They can pretend to be magnanimous by not opposing a judge based on sexual orientation because they know (and we know) they're going to vehemently oppose whomever Obama picks regardless.

They don't have to deal with the repercussions of saying "we oppose this person because she's gay" when they can say "we oppose this person because she's a liberal activist judge."

Sessions is already walking back his statement. Via HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/republicans-gay-scotus-ju_n_199079.html

Argh!!! Steve, don't you see through this? They WANT Obama's pick to be gay, so that in 2012, they can go around hollering about how Obama is furthering the "gay agenda" and that only a vote for the GOP will return America to "family values." It's a ploy!

Read between the lines. If a homosexual is nominated to the bench, chances are they're a liberal. So the right wouldn't HAVE to object to the nominee based on their sexual orientation, that nominee will (in their eyes) de facto be too liberal for their approval. They'll attack on every other conceivable front, blow up their history in law or their personal history (remember, gays are child molestore, every right-winger knows that, so if they won't attack based on their sexual orientation, well, I'm sure there's a former babysitter or friend of the children who might have a suppressed memory or three for the right price), then they'll wipe their hands dramatically and say with a smile "What? We didn't call him/her a faggot/dyke, did we?"

It's just positioning-- their screaming about the eventual nominee will be because s/he is a Legislating-from-the-Bench Ultra-Liberal Radical, not anything personal like sexual orientation. Heavens, no... the GOP isn't a bunch of fanatics or anything, just terribly concerned about the integrity of the SCOTUS.

And the fact that they work on multiple levels & timelines still seems to escape most of us on the left, unfortunately.

Some commenters already caught that the conservepubs will oppose a gay nominee anyway and could use that for "advertising." But interesting for Steve to reference what FOTF should say about the military: "The issue is not their sexual orientation, which should never come up. It's whether they are a good soldier or not."
Apparently Obama isn't meeting that expectation either: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html. The author acknowledges that Obama has to enforce existing law (& note BC's involvement), but also says Obama could issue an EO saying not to investigate orientation in the first place. It's a good read, anyway.

"Their sexual orientation "should never come up," he continued. "It's not even pertinent to the equation."

" . . . because we don't want to get stuck with a position that could force us to demand Roberts's resignation."

Tim Gunn for the Supreme Court!

Who could object to that?

"The issue is not their sexual orientation, which should never come up. It's whether they are a good soldier or not."

Of course, by our definition they cannot be good soldiers if they are gay!

As far as supreme court justices, we do not believe that approval or disapproval should be based upon whether they are queers. However, it would be a disqualifier if we believe that they would be promoting the gay agenda.

Just to keep this discussion in perspective, my good friend Jeff Sessions did say that it would be better to have a white lesbian than a black or latina female.

Maybe everyone should get together and agree on a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for SCOTUS nominees. Teh Gay is soooo icky.......

I'm just savoring the fact that sexual orientation has now become as much or more a wedge issue for the Right as it used to be for the Left.

Who'd'a thunk it?

BTW1: Steve put up a thread here earlier at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018085.php, and used the same link before that, about that Army linguist Lt. Dan Choi.

2: Really, there's some hint that Roberts of SCOTUS is actually gay/ish?

It's called a wedge issue, because it divides. We are so used to seeing them used against us that we don't recognize it when they get used against Republicans. Right now, a big bunch of GOP leaders are saying "Oh no, we would NEVER oppose someone BECAUSE they are gay! It's not like BEING gay is their fault, or EVIL in and of itself." Meanwhile, the GOP base is saying, "WTF! -- you have been telling us that it's a sinful lifestyle choice and we have to hold the line. You must have sold out to those Washington DC ways."
When your foes are arguing amongst themselves, we should help them argue. I suggest that we all send letters to the editors of all the newspapers in Alabama saying, "I think that Jeff Sessions is a great American Patriot because he is signalling that he is committed to treating gays and lesbians equally -- I am sure that, in his heart, he supports same-sex marriage and the repeal of DADT. Come out, Jeff, and follow through."

So Session's "America" is composed of himself and his constituents. Someone seriously needs to get out more.

What are "gay tendencies"?

Is Sessions only willing to support monimees who are just mostly gay?

And of course Sessions and other Republicans won't directly attack any future nominee based on their orientation.

