Sessions flip-flops: Gay Supreme Court nominee would be a ‘big concern.’
Sessions flip-flops: Gay Supreme Court nominee would be a ‘big concern.’
Earlier this week, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made headlines when he said he was open to a gay Supreme Court nominee. “I don’t think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job,” he said. Yesterday on Fox News, Sessions initially sounded accepting of a gay nominee, saying, “Republicans do not believe in identity politics.” But he immediately qualified his statement, adding that a gay nominee would be a “big concern”:
Q: On the question of a gay nominee, one person is noted as saying that he believes it is a bridge too far to have a gay nominee.
SESSIONS: Well, I think that would be a big concern that the American people might feel — might feel uneasy about that. It is a matter for the president to decide.
Watch it:
The conservative group Focus on the Family also said yesterday, “We agree with Senator Sessions. The issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not.” But Sessions is now retreating to the position of anti-gay colleagues like Sen. John Thune (R-SD).
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The world needs to know that Jefferson Sessions was denied a position on the bench years ago because he is bigot and racist. I doubt he changed his colors just because he was told he was unfit for the bench. Jeff Sessions is a Ku Klux Klan if I have ever seen one.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pmThe majority of the American People do not, I repeat, do not cre if anyone on the SCOTUS is gay or not.
Sheesh.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pmcre=care. sorry.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pmThis guy is red-neck to the bone.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:05 pmI hope he gets more face time now that he is the minority’s ranking member of the Judiciary Committee….that should bring down the Rethugs approval to 15%.
Let’s take a quick tally to help us determine who might have better judgment, Gays or Conservatives (assuming the two are pretty much mutually exclusive).
How many conservative executives have made decisions that caused the deaths of 1000’s of people, and ruined whole cities, i.e. made flawed judgments based on their ideology? Bush/Cheney, there’s 2. Rumsfeld, there’s 3. Now’s let’s count how many Gay executives have done the same: 0 .
There we go, anyone with the Conservative ideology should be excluded from serving on the Supreme Court.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:12 pmI’ll take everything this cracka says with a grain of racist salt.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pmThe GOP Guarantee:
If I sound reasonable, I’m only faking it.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pmSo what if he/she is gay/lesbian?
I only care about what their legal stance is on various issues, not where they put their genitalia
May 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pmI wonder how long it took to get the memo from Boss Limbah?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pmkasinca Says: “The world needs to know that Jefferson Sessions was denied a position on the bench years ago because he is bigot and racist.”
The people who vote for him already know. In many cases it’s one of the reasons why they vote for him. His Republican colleagues know too. Many of them admire that about him.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pmI just about spewed coffee all over my screen when I read that Republicans do not engage in “identity politics”. Riiiiight.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pmWell, in all honesty, we can’t have teh gays ruling in the Supreme Court. They will just legalize child molestation and beastiality.
(Holy crap, was I just channeling bat$hit crazy Michelle Bachmann?)
May 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pmIt would be really interesting to learn who takes these guys aside and tells them what they are supposed to say.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
Well, in all honesty, we can’t have teh gays ruling in the Supreme Court. They will just legalize child molestation and beastiality.
(Holy crap, was I just channeling bat$hit crazy Michelle Bachmann?)
May 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I think it was actually batshit crazy Pat Robertson — but it is difficult to tell the difference. ;)
May 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pmJefferson Davis Sessions III:
How about a gay BLACK Supreme Court nominee?
….SPLAT!….
I think Ole Jeff’s head done just exploded.
Seriously. This guy is a complete and utter RACIST.
That’s why HIS appointment to Federal Judge was blocked.
This might even work to the Dem’s advantage.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pmEvery time the Reps try to obstruct the appointment, bring up Sessions as an example of the Republican mindset.
This should help deflate the partisan attacks.
You knew this had to happen. I’m sure that nobody for a second believed Sessions meant what he said but the Republican base must have made it very clear to Sessions that they don’t accept even paying lip service to the idea of tolerance for homosexuality.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pm“I don’t think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job.”
___________
Interesting choice of words. What about someone who’s merely in the closet but afraid to publically acknowledge his/her “gay tendencies” as thic would conflict with his/her record of anti-gay rhetoric? Would that peoson be disqualified per se?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm“I don’t think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job”
__________________________________________________________
Why in the world do people talk about “gay tendencies” as if there are also people with “black tendencies”, “female tendencies”, “Hispanic tendencies”, or “heterosexual tendencies”?
They just love to perpetuate the myth that it’s a choice.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pmIn short Jefferson Sessions hates blacks and gays. Hey why should we be surprised he is a republican from the bible belt racist South. He is only representing his racist, bigoted constituents….at least he represents them. *snark*
May 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Are you intentionally missing the part where Sessions said, “It’s up to the President to decide.” Let’s wait and see if Obama thinks it is an issue or not.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
So if Obama nominates someone who is not gay, does it logically follow that he has an issue with the gay?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pmThis doesn’t surprise me in the least, but I am very saddened by it. Maine takes a step forward, but a member of the senate tries to force two steps back.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pmWTF does “Focus on the Family” have to do with ANYTHING?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pmIt’s true that it is up to the President, CFP. I think we all know that it is going to come down to his voice, despite the panic attack regarding potential nominees. I believe what they are bringing up here is that Sessions is wobbling on his personal opinion about who he feels is fit for being Souter’s replacement.
