Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

[Philobeado]

Gender and sexual orientation matter more than judicial philosophy and experience, at least according to the CBS "Early Show" on May 14.

The morning news program focused its discussion of only two of the potential Supreme Court nominees - two openly gay women.

Co-anchor Julie Chen announced the story saying, "Washington is all a buzz over the two openly gay women under consideration." Senior White House correspondent Bill Plante's story followed, which he began by asking "Is America ready for a gay Supreme Court justice?"

Justice David Souter announced his resignation from the Court on May 1 giving President Barack Obama his first opportunity to nominate one of the nine Supreme Court justices. The balance of the Court is not expected to change with the departure of the liberal justice.

Plante's story included Brian Moulton, Senior Legal Counsel to Human Rights Campaign, and Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor of Slate. Moulton said the country was ready and it would be a "tremendous and historic thing." Lithwick complained that the current makeup of the Court doesn't represent enough minority groups.

This segment ignored opposition to the nominees based on their judicial philosophy and actual qualifications and Plante even claimed "Republican leaders aren't opposed." He quoted Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who said "I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified."

"The Early Show" did briefly mention the background of these two nominees. Pamela Karlan is a Stanford Law professor who clerked for a Supreme Court justice and Kathleen Sullivan a former Dean of Stanford Law School and a constitutional scholar. But aside from those statements, the entire CBS segment focused on identity politics and what minority group would be represented on the Court.

ABC and NBC morning shows on May 14 both did a better job of covering potential nominees. "Good Morning America" had a short segment with George Stephanopoulos who named the top three potential nominees and discussed three others with a picture and brief comment about each and their roles in the judiciary.

NBC's "Today" even found a critical voice to include. White House correspondent Pete Williams said, "The President says he wants someone with empathy. Already the Senate's Republican leaders are balking at that."

NBC quoted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said, "I thought empathy implied you were already on somebody's side before you heard the case."


'The Early Show' Focus: 'Is America Ready for a Gay Supreme Court Justice?' | NewsBusters.org

 

[editec]

Couldn't care less what somebody's sexual proclevities are.

As long as they don't scare the horses, of course.

 

[xotoxi]

"Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

I'm not ready yet.

Maybe next year I will be, just not right now.

 

[Mr. President]

No

 

[Nik]

With shit like this, conservatives can no longer claim that their opposition to hate crime laws and gay marriage are based on "tradition" or other bullshit. Its simply because they don't like gays, and opposition to appointing a gay supreme court justice is bigotry, clear and simple.

 

[jillian]

why does anyone care? we have a catholic, a jew, a bunch of protestants, etc. everyone comes equipped with their own particular sensibilities.

 

[Nik]

why does anyone care? we have a catholic, a jew, a bunch of protestants, etc. everyone comes equipped with their own particular sensibilities.

Because lots and lots of people are homophobic. But usually they can hide behind some other bullshit justification to oppress gays. Not so much here. It'll be interesting to see the ugliness come front and center without being able to hide behind a rationalization.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

why does anyone care? we have a catholic, a jew, a bunch of protestants, etc. everyone comes equipped with their own particular sensibilities.

Because lots and lots of people are homophobic. But usually they can hide behind some other bullshit justification to oppress gays. Not so much here. It'll be interesting to see the ugliness come front and center without being able to hide behind a rationalization.

The Supreme Courts main functions are to interpret the Constitution and to examine every law passed whether federal or state and determine if said laws adhere to the Constitution of the United States.

Personally I think homoexuals are an abomination, but if one was to be appointed to the supreme court I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as he/she upheld the duties outlined above and not try to legislate from the bench.

Answer this question, if a person is against gay marriage, does that make that person a homophobe?

 

[DiamondDave]

With shit like this, conservatives can no longer claim that their opposition to hate crime laws and gay marriage are based on "tradition" or other bullshit. Its simply because they don't like gays, and opposition to appointing a gay supreme court justice is bigotry, clear and simple.

Don't lump this on all conservatives

I don't care whether they are gay or straight.. white or black... male or female... Christian or Jewish... etc

As long as they stay within the constitution and original intent, and don't try and legislate from the bench... I am just fine

 

[Nik]

why does anyone care? we have a catholic, a jew, a bunch of protestants, etc. everyone comes equipped with their own particular sensibilities.

Because lots and lots of people are homophobic. But usually they can hide behind some other bullshit justification to oppress gays. Not so much here. It'll be interesting to see the ugliness come front and center without being able to hide behind a rationalization.

