Supreme Court Picks!! Possible Gay Justice??

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2009 10:48 PM GMT
    Here is an article about possible supreme court pick to replace Souter.
    Conservatives Map Strategies on Court Fight
    I think is it a good idea to have many perspectives on something like the Supreme Court. Of course the Party of NO is hard at work to resist just about anyone other that the usual conservative cookie cutter type.

    The notion of a Gay Female justice is in particular interesting to me:
    Kathleen M. SullivanKathleen M. Sullivan is a law professor at Stanford and a former dean. Ms. Sullivan, who is gay, has been mentioned as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court when Justice David H. Souter retires at the end of the term in June.

    According to the Stanford Law School Web site, "Ms. Sullivan is an outstanding litigator who has argued before numerous appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, she has been named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America."
    I like all the possible picks in the article
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2009 11:45 PM GMT
    While I think Kathleen Sullivan would be a great pick, she doesn't have any experience as a judge. I only point this out because several liberals (and conservatives) were in an uproar when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers and people were lambasting her mainly for her lack of judicial experience and her academic credentials. If Sullivan is nominated, I hope the supporters do a better job at legitimizing her qualifications as a supreme court justice. True she was a law professor AND a dean of a top 3 law school, but the bulk of her legal career has been in academia. I prefer a jurist that has the intellect, experience, and the capacity to resist political agendas. It would be great to have an openly gay judge serving the court, but that should not be the sole basis of her candidacy for the supreme court (or gender, race, political affiliation, etc).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2009 12:27 AM GMT
    Well, it will be interesting whatever happens. I'm a bit ignorant on the confirmation process, but it would seem that there would be enough Dems around to push through whoever he wanted rather quickly albeit with a lot of enraged, yet ineffectual, howling and poo flinging from the right side of the aisle.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    May 17, 2009 1:14 AM GMT
    hmm... gay... justice...

    SmallvilleJusticeLeague.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2009 1:21 AM GMT
    first off there is not a filibuster proof majority in the senate. we onlyhave 60 if you count the two independents, the republican who just switched parties and al franken who is not seated yet.

    On to the question of experience. most of being a judge is academic. the law exists, the judges just interpret the law, which is all academics do all day long, this makes her much more qualified than harriet myers who was counsel for the white house. myers as counsel knows how to argue her point of view not necessarily apply law in a fair manner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2009 1:31 AM GMT
    I look forward to this process as well and I don't think it will be the only appointment President Obama will have to make to the Supreme Court. As long as the appointee understands constitutional law, has sat as a jurist on the bench, and will not allow personal feelings on issues to effect the rule of law.

    Contrary to what some "liberals" and most "conservatives" believe, we are STILL a nation of laws.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    May 17, 2009 1:48 AM GMT
    Another one? There's already one on the Court!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2009 2:50 AM GMT
    Agreed -- but he's the one who's leaving.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    May 17, 2009 9:22 AM GMT
    MarathonManiac saidAgreed -- but he's the one who's leaving.
    Roberts is not leaving,,,
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 17, 2009 12:17 PM GMT
    An openly gay supreme court justice?

    I think it would be the greatest thing to ever happen but you'd see open warfare in the House and Senate
    No way on earth would the republicans allow that
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2009 12:24 PM GMT
    swimbikerun said
    MarathonManiac saidAgreed -- but he's the one who's leaving.
    Roberts is not leaving,,,

    Roberts?!
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    May 17, 2009 11:28 PM GMT
    TexDef07 said
    swimbikerun said
    MarathonManiac saidAgreed -- but he's the one who's leaving.
    Roberts is not leaving,,,

    Roberts?!
    Yeah, he's queer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2009 4:10 AM GMT
    swimbikerun said
    TexDef07 said
    swimbikerun said
    MarathonManiac saidAgreed -- but he's the one who's leaving.
    Roberts is not leaving,,,

    Roberts?!
    Yeah, he's queer.
    As far as I know there are no gay justices yet. Roberts is a married conservative so I am not sure where everyone is getting that icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2009 4:14 AM GMT
    Here is part of an interesting article on the possibility of a Gay Justice:

    The New Republic: A Gay Supreme Court Justice?More significantly, though, nominating a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this distinction was a lie. (After all, could there be any more baldly anti-gay political maneuver than bashing a Supreme Court nominee because of her sexual orientation?) Given that most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade—and turns decisively in the other direction.