Posted on 05/06/2009 4:36:16 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
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.
Sessions’s comments weren’t voiced universally in the GOP or in conservative circles Wednesday, suggesting a split among Republicans on whether the sexual orientation of a nominee should be a factor.
One Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
And, slowly but surely, the Republican party sinks into the same moral cesspool the Democrat party gleefully wallows in.
Perfect. Flawless.
All we'd need after that would be Caligula's Horse.
I think this headline is taken completely out of context. And, it’s a no-win situation. If Sessions said, “Absolutely not,” they would have tarred and feathered him. He said he would consider a homosexual justice, not vote for him
Big difference
If the nominee were a strict constuctionist in the image of Thomas or Scalia, then I really don’t care who they sleep with.
But it’s unlikely that any such gay candidate exists, and less likely that Obama would nominate them.
Has the candidate ever read the constitution?
Do they believe it is as accurate today as when it was written, plus amendments?
Will they agree to defend it and use it as the ultimate source of the law and freedom?
Will they not allow foreign courts to influence their decisions?
NICE.... s/
What a POS YUCK!
Trash is trash no matter how you look at it.
***Degenerate Judges Alert***
What should be an automatic disqualifier is if he emotes rather than read the written text of the Constitution.
A Supreme has really only job and thats to read what it says. If he or she can’t do that, thats the automatic disqualifier.
Doesn’t Souter hold down the “gay” seat on the court?
Wouldn’t we need a gay replacement to maintain balance on the court?
You better believe it. I mean here’s The Usurper Onada saying that legal qualifications are less important than empathy for “protected groups” and Sessions is taking the high road with the opposite tack.
I guess Sessions is just trying to get along to get along. What a wuss. I suppose a pedophile or beastialtyist would also be be OK by him-—so long as he had legal credentials.
I would like to rap on Sessions head to see if he’s in there.
I don’t know now. I would definitely consider a homosexual for a judge. Now that I have considered it the answer is NO!
Needs a barf alert.
There’s no way a gay supreme could be impartial.
whenever it says ‘gay’ in the thread title I just assume the barf alert is implied...
Look Mr. Sesssions, I will keep it simple for U......SUPREME COURT NOMINEE EVALUATION CRITERIA....as follows.....
Education / History of Decisions / experience level (more than BHO) / Constitutional related rulings / character judgement by peers.
Got that ? Gay / lesbian / Queer ain’t got nutin to do with it....OK ?
Geez....we need a “Don’t RE-ELECT anyone” campaign to clean house of these Ignorant Dork Politicians.
Maybe not, but you can’t rule a homosexual person out before he/she hits the committee for a hearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.