Isn't it time for a GLBT Supreme Court Justice?

[Truth2Tell]

Seems like it'd be a good time to me.

:shrug:

[rucky]

1. Are you sure we haven't had one?

:shrug:

[Truth2Tell]

3. Odds are that we have.

I don't know if you are referring to a particular recent bachelor? I've seen no evidence of that. But at some point, almost certainly we have.

But an out Justice would be a different story...

[Roon]

42. Hell, we have had a couple of gay presidents already

eom

[JANdad]

65. Can you offer proof of this claim?

?????





Edit for sp

[Roon]

67. Oh, it was speculation..geeze

When Lincoln's wife was committed to the mental hospital, Lincoln's buddy and him started sharing a bed in the wintertime. That is why log cabiners call themselves "log cabin"...because Lincoln was born in one.

Buchanan is our only single president.He had a buddy and they were inseparable during Buchanan's term in office. Buchanan's sister did the first wife duties. Even the press knew he was gay, but back then you didn't DARE report on it.

[LeftyMom]

4. A closet case wouldn't exactly be the ideal advocate.

[Lyric]

7. Not openly. There's a difference.

[blondeatlast]

21. Beat me to it. nt

[cali]

2. I just want a good justice. gender, sexual orientation, religion are

waay secondary to that.

[Truth2Tell]

5. Agreed.

Waaaaay secondary. But still a legitimate factor IMO.

[TexasProgresive]

11. Yeah!

I bet that there is a "Clarence Thomas" gay that is a member of the Log Cabin Pukes. Better to get a good justice then one who fits a racial, gender or other profile.

[Initech]

15. Agreed, last thing we need is another Alito or Scalia.

:puke:

[Lyric]

6. Funny how every time someone mentions this, we suddenly hear "No quotas!"

Kinda like whenever we mention marriage, there's a contingent who would suddenly rather overturn marriage COMPLETELY than simply open it up to include us.

The "No quotas!" crap is what REALLY burns me up--as if there's no gay person in the country who could POSSIBLY be both gay AND extremely qualified. I fail to see how there's something wrong with openly advocating for a qualified GLBT justice. There are dozens of people who are equally qualified for that job. Why is it so wrong to openly declare that it would be a good, positive thing to choose one who, in ADDITION to being highly qualified, is also openly gay?

:shrug:

[cali]

9. I don't care if it's a woman or a minority or a GLBT person

nearly as much as I care about a strong liberal Justice. If they happen to add more representation to the court, that icing on the cake.

[Lyric]

10. Well I'd hope that for a Democratic President, being a "liberal" is part of being considered

"qualified", but yes, I agree. If the only two people willing to take the job are a straight male liberal and a lesbian Log Cabin Republican, then yes, I'd rather see the straight guy get it. However, that's not the case. There are justices out there who are qualified, liberal, AND openly gay. Pamela Karlan, for one.

[cali]

12. I'm a great admirer of Karlin';s

watched her on the Newshour for years, but that's part of the problem. In this day and age, she'd be hard to confirm- not because she's a lesbian but because there's too much on the record.

[Lyric]

14. I think that's true for just about any of the "front runners" in this day and age.

With the advent of the internet, we're never going to have another Souter again--a supposed moderate who turns out to be liberal. People track potential SCOTUS judges and compile enormous amounts of information on them now. If we accept that "hard to confirm" means that we shouldn't nominate someone, then we are dooming ourselves to never have another truly liberal justice ever again. Show fear and reluctance to engage in a fight, and the lesson the opposition learns is that it can get its way by playing obstructionist.

Far better to pick the fight and win with extreme difficulty than to refuse to fight at all. The GOP can't continue to obstruct--it's an election year and it will seriously hurt them. They know that. They're bluffing. I think we should force them to expend more political capital fighting a REAL liberal, rather than just nominating a moderate and letting them off easy. The harder they're forced to fight (especially if they lose), the less money and less prestige they'll have available come 2010 elections. Know what I mean?

[stray cat]

17. Do you really want quotas for the supreme court? There are not enough progressive

supreme court members to have one that perfectly represents any major group. Would you really want a homosexual if it were a conservative or would a progressive better represent you?