The Supreme Courts main functions are to interpret the Constitution and to examine every law passed whether federal or state and determine if said laws adhere to the Constitution of the United States.

Personally I think homoexuals are an abomination, but if one was to be appointed to the supreme court I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as he/she upheld the duties outlined above and not try to legislate from the bench.

Answer this question, if a person is against gay marriage, does that make that person a homophobe?

Not necessarily, but many who are against gay marriage are against it because they are homophobes. And everyone who is against the idea of a gay justice is a homophobe.

 

[Nik]

With shit like this, conservatives can no longer claim that their opposition to hate crime laws and gay marriage are based on "tradition" or other bullshit. Its simply because they don't like gays, and opposition to appointing a gay supreme court justice is bigotry, clear and simple.

Don't lump this on all conservatives

I don't care whether they are gay or straight.. white or black... male or female... Christian or Jewish... etc

As long as they stay within the constitution and original intent, and don't try and legislate from the bench... I am just fine

Well you get +1 point for not being homophobic. But then you get -1 when you advocate for original intent. What a silly idea.

 

[KittenKoder]

Meh ... there are plenty of openly gay people in high positions, they do things no different than anyone else. So who cares.

 

[manifold]

Perhaps you folks don't know how this works, so let me explain.

It's not up to AMERICA! It's up to Obama and the US Senate.

 

[Tech_Esq]

"Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

As long as the openly gay justice is an originalist, I've go no problems with him or her.

 

[KittenKoder]

"Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

As long as the openly gay justice is an originalist, I've go no problems with him or her.

... or it. Don't forget, being without gender is technically "gay" even if it's natural now.

 

[Tech_Esq]

"Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

As long as the openly gay justice is an originalist, I've go no problems with him or her.

... or it. Don't forget, being without gender is technically "gay" even if it's natural now.

I must admit, I did not know that. Where the hell have I been.

Frankly, I figured Justice Souter was gay anyway. He just didn't go around telling everyone.

 

[Amanda]

Because lots and lots of people are homophobic. But usually they can hide behind some other bullshit justification to oppress gays. Not so much here. It'll be interesting to see the ugliness come front and center without being able to hide behind a rationalization.

The Supreme Courts main functions are to interpret the Constitution and to examine every law passed whether federal or state and determine if said laws adhere to the Constitution of the United States.

Personally I think homoexuals are an abomination, but if one was to be appointed to the supreme court I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as he/she upheld the duties outlined above and not try to legislate from the bench.

Answer this question, if a person is against gay marriage, does that make that person a homophobe?

Not necessarily, but many who are against gay marriage are against it because they are homophobes. And everyone who is against the idea of a gay justice is a homophobe.

Could you explain this a little more, I don't see the connection.

 

[KittenKoder]

"Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

As long as the openly gay justice is an originalist, I've go no problems with him or her.

... or it. Don't forget, being without gender is technically "gay" even if it's natural now.

I must admit, I did not know that. Where the hell have I been.

Frankly, I figured Justice Souter was gay anyway. He just didn't go around telling everyone.

Most people don't it's as rare as the naturally born hermaphrodites, though they exist it's so rare most people don't know anything about them. But the government lumps them up with gay people, guessing it was for lack of a better category, but really it's not fair.

 

[Amanda]

... or it. Don't forget, being without gender is technically "gay" even if it's natural now.

I must admit, I did not know that. Where the hell have I been.

Frankly, I figured Justice Souter was gay anyway. He just didn't go around telling everyone.

Most people don't it's as rare as the naturally born hermaphrodites, though they exist it's so rare most people don't know anything about them. But the government lumps them up with gay people, guessing it was for lack of a better category, but really it's not fair.

Why isn't it fair? It seems like you're saying there's something wrong with being gay.

 

[KittenKoder]

I must admit, I did not know that. Where the hell have I been.

Frankly, I figured Justice Souter was gay anyway. He just didn't go around telling everyone.

Most people don't it's as rare as the naturally born hermaphrodites, though they exist it's so rare most people don't know anything about them. But the government lumps them up with gay people, guessing it was for lack of a better category, but really it's not fair.

Why isn't it fair? It seems like you're saying there's something wrong with being gay.

Meh, read it how you want, I know you will. It's not fair because it's not a "lifestyle" or a "sexual orientation" .... that's why it's not fair. It should be considered a disability.