we may never understand why liberals think the way they do, but to simply account it to there possible sexuality is low...
There is open discussion of "seats" on the Supreme Court based on the genetics of their birth. I grant it is all rather stupid.
But if it is okay to talk about seats for women, for blacks, maybe for an hispanic, what is the big deal about discussing one's sexual orientation?
I personally don't care if one is male/female, black/Hispanic/white, or gay. I am interested in their judicial philosophy. But genetics and identification with certain groups can mean you are more likely to hold one view than another.
If one's sexual orientation is a no-no, that implies it is something disgraceful, to be hidden. If that is true, we shouldn't allow spouses to accompany Supreme Court nominees to their nomination announcement.
<< we may never understand why liberals think the way they do but to simply account it to there [sic] "possible sexuality" is low ... >>
Liberals do not think, they "feel."
And, like it or not and notwithstanding that one's saying so is as likely as not to see one burnt at the stake of the Modern Inquisition we call "PC" -- abnormality as opposed to normality in matters sexual has an immense affect upon Human Beings.
LOL, we understand perfectly how you think.
Souter fashions himself to be libertarian , but is in fact merely a conventional liberal. His homosexuality may well be one explanation behind his previous deliberate misdirections toward BushI and Rudman, and everyone else.
Noxious behavior in private reflects on character. If Souter is a sodomite let's get it out in the open. It may explain quite a bit about the way he votes.
True but homosexuality is now a very political matter. If it had anything to do with the bad blood between Rehnquist and Souter, it was probably political, not personal. If it's taboo to discuss it, that seems kind of retro and prudish by current standards. JMO.
Ever hear of David Brock?