Too Gay for the Supreme Court? [watch Lunar lose it]

[??????????]

If the individual is a gay ACTIVIST then their is a good reason to oppose them.

Fortunately, neither Karlan nor Sullivan are activists. They hold the usual liberal stances on issues, but they don't appear to wear their sexual orientation on their collar.

Yay, my first convert!

Oh, it shouldn't be too hard to get me on board with something like this. I am a huge supporter of the LGBT community.

I'm referring more to the Perez Hilton type.

[Lunar]

I know what you mean.  If she believes that the Supreme Court should be a tool to implement homosexual rights beyond the limits of the Constitution, that's more than a valid criticism of her  If she thinks hetero-only marriage is unConstitutional, and you disagree and view that as a legitimate litmus test for her judicial ability, that's a criticism of her legal beliefs and more than valid.  If I was a Senator, I'd be highly tempted to ask her about gay marriage and the Constitution, actually

[??????????]

I personally do not believe sexual acts are protected by the Constitution.

[Lunar]

Then their legal interpretations of cases like Lawrence v. Texas should be the issue, this is not what Sessions, Thune, and that other fool are implying

[Lunar]

Damn, the GOP might not be pushed into the stone age by bigots after all [see bold part].  Not sure what "pro gay ideology" means.  It's possible Frank Luntz sent a memo to the GOP establishment entitled "Shut Up."


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/supreme-court/family-research-council-we-could-support-gay-scotus-but-not-one-with-pro-gay-ideology/

Yesterday I reported that the religious right group Focus on the Family said that they wouldn’t oppose an openly-gay nominee to the Supreme Court on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Now a second top religious right organization, Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council, is declaring something similar — it’s a shift in emphasis from its harder-line stance against gay judges two years ago, and another sign of the changing times.

To be sure, the group is hedging a bit. Its position : Being gay would not in and of itself rule out getting the group’s support, though having a “pro-gay ideology” would.

“We don’t think that the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice should include asking questions about a person’s personal sex life,” Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told me moments ago.

“But if a person does publicly identify as gay or lesbian, or particularly if a person has been involved with homosexual rights activism at any level, then there would have to be serious questions asked about whether he or she would impose a pro-gay ideology on the court.”

Sprigg added that homosexuality in and of itself would not be a “determinant” against the acceptability of the nominee.

That’s not as hard-line as two years ago, when the Family Research Council argued: “We don’t accept that homosexuality is any kind of cultural identity that should be sought in a judge.”

To be sure, it’s unlikely that either of these groups would support any Obama nominee, simply because of philosophical differences. But the unwillingness of these groups to rule out opposition to an openly-gay nominee is a big sign of how much things have shifted towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.

Goups that see homosexuality as a fundamentally illegitimate and morally questionable lifestyle are no longer willing to say openly that its a disqualifier from serving on the highest court.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The Republican party is such a joke.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I personally do not believe sexual acts are protected by the Constitution.

I do, to some extent.  Lawrence v. Texas was the correct decision, for example.

[Lunar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BVAoxvylo

Check out what young Biden thinks of Sessions

I personally do not believe sexual acts are protected by the Constitution.

I do, to some extent.  Lawrence v. Texas was the correct decision, for example.

Interesting.

[opebo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BVAoxvylo

Check out what young Biden thinks of Sessions

Great clip!  Including the great and unjustly fired Dan Rather!

But the most interesting part is that you can tell their character just by looking at them - young Biden seems a decent, reasonable guy, while Session's body language just screams insane, hateful asshole.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I personally do not believe sexual acts are protected by the Constitution.

I do, to some extent.  Lawrence v. Texas was the correct decision, for example.

Interesting.

Why?

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BVAoxvylo

Check out what young Biden thinks of Sessions

I personally do not believe sexual acts are protected by the Constitution.

I do, to some extent.  Lawrence v. Texas was the correct decision, for example.

Interesting.

Haha, Biden should have declined the Vice Presidency and instead become Secretary of Kicking Ass, Taking Names.

[Lunar]

this thread shows up near the top on a number of Google searches now, including "gay lunar"

[Bacon King]

i dont think i even want to try a google search of 'gay lunar'

[The Mikado]

this thread shows up near the top on a number of Google searches now, including "gay lunar"

Amazing that a thread like this would only be fifth from the top for gay lunar.  I would think that it'd be higher, though I suppose the study on lunar rocks by "P. Gay" does deserve to be ranked higher.

[Purple State]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BVAoxvylo

Check out what young Biden thinks of Sessions

Great clip!  Including the great and unjustly fired Dan Rather!

But the most interesting part is that you can tell their character just by looking at them - young Biden seems a decent, reasonable guy, while Session's body language just screams insane, hateful asshole.

The hackery in that post is just disturbing. Biden seems fine and managed to avoid a gaffe (I assume he has always been prone to them, but perhaps he had golden years), but Sessions seems no less composed, especially considering it was the first time in 49 years that a nominee was voted down? I'm sure he was still reeling from the whole thing.

[Lunar]

Well, if Sessions gave a rat's poop, he would have learned his lesson.  His statements on a potentially gay justice are enough to make him a piece of trash, who cares if he can be politically diplomatic about it?  I'm willing to take his explanations of his comments on their face -- that calling the ACLU and NAACP communists and un-American were jokes, I could understand that.  But what about calling his black staffers "boy?"  Was that a joke too?  What about his overzealous prosecution, based on little evidence and subsequently dismissed, of people who were registering African-Americans to vote?  What about his comments recently about homosexuality not necessarily being an "automatic disqualification?"  This is not a man fit to be the ranking member of the judiciary committee.  He's in the position because he owns a lot of money networks [look at his fundraising totals despite his race being 100% safe, it's ridiculous] and Grassley was termed out.

i dont think i even want to try a google search of 'gay lunar'

The only thing I'd avoid is the image search, which I have yet to do since my safe search is always off.  Searching for the governor of Idaho was rough enough on this poor soul.

[Purple State]

I wasn't defending Sessions' record per se, as much as questioning opebo's outrageous comments on the little bit of Sessions seen in that old reporting piece.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

i dont think i even want to try a google search of 'gay lunar'

The only thing I'd avoid is the image search, which I have yet to do since my safe search is always off.  Searching for the governor of Idaho was rough enough on this poor soul.

If you do a google search for "gay lunar", this thread is the first thing to come up.

[minionofmidas]

While image search produces:

[Lunar]

For the record, Sessions backed off of the gay stuff and now says judicial philosophy will be the basis of his decision. 

Too bad.  I still think Obama should choose Karlan as both the most qualified candidate and the most politically advantageous one [if the Senators don't bite the bait, TV and the roots will].

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wasn't defending Sessions' record per se, as much as questioning BRTD's outrageous comments on the little bit of Sessions seen in that old reporting piece.

I haven't posted in this thread until now.

[Purple State]

I wasn't defending Sessions' record per se, as much as questioning BRTD's outrageous comments on the little bit of Sessions seen in that old reporting piece.

I haven't posted in this thread until now.

My apologies. I'll edit that. Misattributed the quote.