Two Out Lesbians Considered for Supreme Court

Pam Karlan (left), a Stanford University law professor, is one of two out lesbians rumored to be on Obama's list to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who is due to retire this spring.

Kathleen Sullivan (right), the out former dean of Stanford Law School, has also been frequently mentioned as a possible replacement for Souter.

Karlan told Politico.com in an e-mail, "It's no secret at all that I'm counted among the LGBT crowd" and acknowledged that she is one of many names in the ring. "Given the landscape, I'm flattered, but not fooled, by having my name tossed around," she added.

Karlan is the founding director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, which allows students to litigate live cases. She has also long advocated for the LGBT community. A Yale graduate, she has served as an assistant counsel and attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. In 2003 she wrote a law professors' amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark case that overturned remaining state laws against consensual sodomy.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82801.asp

the repubs if one was nominated. Because just when you think they can't out-do themselves, they come up with a new boatload of inane blathering which just sinks them deeper.

So I say lets find that lesbian/hispanic/muslim nominee and get plenty of popcorn!

...if that happens, I am buying stock in EVERY popcorn company I know of!

:hi:

working at the ACLU, imagine the massive brain splatter over at Faux News. . .


gigglesnort!

even Massa Rush might pop an ass pimple.

But it would be envelope pushing change for sure.

if he were to name one of them.

I can not tell you how much I'd pay to see an openly gay lesbian named as Supreme Court Justice. It would be even better if the new justice was quite outspoken. Imagine the clashes during oral arguments between Scalia and his younger nemisis! It might be enough to convince Scalia to retire! Gawd wouldn't that be great. :party:

a heart attack.

Hey, it's worth a shot. For the good of the country.

I just don't see it right now.

Would be an excellent choice.

Put Keith, Ed and Tweety up there too...... JUST for my enjoyment! :)

And make Shuster Speaker of the House! lol

About Senator Session saying that a person's sexuality is not a litmus test Judiciary hearing.

I won't post what they were saying as it might be hurtful to my brother's and sisters in the LGBT community.

because of it.

All though there were a very few that said I don't care if they are gay as long as they are gay conservative...the rest mostly Leviticusbating.

for apologizing for his actions during the civil rights era.

I hope the government is watching them.

and while I'm sure these two women are flattered that their names are being bandied around in the media, it is a rather transparent attempt at good publicity: "see how progressive we are on these issue - we even have two lesbians on our list!"

If this administration was going to be politically courageous on this issue, there would have been at least one openly gay cabinet appointment.

There wasn't.

I think Pres Obama is cautious on gay issues, I believe his heart is generally in the right place, but he fears the mythic backlash that he and his advisors think would come if he went out on a limb.

Putting it bluntly, he is not willing to risk political capital on this.

I will eat my hat if either of these two women are nominated and will joyfully admit that I was wrong.

And, yes, I know I'm a cynic.

Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts all have heart attacks or massive strokes as a result, we can REALLY pack the court.

I say go for it.

They both have impressive resumes. And they're both a nice break from the usual "judge on the bench" that they toss up there.

any OUT gay people for obama to consider.

:rofl:

:sarcasm:

I read that on DU, too.

Hope this doesn't cause Prez O problems.

might cause prez o problems.

:eyes:

:thumbsdown:

will cause prez o problems.

that's actually homophobic.

in this country, at this time.

Or does it only matter if that person is an LGBT American?

.

where you are in the minority.

How is that?

fyi, I grew up in NYC, and live in MD, near DC now. But this discussion is NOT about me, regardless of the way some might want to frame it. I guess the point I tried to make, that is that naming an 'out' person would or might cause political problems for the President, is not a discussion that some want to have.

see my comment #14 above

republicans say much the same when they oppose a subject, proposal, nominee.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5609407&mesg_id=5609407

Oh, wait...

Even if they're not chosen, it's great that they aren't out of the question because of a label.

I would pay to see Scalia's and Roberts' heads explode.

:-)

:fistbump:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So, equality -- true equality -- has not yet "swung both ways" on the Supreme Court.

And the President is not an idiot like our last one who tried to appoint one of his unqualified groupies to the SCOTUS.

President Obama is a constitutional scholar and professor and will only be picking a very highly qualified person.

Got it?

following your train of thought.

Perhaps, PERHAPS, it's their qualifications that are being considered. Ever think of that?

consideration and doesn't disqualify her due to her sexual orientation.

Steve

Even if he didn't supply all the names of those being vetted, I'm sure he made a list of what qualifications and character traits he wanted in his candidates.

Unlike Baby Caligula, President Obama seems to know most of what's going on in his administration.

Hekate