Rats: It is time to nominate an openly gay person to SCOTUS

C-SPAN | July 15, 2003 | nwrep

[nwrep]

All 9 Dem Presidential candidates today said they would nominate an openly gay person to the SCOTUS. They were speaking at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

Available on C-SPAN.

[Fred Mertz]

I'm either going to Mexico or Costa Rica; I have contacts in both countries.

I just want to be left alone.

[Dan from Michigan]

If the gay is a right winger like Clarence Thomas, I'd back him. All I care about is the rulings.

[Rebellans]

I think it's time to nominate an openly conservative person to SCOTUS.

[BCrago66]

I think that's already been done with Souter. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[abishai]

Now, you need to be nicer concerning Ginsberg.

[BCrago66]

How do you know "gays are notoriously pro-abortion"?

[Dr Warmoose]

This country is going the way of Rome and I'm planning my getaway. ....to where??????

We need a Freeper's Retirement Investment Fund.

We will raise investment cash then buy an island like Haiti. Rename it to Gault's Gulch. We keep the current president in power, employ the natives for the menial tasks and then open up individual businesess that are outside US tax and legal jurisdiction. With enough displaced high tech workers, we could then compete better with India and China and not have to pay those competition killing taxes and regulatory costs. First change to their constitution is to permit us Freepers to pack heat. This will keep the government in check. The rest will naturally fall into place as long as we keep the loafers from the US out of the voting booth.

[egomeimihi]

I would support an openly gay justice on the Supreme Court, so long as he interpreted the constitution according to what it actually says, could separate questions of constitutional law from his private life, and was as qualified as any other nominee with a similar judicial philosophy. Of course, he wouldn't be "gay enough" for those on the left, much as Thomas isn't "black enough" for their liking.

[Bernard Marx]

The solution's simple: "out" Souter.

[TheAngryClam]

Bush could outflank them and nominate Al Rantel, but I'm pretty sure he's not a lawyer. Politics are right though.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

What type are they looking for? Latent, festive, or 100% flamming?

[First Amendment]

How do you know "gays are notoriously pro-abortion"?

Because they are. I guess it wouldn't be notorious to someone who thinks abortion or sodomy is a-ok.

It's part of "freedom". Free to be a hedonist. Free to act against the laws of nature.

For instance, in the State of California, Planned Parenthood comes into the schools (K-12, mandated by law since 2001) to teach the kids that "gay is good".

[BunnySlippers]

They also said they would nominate a 'transgendered' person.

That's REALLY, REALLY sick. Aren't those the people who are "trapped" in someone elses body? They are the ones who have extremely high incidence of mental/emotional problems and a soaring rate of suicide.

[Salman]

We will raise investment cash then buy an island like Haiti. Rename it to Gault's Gulch...

Better find a way to make it invisible.

[King Prout]

What if it was an openly gay, but otherwise rigidly Conservative* candidate? Would the Dims want to nominate him/her then?

*strange as it may seem, to some, such folks do exist. I have known a few. Very few, yes, but a few.

[King Prout]

bewildering, isn't it?

[LibertarianInExile]

How is that a bad thing in a Rat SCOTUS nominee? We'd just get them counseling until a conservative nominating POTUS came along and then tell the Rat transgendered type that they look awful in mauve. Blammo, new spot on the court to fill. If we're lucky, we might get Ginsburg or Breyer to say it and we get two libs with one blow.

[connectthedots]

My first thought as well.

[larlaw]

My thoughts exactly! We already have "Mama's Boy" Souter...

[autoresponder]

A recent quote from a GLAD member at their convention was proud to announce that NYT gays comprise 75% of NYT staff that controls the front page headlines and content the NYT editorial policy.

This from the under 2% of the US population that claims over 15% is homosexual.

The problem politians have with homosexuals is that they gather in higher %s in large urban areas, SF for one, and vote in high %s.

Now why can't eveyone register and vote in high %s?

For everyone that claims they did not mean to miss voting the last time or they were 'too busy' that day, do what illegal alliens do, get them a mail-in absentee ballot and be there when they fill it in and sign it; then YOU go and mail it!