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.
"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