I’m not sure if this is a flip-flop, per se, but he’s certainly not iron-clad on his stance regarding a gay nominee. He’s probably not uncomfortable about a gay nominee, but he’s also apparently concerned about his party’s view and America’s view about a potential nominee.
But I personally don’t care about sexual orientation. I just want this judge to make the right call when he or she is called upon.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pmZooey Says:
ConservativeForProgress Says:
Are you intentionally missing the part where Sessions said, “It’s up to the President to decide.” Let’s wait and see if Obama thinks it is an issue or not.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
So if Obama nominates someone who is not gay, does it logically follow that he has an issue with the gay?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
I’m sure many will push that but in truth Obama will choose who he thinks would be the best nominee regardsless of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
Does this also mean that a KKK member would be OK?
Sessions, and his merry gang of hate-mongers, is on the same track as history will put Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Barnett and all the hate troops that grew up in the deep south..
Did Rush tell him to back off??
What losers….
May 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pmWhat exactly are “gay tendencies”?
Is that like dressing up as a woman (Rudy)?
Or flying to the Dominican Republic(known for it’s underage prostitution) with a handful of blue helpers (Rush)?
Or receiving a massage from a male, with a happy ending (Haggard)?
Or prancing around the kitchen (ala Julie Andrews) in boxers singing “The hills are alive, with the sound of music” at the top of one’s lungs while no one was home (okay, that was me after a few too many tequila shots. Don’t tell the wife.)
:-)
May 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pmSessions must have got yelled at by his fellow GOPers, or maybe he fears Boss Rush. Wouldn’t be great if Obama nominated a gay Justice, the GOP heads would explode.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pmthis is ANARCHY people!!! Order in the court!!
May 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Are you intentionally missing the part where Sessions said, “It’s up to the President to decide.” Let’s wait and see if Obama thinks it is an issue or not.
So if it’s up the president to decide, why is it a big concern? And why is it you KervativeKlosetKases can discuss it all you want, but when someone comments on your commenting you start whining?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pmSo the only “big concern” Sessions could come up with is that the American people “might feel uneasy”???? He didn’t say anything about how a person’s sexual orientation might affect his/her rulings? The only problem here is that we have to appease the bigots?
Yeah, I can see how that might be a “big concern” for Sessions. Most of the rest of us — not so much.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pmUncle Fester Lurks Says:
I’m sure many will push that but in truth Obama will choose who he thinks would be the best nominee regardsless of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
You and I know that, Uncle Fester, but I’m trying to probe the mind of someone who claims to be Conservative AND for Progress. Very interesting… ;)
May 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pmDoesn’t he know we already have a very gay man on the bench?
Hint: Alito and Roberts
I mean they are all in to blowing corporations.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pmDRx, you for forgot:
Strutting around an aircraft carrier with a pillow stuffed into your flight suit
Soliciting sex in a public restroom
May 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pmBeing outraged when a male politcian gets a bj, from a woman
Demanding an unnecesarry war to overcompensate
Driving your “wife” to write lesbian porn
Constantly trading in your trophy wives
Dr. Hussein Matt Says
May 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Why does a person’s sexual preference have to do with making decisions about law?
____________________________________________________________
I’m sure the homophobes are afraid that a gay judge might be concerned about ensuring gays aren’t denied their civil rights. They fail to understand that many straight judges feel the same way.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pmThe best part about all this is there isn’t even a nominee to talk about yet. Somebody needs to tell the Republicans that. So far it seems they are against anyone and everyone.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pmSessions might submit the names of Miers, Gonzals, Ashcrof, Muskasy and other loyal KKK members to see if they could be the replacement Justice. Look the RNC has a loyal token Black in Clarence Thomas to push out front when needed. Thomas see’s dead people as he hasn’t written a brief since taking the bench. Yes Thomas was appointed to do as he is told and Law really isn’t his strong point. His self book was written by someone else as he told his srink his troubles and pain. No need to argue about a gay Justice, as if you look real careful you’ll see we already have one, he’s just in the closet hint he’s still sending thank you letters. Now the game was played well with Justice Roberts. A wife two kids is the perfect picture of a 1940’s American family. Except this is 2009 and Justice Roberts can now be free to be himself as he did while on vacation with a special young lady. I’d say Larry Craig but he’s still in denial but still using those men’s rooms for ***. Just think of it we really have to thank Justice Souter for waiting until after the new President was sworn in office before announcing his retirement. Bush would have quickly put another loyal puppet on the bench. Maybe Judge Naughty of Colorado who looks at porn in the bench on his court computer and of couse hires protitutes while on the job. Now talk about a Republican Justice, I know Justice Ginsbury would have asked for security.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pmSomebody got a call from Rush.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:52 pmIt amazes me that President Obama hasn’t made any announcement about who he would pick for the SCOTUS, yet, everybody is all up in arms about a possible gay, Hispanic, Black, female, or any combination of the above, being named. The wingnuts are out threatening to fight against anyone who might be gay, straight or even slightly bent. The lefties are out defending the right of any possible pick and hoping for an all-out, in-your-rightwing-face nomination. I read one commentor who hoped for a gay, half Black/ half Hispanic woman, pro-abortion candidate, hoping that the minority party would filibuster, then explode in fits of self-rightous rage. How about if we just wait and see who will be named, then everybody can join in on the circus act.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pmIt sounds like Sessions got a phone call from their party leader Boss Limbaugh.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pmDipshits like this making decsions on my behalf, now that’s a big concern.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:59 pmfergus Says:
It amazes me that President Obama hasn’t made any announcement about who he would pick for the SCOTUS….
