Following up on an earlier item, at least one high-profile Republican senator announced he doesn't want to see President Obama nominate a gay American for the Supreme Court.The problem with Steve's question is at follows: he asked about thinking people. You see the flaw there.[C]onservative leaders have warned the nomination of a gay or lesbian justice could complicate Obama's effort to confirm a replacement for Souter, and another Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.
"I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now," said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. "It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he'll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively."
I don't expect much from Thune, but I have to wonder if he realizes how incredibly ridiculous this is.
[snip]
Indeed, the president, Thune says, should "play it a little more down the middle." What if the nominee is both gay and well within the judicial mainstream? Why would any thinking person assume that a gay nominee is necessarily someone on the ideological fringe?
I hope a supremely qualified moderate gay or lesbian gets nominated for the bench. I would love to see the rabid right explain how their opposition has nothing to do with homophobia. That would be awesome.
Speaking of prejudices about ideology, I wonder what the Log Cabin Republicans would have to say about all this?
ReplyDeleteWhile it may not represent the majority among Republicans, the mainstream American view these days is that gays shouldn't be discriminated against. I don't see that as any more polarizing than nominating a black person, a Hispanic, or any other ethnic minority. Religion is a little touchier, but I think the only thing they couldn't get away with is nominating an atheist.