obama appointed an openly gay justice. I would love to see it happen. Certainly many GLBT persons are just as qualified for the position as straights are, and wouldn’t it be interesting to see how the homophobes in Congress attempt to block the nominee?

  4. It’s way past time for someone “different” to be one of the Surpremes.  In honor of the occasion, here’s a pic & a tune:

    funny pictures
    moar funny pictures

  5. It’s way past time for someone “different” to be one of the Surpremes.  In honor of the occasion, here’s a pic & a tune:

    And btw, that tune is THE greatest gay anthem EVER:

    funny pictures
    moar funny pictures

    • Robyn on May 7, 2009 at 16:36

    …whether the nominee is a lesbian.  It does matter to me that other people would have a requirement that she not be one.

    • Robyn on May 7, 2009 at 16:36

    …whether the nominee is a lesbian.  It does matter to me that other people would have a requirement that she not be one.

Comments have been disabled.