History Making Quest Overriding Commonsense?
Hey folks,
Happy Friday to you. First a quick note of change. Someone asked me, "Why are you not posting something new everyday like you use to?" Seems that they have not noticed that the Date changes every day on the Swine Flu Update so they think that it's the same post. {Sigh} OK. So? From now on, the daily Swine Flu update will FOLLOW the normal Daily article. So it will still be here for those of you who are following it. Just scroll down. To avoid confusion. {Smile}
Since it is Friday, it's time to go to the Emails. This one was sent in by our friend Irishgodfather. It's from The Hill - Sessions would consider gay SCOTUS nominee By J. Taylor Rushing Posted: 05/06/09 01:19 PM [ET]
Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he could consider a gay nominee for the nation’s highest court.
“I’m not inclined to think that’s an automatic disqualification,” Sessions said of a gay nominee. He said he intends to consider only the nominee’s legal judgment when deciding his support for Justice David Souter’s proposed replacement.
“I may disagree with some legal opinion on those issues, but I think fundamentally it will be up to the president to submit somebody who would unite the country and would be a clear statement of a mainstream judge who commits himself to the law,” said Sessions, who will have a key role in any confirmation debate.
Gay-rights groups have voiced hope that Obama will select the first openly gay Supreme Court nominee, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has offered two suggestions: Kathleen Sullivan, a former Stanford Law School dean, and Pam Karlan, another Stanford professor.
But conservative 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.”
Other GOP senators on Wednesday said a nominee’s sexual orientation is of lesser importance than his or her legal qualifications.
“It’s not been part of the calculus for me,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. “Right now the speculation is about a woman justice — something you won’t hear me voice much opposition about — but I don’t have any automatic disqualifiers. I don’t think that should be part of our consideration.”
Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia said the GOP is opposed to an activist judge, but would not disqualify someone due to sexual orientation.
“I don’t look at disqualifying people, I look at qualifying them,” he said. “A judge who is qualified to me is someone who doesn’t legislate from the bench.”
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) also wouldn't rule out the possibility of a gay nominee, though he said Obama should avoid nominating someone based on ethnic or social profiling. “He should just focus on a proven judge who understands the Constitution and has demonstrated a willingness to support the rule of law,” DeMint said. “I hope this does not turn into some kind of ethnic profiling or social profiling, that it's got to be a woman or a black or something other. That doesn't make any sense to me.”
Other Republicans seemed caught by surprise at the possibility.
“It’s something I’d have to think through with respect to whatever issues might be forthcoming that the court may have to consider,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.).
"I have never, frankly, thought about that situation," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the GOP standard-bearer in the 2008 presidential election.
“I’ve never thought about it,” said Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.). “But I don’t look at things through that lens in regards to the type of position we’re talking about."
Denis Dison, a spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, said his group is only pushing for more open-mindedness in the nomination process and is not necessarily insisting on a homosexual nominee.
“Our point is that the administration’s shortlist includes some names of openly gay people, and that’s a bit of a milestone,” Dison said. “There have been 110 Supreme Court justices, and 106 of them have been straight, white males. There may be other places to look, because more diversity makes the court more representative.”
Dison said he is not surprised at the Republicans’ statements but questioned whether it will last.
“There could be other forms of resistance — quieter, behind the scenes,” he said.
LINK: The Hill - Sessions would consider gay SCOTUS nominee
Now all this quest by the LWL {far Left Wing Loony Libs} to "make history," is overriding commonsense. Neither of these people mentioned is even a Judge, yet some want them on the Highest Court in the land just because they are gay. But then again, we do have a President that is President, just because he's Black, so I guess they see nothing wrong with this. Experience not needed.
Couple that with Obama's CLEAR placement of those that will simply further the agendas of the Far Left Loons, and you see where this may be a possibility. Just remember folks, YOU VOTED FOR ALL THIS. If you get mad at what Obama and Crew are doing, get mad at yourself.
Peter
Note: "From The Emails" is a weekly segment in the Friday edition of the OPNtalk Blog. If you care to send in News Articles, Comments, Stories, or anything else you may wish to share, please feel free to send it to opntalk@aim.com As always, you never know what you are going to see here.
