Just watched this video from The Young Turks (who aren't by any means perfect but are my main means of getting a wide range of American political news from a liberal viewpoint) and it raises some interesting and solid points. However Cenk didn't bring up one point that I feel is pretty relevant. In this first clip, Sessions says,
"It depends on their personal ethics and legal skill and ability... [The interviewer asks if he would welcome the diversity that the USA hadn't previously seen] I don't think we should be thinking like that for the United States Supreme Court."
The thing is, I think you do need to be thinking like that. Yes, obviously the main focus should be on their legal skill and suitability to be a Justice, but unlike with some positions where you shouldn't discriminate against OR purposefully hire someone because of their sexuality (or similar), in this case I think a certain amount of consideration should be given to these kind of factors because of representation. So, yes, I think if you were deciding between two candidates who had identical ethics, legal skill and ability, but one was openly gay, that you should favour the gay one because you most certainly should be welcoming diversity and fair representation. (Of course this is a hypothetical extreme and I'm not saying the rights of gay people outweigh the rights of any other minority, I'm just talking in regards to this particular video.)
I should perhaps point out that I'm from England and I've only really been following US politics since the lead-up to the election, so if I'm grossly mistaken on any aspect, please feel free to let me know.
Thoughts? Opinions?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Republican opposed to gay supreme court justice.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13623
When I read this and other of Sessions' comments, it struck me as a clear example of the super-status a lot of folk will deliberately or unconsciously give to someone who is LGBT. Like, you know someone for a long time, then they come out to you, you tend to be socialized to begin to think of that person as "gay" first and who they actually are second. It's this idea of placing way too much importance on a person's (usually non-heterosexual) sexuality. So a judge becomes not just a judge, but a "gay judge." Rather than a judge, who if you learned more about him/her they are gay or lesbian etc.
I believe Sessions said something about 'we don't want people who are one-issue people' or something like that, as if LGBT folks don't care about torture or anything else whatever that the supreme court might legislate, no no of course they always think first of, as Maddow jokingly calls it, "The Gay." Tis a problem, and so sad to see it in a sitting senator. :(
The quote provided doesn't justify the headline.
If that's all we're meant to go on he in no way said he was opposed to having a gay justice, he just said he was opposed to selecting a justice for the sake of having a token gay guy.
Sorry, it appears the video I tried to embed didn't work. Here's a link to it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lk_hCL_ODg&feature=channel_page I'll try to edit the original post as well.
I know what you mean about the young turks not being perfect. I wish they would stick to political discourse and stop constantly talking about women's looks.
Sorry that last comment was off topic. I think that factors such as race and sexuality have no place in deciding who gets chosen for the court. Hands down it should be an issue of who is the best qualified. If that person happens to be gay thats great.