That's why they have talk radio, Fox News, and Swiftboaters, to do the dirty work.

The view from the center right...

As the voice of where the populace of our great nation is politically, the center right, it is important that President Obama understand that his first supreme court nomination could provide healing or division of the wounds that have been inflicted on our nation by his election.

The center right body politic of our country needs a nominee who will not further divide. We need a nominee who send the message that there are no quotas for the supreme court. We need a nominee who will show that we are truly a post-racial nation.

In the future, there may be a time to nominate a gay or a woman or a minority. In today's divided atmosphere, it is imperative that Obama show that he is bipartisan and select a white male nominee.

To further heal the divisions that the democrats have created, it would be wise of Obama to select his nominee from a list provided by the moderate legal group, The Federalist Society. Obama would go a long way toward healing divisions he has caused with Evangelicals by having Pat Roberton approve the nominee before he is submitted to the senate.

This is no different than anti-civil rights attitudes in the 1960s. I can remember hearing one senator (who is still in the Senate) stating his opposition to the nomination of Thurgood Marshall "not because he is a Negro" [although not quite pronounced like that] "but because he is an integrationist." [The quote is from memory, but I'm confident it is quite close.]

What are "gay tendencies"? -2Manchu

It's a bigoted way of describing homosexuality as a behavior. They wouldn't say someone had black tendencies or female tendencies.

It's just Sessions' was of slipping in that he thinks being gay is a choice.

We're missing the Luntz memo.

But won't the morale of the Supreme Court suffer if they have to shower with a gay justice? Or something like that.

I heard something completely different from Sen. Sessions. He said he wouldn't object to someone who had "gay tendencies", but then followed it up with something to the effect that the test will be the "morals" of the person. All the good Christians know that you can love the gays as long as they don't act on their tendencies...

Gay tendencies = tolerable

Gay (non-celibate) = burn in hell, baby (and definately not suited to be a SC Justice.

I don't care which justices are gay or which ones aren't--they all look hot in their ankle-length black frocks.

But seriously, FRC would oppose a gay justice with a "pro-gay ideology"? I'm queer as a three-dollar bill, and I have no idea what a pro-gay ideology is. Can someone enlighten me? Do the current justices have a pro-hetero ideology?

"...has no problem with GOP Senator Jeff Sessions' claim today that he's open to a Supreme Court nominee with "gay tendencies.""

Guess that means poor Lindsay Grahamcracker will never have a shot at SCOTUS.

Hmmm.....Elena Sotomayor is single, yes?

Isn't this part of the whisper campaign?

Or is there another person who they want to out but want to do it while appearing openminded and compassionate?

When two Republicans do anything in the same week, there is a reason. And it involves dishonesty.

What are "gay tendencies"?
-2Manchu

'gay tendencies' is when you only suck off guys who aren't gay either.

you pal,
blake

What a load of crap. It won't be an issue until it is an issue. Is there any doubt that the reliable right wing religionists won't scream like banshees. They'll call it 'significant levels of constituent opposition', I predict. This is the GOP all over - too stupid to know how stupid they are.

"It was a surprise this week to see leading conservatives take a firm position: if President Obama nominates a gay Supreme Court justice, they won't object on the grounds of sexual orientation."

Because they're all about to be outed this weekend (I'm talking to yoouu Charlie), and if they're not, they see they can't avoid it if they continue to bash teh BLTG (my personal way to remember all four groups).

"Tim Gunn for the Supreme Court!

Who could object to that?"
---------------------------
Not me!

________________

"" . . . because we don't want to get stuck with a position that could force us to demand Roberts's resignation.""

Oh SNAP.

"Gay tendencies." That's Larry Craig, pure and simple (and gay). Married, living the hetero "life." Did his duty with a woman to get some chillin's. Good "Christian," I suppose.

Paraphrasing Bette Davis, "What a crock"

Well the tighty righties stopped being anti black when Clarence Thomas rolled into town. So I guess they'll stop being anti gay when a younger, crazier, gay disciple of Robert Bork is nominated.

[It's still legal - and always God-honoring - to air messages like the following. (See Ezekiel 3:18-19.) In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the "separation of raunch and state"!]

In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big "signs" that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the "days of Lot" (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide "sign" (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven't accomplished! Gays couldn't have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture - you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint - San Andreas - may soon get a big jolt out of what's going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!