Hey folks,
Happy Friday to you. First a quick note of change. Someone asked me, "Why are you not posting something new everyday like you use to?" Seems that they have not noticed that the Date changes every day on the Swine Flu Update so they think that it's the same post. {Sigh} OK. So? From now on, the daily Swine Flu update will FOLLOW the normal Daily article. So it will still be here for those of you who are following it. Just scroll down. To avoid confusion. {Smile}Since it is Friday, it's time to go to the Emails. This one was sent in by our friend Irishgodfather. It's from The Hill - Sessions would consider gay SCOTUS nominee By J. Taylor Rushing Posted: 05/06/09 01:19 PM [ET]
Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he could consider a gay nominee for the nation’s highest court.“I’m not inclined to think that’s an automatic disqualification,” Sessions said of a gay nominee. He said he intends to consider only the nominee’s legal judgment when deciding his support for Justice David Souter’s proposed replacement.
“I may disagree with some legal opinion on those issues, but I think fundamentally it will be up to the president to submit somebody who would unite the country and would be a clear statement of a mainstream judge who commits himself to the law,” said Sessions, who will have a key role in any confirmation debate.
Gay-rights groups have voiced hope that Obama will select the first openly gay Supreme Court nominee, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has offered two suggestions: Kathleen Sullivan, a former Stanford Law School dean, and Pam Karlan, another Stanford professor.
But conservative 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.”
Other GOP senators on Wednesday said a nominee’s sexual orientation is of lesser importance than his or her legal qualifications.
“It’s not been part of the calculus for me,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. “Right now the speculation is about a woman justice — something you won’t hear me voice much opposition about — but I don’t have any automatic disqualifiers. I don’t think that should be part of our consideration.”
Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia said the GOP is opposed to an activist judge, but would not disqualify someone due to sexual orientation.
“I don’t look at disqualifying people, I look at qualifying them,” he said. “A judge who is qualified to me is someone who doesn’t legislate from the bench.”
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) also wouldn't rule out the possibility of a gay nominee, though he said Obama should avoid nominating someone based on ethnic or social profiling. “He should just focus on a proven judge who understands the Constitution and has demonstrated a willingness to support the rule of law,” DeMint said. “I hope this does not turn into some kind of ethnic profiling or social profiling, that it's got to be a woman or a black or something other. That doesn't make any sense to me.”
Other Republicans seemed caught by surprise at the possibility.
“It’s something I’d have to think through with respect to whatever issues might be forthcoming that the court may have to consider,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.).
"I have never, frankly, thought about that situation," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the GOP standard-bearer in the 2008 presidential election.
“I’ve never thought about it,” said Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.). “But I don’t look at things through that lens in regards to the type of position we’re talking about."
Denis Dison, a spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, said his group is only pushing for more open-mindedness in the nomination process and is not necessarily insisting on a homosexual nominee.
“Our point is that the administration’s shortlist includes some names of openly gay people, and that’s a bit of a milestone,” Dison said. “There have been 110 Supreme Court justices, and 106 of them have been straight, white males. There may be other places to look, because more diversity makes the court more representative.”
Dison said he is not surprised at the Republicans’ statements but questioned whether it will last.
“There could be other forms of resistance — quieter, behind the scenes,” he said.
LINK: The Hill - Sessions would consider gay SCOTUS nominee
Now all this quest by the LWL {far Left Wing Loony Libs} to "make history," is overriding commonsense. Neither of these people mentioned is even a Judge, yet some want them on the Highest Court in the land just because they are gay. But then again, we do have a President that is President, just because he's Black, so I guess they see nothing wrong with this. Experience not needed.
Couple that with Obama's CLEAR placement of those that will simply further the agendas of the Far Left Loons, and you see where this may be a possibility. Just remember folks, YOU VOTED FOR ALL THIS. If you get mad at what Obama and Crew are doing, get mad at yourself.
Peter
Note: "From The Emails" is a weekly segment in the Friday edition of the OPNtalk Blog. If you care to send in News Articles, Comments, Stories, or anything else you may wish to share, please feel free to send it to opntalk@aim.com As always, you never know what you are going to see here.
1 comment:
I have no desire to see a gay as a Justice on our Supreme Court.
I think they would favor gay marriage.
Gay marriage to me is against the law of nature and sends a very poor message to our youth.
The gay lifestyle is unnatural and repugnant to most Americans.
Post a Comment