I see a Fox News poll in the making:

"If Obama nominates an admitted gay pedophile should the Senate:

(a) endorse the nominee's personal behavior with a unanimous resolution, or

(b) urge their colleagues in the House to commence impeachment hearings."

I refuse to take seriously any group that cites a magical sky faerie or a book that starts out with two naked people and a talking snake as their source of knowledge.

And when they talk about "homosexual behavior," just what are they talking about? I'm gay, so when I get up in the morning, have breakfast, go to work, work, come home, read, write, watch TV, blog, and on the weekends do some yardwork or go out to dinner with friends, exactly which of those activities constitutes "homosexual behavior"? Or are they suddenly "homosexual" because I'm doing them, and when presumably straight people do them, they're not?

Unless, of course, they're talking about sex. Well, these Focus on the Family folks seem awfully obsessed with the sexual activities of a lot of people they don't know to the point that they're willing to demonize an entire community over it. Wow, they think more about gay sex than any gay person I know.

They're the ones with issues, not me.

I don't know, RuPaul is really no-nonsense judge on RuPaul's Dragrace. I could see a Justice RuPaul handling the lawyers pretty well..."two queens stand before me, ladies, lipsync...for your life!"

Conservatives could support a gay justice, as long as that gay justice thinks that sodomy between consenting adults should be a crime, that gays should have no legal rights to form long-term relationships, and that being gay is a form of moral perversion.

They are looking for a gay version of Clarence Thomas.

Uh, I thought we already had a gay Supreme Court Chief Justice.

"They are looking for a gay version of Clarence Thomas."

Larry Craig?

I heartily agree with FOTF: President Obama should be held to the same high standards as the Pope, when selecting those who judge us lesser mortals. . .

what changed in the meantime was that they realized Pamela Karlan or Kathleen Sullivan would totally kick ass as a fearlessly progressive justice.

to the public they sell the problem as "openly gay," but their real issue would be with finally having someone who is "openly progressive." after a long successful campaign to debase the term "liberal," they want progressives to stay in the closet.

Last May, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he'd be open to a nominee with "gay tendencies."

So an interest in musical theater (or being good at softball) isn't disqualifying in and of itself?

Ok, I keep seeing this question/issue pop up. I assume that means someone on the short list is gay. Is this person closeted, or are we talking about an openly gay candidate? That would probably be meaningful when considering the politics of nominating a gay person to the Supreme Court.

I'll bet there have been gay SC justices before now. It shouldn't make a bit of difference. Gay doesn't translate on paper very well.

Man, Focus on the Family is soooo gay.

I assume that means someone on the short list is gay

Both Karlan and Sullivan have been reported in various sources to be gay. Karlan told Politico that she "is counted among the LGBT crowd" - and interestingly coy answer. Sullivan has declined to comment on the issue, but there is no question Sullivan is among the leading minds on LGBT legal issues, having written major amicus briefs in both Bowers v Hardwick and Lawrence v Texas.

Fundamentalists have really gone soft. Time was they openly believed that Catholics were the spawn of the devil, but now they've allowed them to not only be appointed to the Supreme Court, but to be a large majority of the justices, and not a peep!

/snark

I'm with JM @ 3:25. Is the objection by conservatives that there would be 2 gay justices? I could see their homophobia sparking all kinds of curious questions...
And what might those two justices be doing behind closed doors? Are they naked under their robes? etc.

I assume that means someone on the short list is gay.

Or they're just gearing up for the usual conservative whisper campaign that any strong female public official must be a lesbian.

Not for nothing, but *cough*, isn't there already a gay Supreme Court justice - and I don't mean Sotomayor.

I thought we already had a gay Supreme Court Chief Justice.

William Howard Taft was pretty queenly at times, but I don't think he ever actually came out. Other than him, I don't know who you might mean.

and i can't miss a chance to make my recurring pitch.

The short list should be:

Pamela Karlan
Pamela Karlan
Harold Koh
and Pamela Karlan.

I completely agree, "gay people are immoral."

After all gay sex, at least male gay sex is right there in the commandments.

Exodus 20: 17

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass....

Need I say more????

It really is odd when you get into a discussion with social conservatives regarding gay people, as they really DO seem to think homosexuality is all about wearing assless leather pants and having perverted sex all the time, while forcing straights to watch. Like they think Justice Homo might start reaching for Alito's crotch during the middle of a case.

And yet, when you point to actual gay people who don't act this way, they'll insist that these are the "good ones" and it's all the other gays who are the problem. And so it is with all conservativism: It only works in theory, and even the theory is dumb.

Of course, were he to nominate an Atheist FOTF wouldn't be even half this receptive.

rea, I believe JM is referring to the current Chief Justice.

I assume Focus on the Family was similarly concerned about "sexual morality" and "character" when Clarence Thomas was up for confirmation? Even if you discount the allegations of sexual harassment (which I don't), it was undisputed that he was an eager consumer of pornography.

Tim H nailed it at 3:23.

So glad that since moral rectitude and specifically, sexual behavior, are so important to FOTF that we can look forward to their loud denunciations and opposition to Senator Vitter, Senator Ensign, Newt Gingrich, etc., etc., etc.

As a fairly average gay woman I think these people are nuts. No one knows my sexual identity while I shop for groceries, take my nieces out to eat or to school or anything else. Stop worrying about other people's sex lives and concentrate on your own. There are several Senators in DC whom I wonder about....SC anyone?

Steve: "Last May, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he'd be open to a nominee with 'gay tendencies.'"

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

"The centrist Virginian told Ezra Klein that it "appears" that McConnell "either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand the basic underlying premise of what this bill puts in place."

Upton Sinclair nailed it early on in the last century.

"A man will not understand that which his salary requires him not to understand."

The thing about this is that, aside from independent groups' fulminating, I don't see how the issue can be addressed in the confirmation hearings, or subsequent debate. Are Senators willing to ask a candidate their sexual orientation, as if this were a) any of their business, or b) in any way relevant to one's ability as a jurist?

Who you f**l "lies at the heart of personal morality?" Wow, so if someone is hetero but likes to drink and go fight regular, kills someone, robs someone, do drugs, and any number of other bad things - those are less bad than being gay? But if you are a good upstanding citizen who happens to be gay your entire morality is based on sex. This says a whole lot about them and NOTHING about they people the vilify.

Seriously, when will these guys start getting ignored?

I have visit a hundreds of website but no one can give information as much as yours,great posting!thank you!

After reading this, I'm inclined to think maybe she is:

http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/scooters_report/2010/04/lesbian-supreme-court-justice.html