We did. In 1967.
That wasn’t enough. Enough is everyone seeing, explicitly, that they have a chance. Everyone.
Yeah, but keep in mind, an originalist interpretation of the Constitution clearly states each year of her experience only counts as 3/5 of a Drunky McDateRape year.
I guess that’s where we have our fundamental disagreement. I don’t think a gay person, for example, would think that the U.S. Senate would reject him or her on that basis in 2022. Sure, some conservative Republicans might, but they would reject any liberal, and would embrace any gay conservative who would overrule Roe. I just don’t see that as an issue today.
Yeah, some guy in a hollow in WV might talk about that queer getting on the Supreme Court; I take that point. But Senators? I don’t see it.
But we don’t know, and we can’t know (and more importantly, a gay teen doesn’t and can’t know) until someone’s actually nominated and confirmed. That’s the point.
You vastly underestimate the extent to which the Republican party viscerally hates us.
Here is his quote:
Are you watching the same senate hearings as we are watching?
Only one will be chosen. I’d guess there are a few hundred qualified candidates. So whoever gets the nod, we are excluding more than 99% of qualified candidates.
Boy, i think it’s likely.
Sure. Absolutely. Agreed. But this is done after supposedly fair consideration, and if we agree on this point, without consideration of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Every job opening eventually excludes everyone but one. This is talking about an ex ante exclusion of people based on race and gender.
Imagine a black gay conservative otherwise in the mold of Scalia who declares an opposition to Roe and an opposition to Obergefell, stating that he would just move to a state that legalized gay marriage, to replace Breyer. You think Republican Senators won’t support that person?
If Mayor Pete had been a conservative, would they have supported him? ( I realize it’s not quite the same).
I suspect they might have. Just like they overlook race and gender if a conservative is involved. While many (most?) are also bigots, they’ll give that a pass to get someone who is anti-lib.
So then what conclusion do we reach from that? The opposition isn’t to race, gender, or sexual orientation, but to political position. That, I think, is still acceptable.
And it goes the other way as well. What are the objections from the Dems to conservative black judges, male and female? It’s conservatism, not racism.
Of course they wouldn’t support them.
I feel like it is reasonable to consider race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Also childhood socioeconomic status, region of the country, ethnicity, number of generations removed from immigration, and various other bits of “personal history” that contribute to a prospective judge’s perspective.
I don’t think an unqualified person should be considered. But once we narrow the field to those few hundred qualified candidates, i think it’s legitimate to ask each new justice to bring something different to the court.
For instance, i was delighted not only that Sotomayor was Hispanic (high time) but also that she had experience in patent law, something the court had been weak on. Jackson is a black woman (again, high time) but maybe even more important, had experience as a defender, again, a perspective currently lacking on the court.
This is my thought as well. Experiential diversity is the best kind, which is why Judge Brown’s time as a trial attorney and judge is so appealing to me.
Yep.
Look as long as you only pick well qualified candidates from whatever “pool” you have chosen, it is fine.
No one is suggesting Jackson isn’t qualified.
I don’t think such a person would ever get considered by the Republican party. I think anyone who tried to put such a person forward would be torn apart by other Republicans as a RINO.
No. I know they just overlooked EVERYTHING on Trump, but I think the majority of Christians who apparently felt OK supporting Trump would find “gay” to be just too much.
It makes no sense. Pete Buttgieg is 10X the man Trump is and about 1000 times more moral, but “oh my god he’s gay” would be too much for Christians and conservatives.
Makes no sense, but is true.