Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I Can See Only One Way For Obama To Make Up For Warren

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 07:58 PM
Original message
I Can See Only One Way For Obama To Make Up For Warren
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 08:01 PM by IWantAnyDem
The first SCOTUS position that comes open, Obama must step outside the federal judiciary and appoint a constitutional scholar who is also an open member of the GLBT community.

That would go a long way to restore the loss of trust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. He must? Please. I imagine he'll select whomever he thinks is
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 08:02 PM by babylonsister
most qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I know of no federal judges who are also openly gay
thus to appoint an openly gay judge, he MUST step outside the federal judiciary. Thus, a constitutional scholar would be the best choice, and there are numerous highly qualified GLBT contitutional scholars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. So maybe an openly gay judge on an appeals court would be a good start
And probably a more realistic one, given that there are no openly gay judges on the federal judiciary and that's where SCOTUS justices are usually drawn from. I think asking him to put an openly gay person on the federal judiciary or in the cabinet is fair and realistic, but demanding that he give the first SCOTUS slot to an openly gay person when there are no openly gay judges on the federal bench to draw from seems highly unrealistic. I believe in diversity but I don't believe in tokenism, and I think it's as ridiculous to make being gay a litmus test for a SCOTUS appointment as it would be to make it a disqualifying factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Yes. He must.
We're not just a voting bloc that can be dependably "Democratic" every four years and then forgotten until the next time more empty promises need to be made. Either Obama supports us with actions or we stop supporting him with actions. You may hate that and hate us for doing it but it is the way of politics and survival.

If he comes through with his support you have nothing to worry about, but if he does not he will have to get those fundies he's honoring to come up with the extra numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. At least some District Judgeships
The judiciary is woefully under represented when it comes to the GLBT community. It's no wonder the GLBT community is treated as sub human under the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
44. Too bad he did not apply that criteria
in choosing an inaugural prayer purveyor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. He must definitely provide some positive actions to counteract his negative ones.
I don't know that I will ever "trust" him again. I will support him as fully as he supports me at any given moment. At this moment that means not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:01 PM
Original message
Do you know of any?
I'm serious. I don't know of any openly gay judge, federal or otherwise.

Simple probability, says there must be some gay judges, but I know of none that are openly gay.

This may just be ignorance on my part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. There are many non-federal
that's why I said he must step outside the federal judiciary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yup. Self-immolation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Yup. No need to take a stand for those discriminated against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. I hear people asking for fairness, respect, and equal rights, not a special appointment. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Until there are GLBT federal judges
there will never be fairness, respect, or equal rights.

Thrugood Marshall was not appointed to the SCOTUS until 1967. He was appointed to the federal judiciary in 1961.

Name one openly gay federal judge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I agree it will help and be part of the solution
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 08:11 PM by JoeIsOneOfUs
I just don't think it makes up for putting Warren on a platform now. Judges should be more diverse regardless of the Warren fiasco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. no remote possibility of happening. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. I'm ONLY worried about his SCOTUS appointment... but a straight person is fine as long as they are
pro-gay rights.


Just like any male is fine as long as they are pro-choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Uh huh...
He better do exactly what I want when I want him to do it...or else...~!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwysdrunk Donating Member (908 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. Yeah .... not ganna happen
Supreme court justices are always judges. Is this really the only thing that will satisfy you? Prepare to be unsatisfied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. No, Supreme Court judges are NOT always judges
You had better look at the history of the court.

There have been over 40 Supreme Court justices with NO prior judicial experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. Barring that he should
impeach himself.:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. !
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'm GAY GAY GAY and I don't care if President Obama appoints all straight SCOTUS nominees.
As long as they are pro-gay.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Yes, but are you gay?
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Or gay enough? Personally, I listen only to Gays who are GAY GAY GAY GAY.
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 08:25 PM by patrice
(it scans better).

And who knows who what anyone on the internet is anyway?

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. On the internet, girl = Guy In Real Life.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Really? I didn't know that.
It'd be interesting to see how common Girls In Real Life = Guys On the Internet . . . and what their religious corelations are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. The idea is that girls get treated a bit better, so it can be advantageous in gaming situations...
I would imagine that (real) girls might take on boy identities online in order to take a break from the sex-stuff, but I don't really know.

Of course, it could also go as per my fav internet cartoon:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. LOL!! I can see why that'd be Fun . . .
I don't game, but I can dig it. My family is full of young people who game; they like me because I'm an Old Hippie.

I think you're right about girls enjoying a break from the sex-stuff. I remember when I had Gay friends, that was something I liked a lot, not having to "do the dance" with the Male Ego = careful to be attractive, but not too attractive and DON'T offend their maleness. BORING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. I giggle a little every time I see that toon. Thanks for reminding me of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. HOMOPHOBE!
:).

Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
19. That could backfire. Remember Clarence Thomas
how well has that worked out for the black community?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Appointed by Bush.
Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. True. Think of some of the quislings, even on DU, who though they are gay have
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 08:22 PM by mondo joe
enough self loathing as to serve no one well - except our opponents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Anthony D. Romero
He's a constitutional scholar. HE's the executive director of the ACLU. He also happens to be openly gay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Wow! That IS very good! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. The two are not equal. Warren, although a very bad choice, does not equal a supreme ct. justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. So long as the GLBT community is not represented at the federal level in the judiciary
they will always remain sub human under the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
51. I think appointing a gay justice to the federal judiciary is a good idea
But to say that he owes it to gays to make being gay a litmus test for the first Supreme Court vacancy is a little ridiculous, particularly if there are no openly gay judges on the federal appeals courts to draw from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. But since a scotus justice would be a good idea in and of itself, it's a bonus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwysdrunk Donating Member (908 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. Two minute prayer = lifetime appointment?
I think there are other thing he could do to make up for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. A gay appointment to the SCOTUS could be a great thing, even if Warren never
happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. imo the first thing he needs to do is disinvite the man and apologize...
...and then remember the Constitution, which he teaches, and choose judges who will make sure EVERY American has full rights.

That's his job ~ I don't care what his personal religious beliefs are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. He will never rescind the invitation.
It would be perceived as weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Or strong - imo it takes strength to admit a mistake and make it right...
If he gets enough heat he'll have to do something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
39. Demanding what you want is fine...I think,
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 08:36 PM by FrenchieCat
but elections have consequences,
and even Primary results, like any other election results have consequences.

Those who supported a losing candidate during the primaries,
then decided which candidate to support during the General Election.

When they made that choice, I'm sure they understood that they were NOT backing
the candidate that they believed was best on the issues that they cared most about.
I repeat, they understood that they were NOT backing the candidate that they believed
was best on the issues that they cared most about.

A majority in the Gay Community didn't back Barack OBama during the primaries,
and there are posters here who can be identified as such....in particular those
who quoted the Donnie McClurkin controversy over and over and over again
throughout the primaries as their reason to oppose him.


NBC exit polling found that among the 4 percent of California voters who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, 63 percent voted for Clinton, 29 percent for Sen. Barack Obama and 1 percent for John Edwards. In New York, 7 percent of voters self-identified as LGB and 59 percent voted for Clinton, 36 percent for Obama and 3 percent for Edwards.
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2008/02/those-gay-exit.html


So although I understand why folks are hurt about Prop 8 passing, and about Warren giving the invocation, and what that all means...

These same folks shouldn't now be so outraged that Obama doesn't support Gay Marriage,
or taken aback that he is more tolerant of bigots than what they believe is appropriate.

It just seems that now those posters, upset as they are, are claiming to have been Obama's
biggest supporters who gave all that they had to see him in the office....and they are greatly dismayed that he has now slapped them in the face with the Warren insult. I believe that Obama does truly appreciate and cares about the hard work done and donations made on his behalf I'm sure....but still, most knew all along that he wasn't 100% what they wanted or would get...hell, I knew I wasn't gonna get all that I wanted or when I wanted it....and I was a staunch supporter of his during his most difficulat period on the way to the Presidency; during the primaries.

Seems Like this is a good article to read
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20050

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Well ya know, I've been a supporter of Obama's a lot longer than you have
I've supported him for political office since October 2, 2002 which is the first day I ever heard him speak.

I supported him for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in 2003 when Blair Hull was considered the most likely winner and Dan Hynes was the second most likely winner. When I was a supporter, nobody gave him any chance at all to win.

I defended him when the Donnie McClurkin flap erupted.

So don't lecture me with your high and mighty bullshit.

And for the record, I am a heterosexual middle aged white male who will be celebrating his tenth anniversary with his first wife in six months.

And yes, tapping a Dominionist bigot mega-church huckster "preacher" for the inaugural invocation was a direct slap in my face for reasons other than the anti-gay bigotry this evil man spews.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. "don't lecture me with your high and mighty bullshit." you just said?
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 08:50 PM by FrenchieCat
I say.....Ironic statement for you to make,
because high and mighty bullshit is relative.


My point is you can make demands, but you can't command the answer.

And my points stands that no matter how long one backed Obama,
no one should expect 100% satisfaction or a money back guarantee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. So then why is this enough to make you change your mind?
If you've really been an Obama supporter since 2002 you'd think it would take more than symbolism to change your mind and get you talking about primary challenges before he even takes office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Symbols mean things n/t
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 10:01 PM by IWantAnyDem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
48. --------------> change.gov attn: Santa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
49. LOL must
yea ok
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb 17th 2025, 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC