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."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Is America Ready for a
May 14, 2009 - 15:50 ET by Chris Norman"Is America Ready for a Gay Supreme Court Justice?"
Yes, indeedy! His name is Perez Hilton! He has experience as a judge and he'll be absolutely fab...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Well... our constitution
May 14, 2009 - 16:44 ET by MrModerateWell... our constitution does not require that a SCJ be a lawyer or a judge. So... bring on Perez.. he is qualified under the Constitution!
Tax and spend is bad but borrow and spend is worse.
There's nothing more
May 15, 2009 - 12:49 ET by Chris NormanIt's dismaying when one's attempted silly humor is met, not with a chuckle, but with serious analysis.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Gay Supreme Court Justice
May 14, 2009 - 21:07 ET by allanfHow does she know we haven't had one already?
I wouldn't think closeted
May 15, 2009 - 12:45 ET by Chris NormanI wouldn't think closeted gays count in the quota system of doing these things.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Gay nominees
May 14, 2009 - 15:49 ET by KC MulvillePersonally, I don't have a problem if the person is gay. I have a problem if the person is selected because he or she is gay. It's one thing to say that perfectly qualified nominees are being barred from serving because of their demographics, and that you're willing to nominate someone despite their profile. It's another thing to say that you're nominating someone for their profile, despite their qualifications.
The Left was infuriated about Clarence Thomas, by the same premise. They argued that he was selected only because he was a black conservative. But in the process, they showed how political they were, since they got the demographic they wanted, but not the ideology. They only care about the demographics when it serves their political purpose.
If the person is otherwise qualified, their orientation doesn't bother me. But they have to be qualified.
Clarence Thomas (slight hijack)
May 14, 2009 - 16:12 ET by Kingfish17If anyone who reads NB hasn't read "Clarence Thomas - My Grandfather's Son" then I highly recomend that you do so. His story is amazing.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Grandfathers-Son-Clarence-Thomas/dp/B001Q3KLZY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242334947&sr=8-1
(Sorry for not posting these links in a shorter form.)
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Hey, if that's their
May 14, 2009 - 16:23 ET by motherbeltHey, if that's their criterion, maybe they could pick a gay black or Asian or Latino woman....go for the hat trick!
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Hat trick
May 14, 2009 - 18:14 ET by KC MulvilleI believe that there is a "hat trick" available: Wanda Sykes.
Re hat trick
May 14, 2009 - 18:51 ET by slickwillie2001It's a four-legged stool, you need the empathy component. Not sure Wanda has the empathy. What if the Bamster really goes off the reservation and chooses Oprah Winfrey?
Well.. look what we got..
May 14, 2009 - 16:43 ET by MrModerateWell.. look what we got.. the Justice who doesn't ask questions and just stares into space. Clarence needs to retire.
Tax and spend is bad but borrow and spend is worse.
Careful
May 14, 2009 - 17:10 ET by Kingfish17Don't let Janeane Garofalo see those comments.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
"Well.. look what we got..
May 14, 2009 - 17:19 ET by danebramage"Well.. look what we got.. the Justice who doesn't ask questions and just stares into space."
It's called thinking. Look into it.
Thomas possesses the best legal mind on the Court, and that includes Scalia.
Nah
May 14, 2009 - 18:22 ET by KC MulvilleClarence Thomas is just admitting the obvious reality: oral arguments rarely matter. Other justices are on record that the oral arguments can only kill a case, but the cases are won in the briefs. Unlike lower courts, by the time the case has gotten to the Supreme Court, all of the issues are already on the table. There are no surprises, really, by the time it gets to the Supreme Court. The oral arguments are just the public recitation of what the justices have already read, and have been wrangling over in private with their clerks, for quite some time already.
Haven't we had one
May 14, 2009 - 16:49 ET by Rhymes With RightEver since David Souter was confirmed by the US Senate?
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
Regardless of who BO
May 14, 2009 - 16:50 ET by keeper23Regardless of who BO appoints, the media will portray it as the most brilliant, smartest pick in the history of Supreme Court appointees.
"Never sniff a gift fish"
what in the
May 14, 2009 - 16:53 ET by botghellz does gay have to do with SCOTUS?
this would be the #1 stupid assertion of the century if it were not for the michelle obama in the top 100 bs.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I thought the gay Judge is
May 14, 2009 - 17:09 ET by eaglewingz08I thought the gay Judge is retiring now. Has Souter's seat turned into a 'gay seat'?
And Souter was somewhat femme, so I guess there were two female Justice seats with him on SCOTUS (three when Justice O'Connor was on the Court). No wonder Justice Ginsberg is apoplectic now that her hairdressing metrosexual buddy on the Court is retiring. Somehow Breyer just doesn't cut the mustard when Ginsberg has to dish. I don't see how the percentages work out, if a gay woman is on the bench, although from the female point she represents 50 percent of women, from the gay side she only represents four percent of women. As one of nine judges, whe would represent 11 percent of the judges, so she is over representing gays/lesbians by 2 1/2 times, and with two women on the court, women would be underrepresented by two judges. Of course, if the Court were a legislature, being 'representative' of populations might have some functionality, but the only thing a Judge is supposed to do is be an expert on the constitution. Fancy that. A Judge is supposed to properly analyse the constitution's application to the cases before it. How the sexual partners or liasions the Judge has, or doesn't have, is relevant to that analysis, is a mystery, since the word gay or homosexual doesn't appear once in the document (nor I fear does the word abortion). Maybe the newsprograms should ask, is America ready for a mormon Justice? A pedophile Justice? (After all Rep Hastings said pedophilia should be a protected class under his anti discrimination and hate crimes bill). How about an infant Justice? Why discriminate against the young, that's prejudice? How about an illegal immigrant justice? Why discriminate in favor of the native born and naturalized? That's xenophobic! Why stop at gay, why not put the first transexual justice on the map? A transexual gay or lesbian person of color who illegally emigrated from the Middle East? Why the identity politics are endless. Then that person's authenticity would be unquestioned and we won't even have to know how that person views the piddling questions of constitutional analysis.