[Lyric]

18. I answered that question already. Look at my responses to cali.

And the problem I have with your false dilemma is that you seem to think that there aren't any progressive justices who are also gay. I assure you, that is NOT the case. If there weren't ANY liberal GLBT justices, then yes, I'd rather see a liberal there than a gay conservative. But that's not a choice that anyone's being forced to make. There are well-qualified justices who are ALSO liberal AND gay.

All other things being equal (and they are)...I'd rather see a qualified, liberal minority (gay, black, whatever) than a qualified, liberal straight white male.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

31. Well, that says it all

n/t

[Smashcut]

36. "a homosexual"

:eyes:

And I bet you were cheering when Sotomayor was confirmed, she being the first Latina on the Supreme Court. Exciting and long overdue, wasn't it?

[Bluebear]

43. Lovely, ain't it?

:puke:

[liquid diamond]

60. What is wrong with calling gays homosexual?

That's what they are. Am I missing something?

[Zhade]

61. You're missing that referring to us as such narrows everything down to who we like to fuck.

And being gay is NOT solely about who we have sex with.

Think about it, and I think you'll understand.

[Bluebear]

64. Because we self-identify as gay, not the clinical "homosexual". Gay is who we love,not have sex with

[QC]

24. You've noticed that, too, eh? n/t

[Smashcut]

35. Isn't that amazing?!

[Bluebear]

44. .

[doc03]

8. I think Obama should pick a half black, half Hispanic,

transgendered, bisexual, atheist, radical socialist for the job. Whoever it is the Republicans will claim they are all of those anyway.

[thelordofhell]

13. Janet Napolitano

She's more than qualified.

[stray cat]

16. I prefer a solid justice - regardless of any race, religion or orientation

Although I could argue its time for a scientist to serve.....

[ShortnFiery]

19. President Obama may not even get around to repealing DADT before 2012, what makes you believe

that he'd nominate a GBLT person to the SC?

Remember he does not believe in Gay Marriage but Civil Unions?

[cali]

20. uh,he's been lousy on it, but guess what? President's can't repeal

laws passed by the Congress.

[mitchtv]

56. He can do a lot more

than he's done.

[Unvanguard]

48. He supports same-sex marriage, he just doesn't want to admit it.

He said as much when he was an Illinois state senator and didn't have national attention focused on him.

I don't know what he'll do this time around, but my strong suspicion is that Sotomayor will prove to be an LGBT rights ally on the Court, including a vote for the right side if/when the Prop. 8 case gets there. She seems a reliable liberal so far.

[Zhade]

62. Ah. More chess. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

NT!

[Unvanguard]

63. Al Gore did it too, and Bill Clinton, and even Dick Cheney.

And in Obama's case we have direct evidence.

[walldude]

22. Yes...

But even if they appointed one you would never know it. They have something called Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[gmoney]

23. Removed...

[Bluebear]

26. Thanks :)

[Toucano]

27. Probably not.

We've got better odds getting a skinhead confirmed at this point than an openly gay person.

[Orsino]

28. No. It's past time. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

29. with prop 8 going there soon the confirmation would be difficult

it might even give the wing nuts an excuse to filibuster



Then again, if the first nominee was filibustered then withdrew, it would almost be a free pass for the second nominee. I don't think they could get away with trying to pull that one twice.


Plus, there is a good chance Obama gets one more bite of that apple next year with Ginsburg.

[ruggerson]

33. So only straight justices should rule on marriage equality?

[Bluebear]

59. --

Honestly.

[QC]

68. Only white male heterosexuals are capable of objectivity.

Everyone else is preoccupied with pet issues.

[derby378]

30. I'm only interested in a GOOD Supreme Court Justice

Gay, straight, bisexual, or simply indifferent, it makes no difference to me. Can the judge follow the Constitution instead of trying to rewrite it? Can the judge act in the best interests of the American people and their general welfare? If so, that's the judge I'd be interested in seeing as a replacement for Stevens.

[ruggerson]

32. Since two of the most qualified on various "lists" are gay

why not be bold and courageous?

[Old Troop]

34. Could someone be all that at once?

[Bluebear]

37. No.

[Ysabel]

38. responding to the first reponse...

who knows / shrug...

and yeah it's time / however / if someone goes and announces it / it isn't gonna happen / not yet...

i don't even know if it'll ever happen within this system / maybe / yeah we have an african american pres. now / what did that take / like 300 years???

