The Republicans' anti-gay litmus test for the Supreme Court
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Steve Benen posted yesterday on Republican Sen. John Thune's comment that a gay nominee for the Supreme Court just wouldn't be acceptable. Other Republicans, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, aren't nearly so dogmatic in their bigotry, but I suspect that Thune's position is a pretty common one on the right. Republicans may talk merit, but they are the real practitioners of identity politics, the ones who use identity, or identities they don't like, to divide America into demographics of "us" and "them."
It's disgusting, of course, not to mention deeply hypocritical, and it's pretty much business as usual on the right.
Steve Benen posted yesterday on Republican Sen. John Thune's comment that a gay nominee for the Supreme Court just wouldn't be acceptable. Other Republicans, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, aren't nearly so dogmatic in their bigotry, but I suspect that Thune's position is a pretty common one on the right. Republicans may talk merit, but they are the real practitioners of identity politics, the ones who use identity, or identities they don't like, to divide America into demographics of "us" and "them."
It's disgusting, of course, not to mention deeply hypocritical, and it's pretty much business as usual on the right.
Labels: Jeff Sessions, John Thune, U.S. Supreme Court
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
12:58 AM
8 Comments:
First, the SCOTUS already has a gay judge, Mr. Souter. He's closeted and discreet and quite possibly celibate, but who are we kidding?
Second, I doubt the objection is, "Oh, he or she is gay, no way." A qualified gay individual should be confirmed, but if during the hearing process it is determined there are strong elements of a radical gay agenda on the nominee's part, then it is perfectly fine for any Senator to say "wait a minute." You all felt Bork had an "agenda" 22 years ago and stopped him.
Marriage NEVER should have been declared a CONSTITUTIONAL right. It was an overreach by the Court to correct the otherwise offensive ban on interracial marriages in some states.
By
Anonymous, at 6:44 AM
A lot of your argument hinges on just what you would consider to be a "radical gay agenda." That's an emotionally charged phrase that can mean almost anything and certainly will mean something different to everyone.
Just what is a "gay agenda" radical or not? Doesn't that imply something like a cohesive like-mindedness or group objective that can't be shown to exist? It certainly implies a stereotype because all homosexual people would then have to share something outside of homosexuality and I don't think that can be established.
For some people, the simple wish to be left alone to enjoy the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness would be a "gay agenda." For others, to get the government to cease to illegally establish an official religious view of same sex love would be agenda enough to warrant exclusion.
Then again, "Gay Agenda," for some folks, is a code phrase for some "invasion of the body snatchers" paranoid sci-fi scenario including the wanton seduction and conversion of children.
It can easily be argued therefore that there is an American agenda inherent in our founding philosophy and documents that is quite congruent with what some might call a gay agenda and to those conservatives that like strict government controls on private, consensual behavior; equal protection under the law might seem pretty radical. You know, the constitutional provision that allows people to enter into contracts regardless of who they might be in love with?
So it's hard to see what kind of person you would not accept on the basis of your perceptions of his or her homosexuality. Care to expatiate?
For the record, let me ask you how gay is too gay and while we're at it, how heterosexual is too heterosexual?
By
Capt. Fogg, at 8:53 AM
I'll answer your questions with a couple of more questions. Bork, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and others, possess, for some, a too conservative radical agenda. Can you define that, please? How conservative is too conservative?
By
Anonymous, at 9:24 AM
Don't be evasive - there is a Republican party and a Republican platform and Republican think tanks that produce opinions that influence decisions, but you'd like me to believe there is a gay party with a gay agenda without telling anyone what it is or is about or why it would have any influence on judicial interpretation of the law.
Bad try at false equivalence as a distractive fallacy.
There may be gay people with agendas, but unless you have evidence of a gay agenda that is separate and unique to gay people and has a substantial following amongst them, I'll have to conclude you're not looking for a conversation, but a platform on which to pose as someone with something worthwhile to say when it's just the same old self righteous bullshit where you decide other people's suitability based on criteria you can't discuss and authority you don't have.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 1:31 PM
Google "Queer Nation" and look at their agenda.
Look, if Obama nominates a qualified judge who happens to be gay, then fine. And there should be an up or down vote in the Senate -- no filibuster crap from the Republicans (if they could even manage it).
But to nominate a gay person simply because he or she is gay would be a disgrace. I don't think Obama wants to do such a thing, but it is rumored (maybe incorrectly) that he is being pressured to do so. I've even read that Obama (and far be it from me to defend him) has been called homophobic. And what the Hell does that mean? Does it mean he doesn't like gay people? I doubt it. Does it mean he might be uncomfortable at a gay bar? Perhaps, and so what.
I expect a conservative prersident like Bush to nominate a conservative, and a liberal president like Obama to nominate a liberal. I may not like it, but I'm certainly well aware of who won the election. All of that being said, it would be helpful if liberals (some, not all) could end the polics of victimhood.
By
Anonymous, at 3:22 PM
I don't have a clue as to what you mean by "liberal" and I'm sure you don't either, but you can Google yourself until you get hair on your palms and you still can't prove "Queer Nation" speaks for anyone but its members.
You're beginning to smell of desperation and it would be nice if you and your party could stop crying "victim" for an hour or two. Complaining about persecution has become the only cohesive "agenda" of the Republican party.
The word "Agenda" is key - if you were talking about some group you belonged to, it would be a platform, a plan, a philosophy or a principle, but when you worry so much about whether someone is wearing lace panties under his robes, it becomes an "Agenda."
If there is any "agenda" here, it's yours.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 10:37 AM
What if the nominee is a member of Queer Nation? You're too smart to continue being so evasive, Fogg.
By
Anonymous, at 11:03 AM
Spoken like a real practitioner of identity politics. I'm sure we could both find some group we wouldn't want a Supreme Court justice to be part of, but your list of homosexual hypotheticals isn't what this is about, is it?
It's about your perception of a "gay agenda" and your unwillingness to explain what that is.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 7:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home