Just to cover the bases
May 14, 2009 - 17:05 ET by sevenHow about a gay Muslim. Wouldn't some one familiar with American law just be a little too stiff?
Yes, from what I
May 14, 2009 - 17:27 ET by danebramageYes, from what I understand, familiarity with sharia law is going to become necessary very soon.
But what I really want to know is, where is the sushi chef representation on the Court? To my knowledge, there has never been a sushi chef Supreme Court Justice. I find that appalling in this day and age. How is a Justice supposed to empathize with trendy New York liberals if he/she/he-she/it never prepared their sushi for them?
demographics
May 15, 2009 - 01:03 ET by m1xramYou may be correct, a friend sent me a link to Muslim Demographics. See what you think.
Wanda Sykes
May 14, 2009 - 17:20 ET by Red JeepJustice Wanda Sykes, a black female homo. She makes up 3 minority groups. And she is a new father too! Barf
GMTA
May 14, 2009 - 18:28 ET by KC MulvilleSorry - I responded above before I saw this post. You were here first. You win!
Oh well
May 14, 2009 - 19:26 ET by Red JeepYou are right, GMTA. Maybe Anita Hill should be considered too! To balance Clarence Thomas....
It may come to pass
May 14, 2009 - 17:23 ET by mrbillIm hearing that DHS Secretary Napolitano is the leading candidate. So that would get the Lizzy vote in a hurry.
Get to check 2 boxes with that one...female and lizzy.
She looks like quite a catch.
Mmm, Janet...just mmm...
May 14, 2009 - 17:30 ET by danebramageMmm, Janet...just mmm...
Can you picture
May 14, 2009 - 17:45 ET by general companyThis woman in the room full of fairly sharp lawyers. I think I could make her talk a circle in just 2 questions.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Sexual orientation should not even be part of this.
May 14, 2009 - 17:30 ET by ThalpySexual orientation should not even be part of this. Competence and allegiance should be the concerns.
morals
May 15, 2009 - 01:27 ET by m1xramJudges must decide between right and wrong. It's my opinion that if people are committed to doing the wrong thing in their personal life it will probably be difficult for them to make the right decisions as a judge.
Of course, that's dependent
May 15, 2009 - 12:49 ET by balboaOf course, that's dependent on your view of what's right and wrong.
moral relativity
May 16, 2009 - 02:46 ET by m1xramI go with the Bible for right and wrong as do many Americans. Without a guide you'll end us with moral relativism which means everyone's viewpoint is valid including murderers and rapists.
And there's the New Testament, see 1 Corinthians 6:9-20.
I really think Obama's
May 14, 2009 - 17:51 ET by ThisnThatI really think Obama's going to have to nominate a European for SCOTUS. You know, get aways from that Constitution thing, start bringing in international law? Fits his agenda perfectly.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
...
May 14, 2009 - 18:30 ET by EugeniaA gay supreme court justice? That's sooo yesterday. How about a chinese transexual named Pat who sometimes wears women's clothes beneath his robe and sometimes male clothes? I mean, how stupid are these lame stream media morons?! Ugh!!!! the stupidity!
The msm will tell O
May 14, 2009 - 19:06 ET by bigtimerThe msm will tell O what/who he had better nominate....as if he wasn't going to please them anyway no matter who it was....we can be sure of one thing, they will have problems with paying their share of taxes in the past or they will not qualify, no matter how far left they are.
Funny how a party in power makes a difference with how the msm reports isn't it?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
tired of liberal lies Who
May 14, 2009 - 21:04 ET by stunnedtired of liberal lies
Who cares as long as he she or whatever is a conservative?
Gay Supreme Court Justice?
May 14, 2009 - 21:21 ET by balboaGay Supreme Court Justice? Only one who finishes his assenting opinions with "Fabuloussss!"
How does sexual preference
May 15, 2009 - 10:31 ET by b4m4wyHow does sexual preference mean a person is qualified for SCOTUS?
Since size 7 shoe for women is the average, they better put that on the list too
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Ronald Reagan
nominee
May 15, 2009 - 12:38 ET by rowdygirlI thought they were about finding the right people based on qualifications? Ok here goes.. if they can find this person, they'll have it made
a black, female lesbian, with adopted AND naturally delivered children, with a "life partner" who alternates between being a stay at home wife and mother, and also has a thriving career. It would help if the nominee were handicapped in some way, in order to cover that arena and score extra points. If she could be intelligent but somehow not pose a threat, be able to bow and scrape as needed, and be willing to flip to any side that Obama chooses, she will be the perfect candidate.