- so okay time has sped up somewhat maybe but still the way they move is like snail's pace we could land on another planet or several and make friends with them and sit around arguing for several more hundred years about whether those aliens could serve too before who knows...


edited: typo...

p.s. adding this system is really screwed up / not equal at all / no where near / so completely loaded AGAINST equality / that we REALLY should shuck it / imo...

[JCMach1]

39. Time for another minority methinks...

It will be a good way to defang some of the GOP attacks.

How about an Asian, or African American woman...?

Any on the short list?

[Bluebear]

40. GLBT people ARE a minority.

[JCMach1]

41. True, but do we have such a candidate this time???

Barney Frank maybe?... although he turns 70 this year...

Anyone in the judiciary?

But maybe at the end of the day we should go with the smallest minority on the court... A PROGRESSIVE

That would be change I could believe in as well.

[Bluebear]

70. Pamela Karlan.

[jmowreader]

45. I'd be happy if we just got a genuine under-50-yo LIBERAL Justice!

Forget this bipartisanship crap--bipartisanship is Republican code for "a Democrat doing exactly what we want."

Once we get past the Liberal part and the "less than 50" part, I don't care about his/her other attributes: the justice could look like the furry blue guy who was Secretary of Mutant Affairs in the last X-Men film for all I care. He or she could be gay, straight, both, asexual, Asian, Latino, Slavic--ANYTHING.

[cbdo2007]

46. I hope we don't even know the person's sexual orientation.

Seems fair enough since that doesn't have anything to do with how well they judge.

[Unvanguard]

49. If the person is married, or in a public relationship, we will know it.

Since the press is not going to completely ignore the candidate's family.

[Unvanguard]

47. It's always been "time" in abstract, and it's probably politically doable at this point.

There are some lesbians among the candidates that have been speculated about, and there are rumors about Elena Kagan, who is very likely to be the nominee.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. Is it "time"? Absolutely. Will the "Fierce Advocate" for the LGBT community take the opportunity?

He won't even step up to the bully pulpit and ASK congress to repeal DADT, much less demand that they do so. It's not politically expedient at the moment (whafuck?). If I were a gay servicemember who had to stay closeted, or a gay American who wanted to serve this country by way of military service, I'd be pissed at the very notion.

In his SOTU, he gave short shrift to gay Americans by devoting one single sentence to DADT, and that was only to say he wanted to WORK with congress (this year) to get it repealed, not REPEAL IT THIS YEAR. It pisses me off to know I was excited by that one sentence; I even posted on DU about it that night.

Time? Yes. Happ'nin? Nah.

[The Gunslinger]

51. It's time for the best Supreme Court Justice that can be found

[QC]

52. Sorry, but Obama is far more likely to nominate a Republican than a GLBT person.

We all know that, whether we will say it openly or not.

[Smarmie Doofus]

53. Past time. Kenji Yoshino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Yoshino


>>>>>Kenji Yoshino is a legal scholar and the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law.<1> Formerly, he was the Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale Law School. His work involves Constitutional law, anti-discrimination law, civil and human rights, as well as law and literature, and Japanese law and society. He is actively involved with several social and legal issues and is also an author.
Contents



Education

Yoshino graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy (1987) and Harvard, obtaining a B.A. in English literature summa cum laude in 1991. Between undergraduate years Yoshino worked as an aide for various members of the Japanese Parliament. He moved on to Magdalen College at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, attaining a M.Sc. in management studies (industrial relations) in 1993. In 1996 he earned a J.D. from Yale, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.>>>>>>

Will it happen? No. Not while President Transformational is doing the picking.

Should it happen? Of course.

[TexasObserver]

54. Yes. A gay, liberal, Asian female atheist would be perfect. No, I'm not kidding.

The court needs to be more like America. Its composition is ridiculous. There should never be more than 2-3 justices who share the same religion. More women. More minorities. An openly gay member. An atheist member.

[Bluebear]

55. 4 whole recommendations!

[QC]

57. QUOTAS ARE RONG!1!!1!!!!

[tammywammy]

58. Elena Kagan is the "apparent" front runner.

"Apparent" because it comes from the MSM and there's really no telling.

[VMI Dem]

66. I would be shocked if this gets widespread support on this site.

[Bluebear]

69. Hey, it got a whopping four recommendations!