So, you think he should nominate someone without going through the vetting process first? That would be a big mistake.
Unfortunately they have President Obama between a rock and a hard place. If he nominates a minority or female he will be accused of doing so just because the person was a minority or a female. If he nominates a white male, he will be accused of caving to the right wing.
I am perfectly happy to give him time to vet his possible nominees and take his time in making the appointment.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:59 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
Why in the world do people talk about “gay tendencies” as if there are also people with “black tendencies”, “female tendencies”, “Hispanic tendencies”, or “heterosexual tendencies”?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
__________
Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I have been watching Cuidado con el Ángel and Mañana Es Para Siempre pretty regularly. Does this mean I’ve acknowledged my Hispanic tendencies?
May 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pmFlip-flop? Everyone knows a Reich-winger can flip-flop all he/she wants. It only matters when a Democrat does it.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:04 pmBilbo, I didn’t say anything at all about the vetting process. I was commenting about everybody getting all excited about who might be named, without having a clue as to whom it might be. So, what they are doing, is going through a fantasy list of possibles and talking trash about them. It’s ludicrous for people to be blathering on and on when they don’t even know what they’re talking about. There’s going to be plenty of time to rip the candidate apart after he/she has been named, so, why waste the time and effort to do so beforehand?
May 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pmfergus Says:
It’s ludicrous for people to be blathering on and on when they don’t even know what they’re talking about. There’s going to be plenty of time to rip the candidate apart after he/she has been named, so, why waste the time and effort to do so beforehand?
May 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
__________
Ludicrous? Perhaps. But you must remember that Rotisserie Government is a popular pastime in Washington. We can’t help but speculate about who’s on the short list for what job.
What’s particularly interesting about this SCOTUS selection is that the discussion isn’t focusing so much on WHO is on the short list, but WHAT.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pmHate the flip-flop, not the flip-flopper, People!
Now that it’s warm out, let me state my unequivocal hatred of flip-flops!
May 8th, 2009 at 2:23 pmIsn’t fair to say that Judge Clarence Thomas has some pretty kinky tendencies?
May 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pmBig concern>>?? I don’t consider a couple a million reichwing bigot’s heads exploding a big concern.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:34 pmRepublicans do not believe in identity politics…
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Right.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pmThe party of mostly fat old white guys with a token African American spokesperson having the political acumen of a marshmallow, led by a lardassgasbag only has one identity.
In the interest of equal representation:
the gay population is estimated somewhere from 10 to 20%.
There are 9 justices. So 1 or 2 should be gay.
There are 100 Senators – so 10 to 20 of them should be gay.
Even though I am not for a gay quota, Sessions’es argument falls very, very flat and one has to wonder if the lack of gays on the court denotes a form of discrimination.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pmThe great thing is that the irrelevant loser party does not have the votes to do what they want.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pmBe concerned about the very unhealthy!!
May 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Are you intentionally missing the part where Sessions said, “It’s up to the President to decide.” Let’s wait and see if Obama thinks it is an issue or not.
If Sessions truly means it’s up to Obama to decide, then he won’t slime whomever Obama picks and won’t filibuster the nomination.
If you think that isn’t going to happen, I have a bridge to sell you.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:36 pmwanna bet every gay or lesbian selected by Obama will somehow not be qualified to be a judge, but it of course will have nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:40 pmSessions suffers from a chronic case of Athlete’s Tongue.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:49 pmI hope that the President will name someone who will stand against the repeal of Roe v. Wade…
and…
against the onslaught of corporate/government overreaching power over the individual rights of Americans.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:08 am>I read one commentor who hoped for a gay,
> half Black/ half Hispanic woman,
> pro-abortion candidate,
> hoping that the minority party
> would filibuster, then explode
> in fits of self-rightous rage.
That would be amazing. I second that motion..
May 9th, 2009 at 10:10 amAw, this is good news for people with “gay tendencies.” Sounds to me like Jeff is signalling he’s a switch-hitter. Also sounds like Jeff has one story for MSNBC & one for Fox, so maybe he can compartmentalize his “gay tendencies.”
May 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pmseslichat
May 10th, 2009 at 11:40 pmsesli chat
sesli sohbet
seslisohbet