KARLAN, the MOST BRILLIANT candidate for SCOTUS is UNDERMINED by focus on SEXUAL ORIENTATION

[Sensitivity]

Pamela S. Karlan,
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (we hope)

Professor, scholar, litigator, social activist, and author of:


Race, Incarceration and American Values


The Law of Democracy


Constitutional Law






I would love to see the brilliant, erudite, incisive, Pamela Karlan on the Supreme Court. She is perfect – probably the MOST QUALIFIED candidate, MALE OR FEMALE for appointment to the Court. But articles like in POLITICO are DESTROYING her chances -- they move the spotlight from her very public brilliance to her very private life.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22106.html

Prof. Pam Karlan has, in the past, made a point of NOT making a point of her sexual orientation or preferences.

Now that she could be considered for the Supreme Court, her sexual orientation and even the name of her "partner" is being blared by the liberal media as if it is the most important characteristic of perhaps the most brilliant female candidate for the court.

I went to Stanford. I am an admirer of Prof. Karlan. But, I never heard her talk about her sexual orientation. This is not her style and it may be a grievous disservice to a thoughtful consideration of her candidacy.

Karlan’s principal writings (as cited by Stanford Law)

http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/32/

Key Works
• Samuel Issacharoff, Pamela S. Karlan and Richard H. Pildes, The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process, New York: Foundation Press, 3rd ed., August 2007.
• Pamela S. Karlan, The Paradoxical Structure of Constitutional Litigation, 75 Fordham Law Review 1913 (2007).
• Pamela S. Karlan, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Peter W. Low and George A. Rutherglen, Civil Rights Actions: Enforcing the Constitution, New York: Foundation Press, 2nd ed., 2007.
• Pamela S. Karlan, New Beginnings and Dead Ends in the Law of Democracy (Symposium: Election Law and the Roberts Court), 68 Ohio State Law Journal 743 (2007).
• Pamela S. Karlan. With Geoffry R. Stone, Louis Michael Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, and Mark V. Tushnet, Constitutional Law, 5th ed., New York: Aspen Publishers, 2005.

[closeupready]

1. "Gay" would definitely be a demerit on Obama's justice search scorecard.

n/t

[elleng]

4. Then why is she on the 'list?'

.

[closeupready]

10. because this is part of the 'vetting' process.

Don't get me wrong - as a gay man, I would LOVE to see a gay man or a lesbian on the court. Just saying, Obama - 'as a Christian' - does not like gays or lesbians due to his religion so this would hurt any candidate.

[TTUBatfan2008]

18. That's bullshit...

Obama was in favor of gay marriage in the 1990's as a state legislator. Last I checked, he was a Christian at that point as well. And just to show you how ignorant you really are, I'm a Christian and believe bigotry towards gays or anyone for that matter is flat-out wrong. Jesus Christ never said it was OK to treat people as less than human based on anything. He was friends with a prostitute for crying out loud. The whole anti-gay movement within the Christian community is based on Old Testament quotes that Jesus himself never mentioned in the New Testament.

[closeupready]

21. It's true.

n/t

[TTUBatfan2008]

22. No, it's not...

You're making an ignoramus of yourself right now by assuming things about all Christians based on the actions of right wing Christians.

[closeupready]

23. Okay, well, to be technical, he said

(to paraphrase) 'as a believer in traditional Christian values, marriage is opposite sex only in my opinion, but states can decide however they want'.

[TTUBatfan2008]

26. To be technical...

He's a politician that has been wishy washy on it and deep down I suspect he wants full rights for gays and has nothing against them/you. The only thing I've noticed is that he used to be ultra liberal on gay rights (fully in favor of gay marriage during the 1990's) but as he's risen as a national political figure, he's sold out on the issue just like most mainstream Democrats. It's what mainstream politicians do: they triangulate their position based on what they think is acceptable within the electorate. The politicians who are the most firm in their beliefs tend to be marginalized by their political party, such as Kucinich with the Dems and Ron Paul with the Repukes.

[closeupready]

24. And then there was Rick Warren, and his backtrack on DADT, and all that garbage

but I guess when we are dealing with the man of 1000 excuses, you have one at the ready for each example?

[TTUBatfan2008]

28. My excuse...

is simple: he's a triangulating, pandering politician. AKA, not an excuse...but also not a reason to call him a fucking homophobe like you did earlier in this thread. Scumbag politician? Hell yeah. Deceitful? Hell yeah. Homophobe? You couldn't possibly know that if you've never spent any time with him.

[William769]

30. Where did he call him a homophobe?

[TTUBatfan2008]

31. "demerit against her...Christians don't like gays..."

He's saying that Obama would automatically not consider her because he's a Christian and somehow if you're a Christian, that automatically means you don't like gays. Not liking gays = homophobia, last time I checked.

[William769]

34. Well I am Gay and Christian.

"Not liking gays = homophobia, last time I checked." is utter bullshit. There are several reason why Obama won't pick her and ut has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with bigotry and yes you can quote me on that.

[TTUBatfan2008]

35. It has to do with politics...

AKA, he's a flip-flopping, triangulating, mainstream politician who won't stand up for what he really thinks on this matter. It's funny that when he was an obscure state legislator, he was completely in favor of gay marriage and yet, as his political star has risen, he's moved further to the middle on gay rights.

[TTUBatfan2008]

29. Speaking of excuses...

What's your excuse for the rather ignorant generalizations you hold against all Christians, including me? That's the equivalent of saying all white people were racist in the 1950's. A majority might have been, but to generalize an entire group of people is completely unfair.

[closeupready]

32. well, no, I didn't mean ALL Christians, and I apologize if it seemed I was saying that.

Obviously, many Christians support equality, and making that ambiguous statement was unfair. I'm sorry.

But as to Obama, I'm leaving my comments as is.

[TTUBatfan2008]

33. Thanks for apologizing...

because it did come across as a generalization. As for Obama, hopefully he gets rid of DADT, DOMA, etc.

[democrattotheend]

59. Evidence?

I will agree that Obama has shied away from fights over gay marriage and other issues affecting gays and lesbians, and I would like to see him show more courage on gay rights issues. But I have never seen any evidence that he is personally bigoted against gays and lesbians or "does not like" anyone who is gay or lesbian. That's a heady accusation to make, and I would like to see you back it up with some evidence.

During the campaign there were things said about Obama that made me mad, many of them with racial implications. But I was always very careful not to accuse anyone of being racist without just cause. I understood the difference between being personally racist and making political calculations based on race. I think you should do the same here. Just because Obama has made the political calculation that being a staunch advocate for gay rights has too high a cost politically does not make him prejudiced against gays and lesbians. I wish he would show more political courage on the issue than he has so far, but if you are going to accuse him of personally disliking all gays and lesbians you ought to have proof of that.

[pnwmom]

43. "Obama 'as a Christian' does not like gays"? Then how do you account

for all the gay Christians and their families?

There isn't only one brand of Christian. And Obama isn't a fundie.

[closeupready]

45. I was just being a little sarcastic, mocking his own lame excuse for

why he believes marriage should remain the exclusive province of heterosexuals. I have and do now apologize to those Christians who seek equality. I did not mean to offend, but of course, I couldn't be bothered to check my ambiguous language, and I am sorry.

[TTUBatfan2008]

11. WTF?

[closeupready]

13. See my post #10, just above.

n/t

[TTUBatfan2008]

19. I saw it...

It's a huge fucking generalization against Christians. It's a rather nasty and ignorant generalization as well.

[elleng]

2. 'DESTROYING her chances '

Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

[avaistheone1]

3. I don't want to robbed of this brilliant woman because of the bias of the GOP

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. Because her orientation had no effect on how she sees the world, right?

:eyes:

[Sensitivity]

15. As of a week ago Kathleen Sullivan was cited as the ONLY openly gay candidate

Why: because Karlan never made it an issue in public. That was her PRIVATE life.

Up to now PRIVACY was her CHOICE and SHE did not seem to think that her sexual orientation was relevant to her scholarship or legal judgements.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

17. How do you know?

Just because she didn't speak up about her orientation doesn't mean it didn't affect her.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Aren't you exaggerating? If anything Sotomayer has been much more demonized.

[elleng]

9. Why?

'cause she's 'fat' and diabetic?

Or for substantive reasons, like she's difficult to deal with?

[ClarkUSA]

16. That much-replayed video of her saying the circuit court "makes policy".

[closeupready]

12. I love Sotomayer, always have - would love to see her on the court.

n/t

[ClarkUSA]

20. I'd be happy with any of the people named. I'll leave the final choice up to Pres. Obama.

[Sensitivity]

25. No one is DEMONIZING Karlan. Just EMPHASIZING something she NEVER has before

Distracting from the essence of this brilliant candidate for the highest court.

[ClarkUSA]

37. The MSM is barely covering SCOTUS picks. Yes, they've mentioned it but in a matter-of-fact way.

They mentioned Sotomayer's Hispanic background much more, IMO. BTW, I like Karlan; she is brilliant.

[Sensitivity]

38. The MSM NEVER mentioned Karlan's orientation, because she did not either. Its the LIBERAL MEDIA

that has decided to make it a focus. Do a google and you will find that the Politico article has resulted in a wildfire propagation of the issue, even into the wiki posting (which did not mention it before).

[ClarkUSA]

41. Really? I watched CNN do it this afternoon in their SCOTUS speculation segment.

[Sensitivity]

44. Yes, AFTER Politico blared it out there. NOT BEFORE

Karlan never wore her sexual orientation on her sleeve.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

49. Do you seriously think it wouldn't have come up?

[Luminous Animal]

53. Politico is not liberal. It is right wing.

Or as Greenwald puts it, it is a right wing cess pool.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/30/allen/index.html

[depakid]

7. Being outspoken, high profile and vocal is more of a difficulty here

[Sensitivity]

39. Well, Obama said he was looking for EMPATHY. No??

Karlan’s work as the principal founder of Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, has opened up, if only narrowly, some chance for the indigent to have access to the Supreme Court.

If Obama still wants a supreme court jurists who has empathy for those who lack the financial wherewithal to retain the specialized law firms needed for a high-court appeal he should definitely nominate Karlan. There is no one else on the candidate list in her league.

[depakid]

46. No question- but as a practical matter, it poses difficulties in the confirmation process

at least at this time which probably outweigh any concerns on the right- or mong the DINO's about sexual orientation.

BTW don't get me wrong. I like the woman and am way impressed with her work and her character.

[Metta]

8. She's only out if Obama backs away.

no text.

[rvablue]

14. Politico might be focusing on it. If President Obama cared she wouldn't be on the short

list.

And frankly, what are the Repubs going to do about besides further make themselves look like total fools if they try to make hay of it.

They're surrogates might, I'll give you that. But I doubt we'll hear one word about her orientation during the confirmation hearings if, in fact, she is picked.

And if she isn't tapped who knows if we ever find out whether her orientation had anything to do with it.

One thing we know 100% for sure: the repubs are going to ATTACK any pick, gay or not.

[ieoeja]

27. Her resume is too light.

She has four years as clerk or counsel. The remainder of her experience is entirely academic. If she gets nominated the GOP launches a three-pronged attack.

1. Virtually no experience outside academia.
2. She was a radical Leftist counsel for the NAACP.
3. She is gay.

And I put those in the order in which I believe the Republics would use them. #1 works everywhere. #2 is more about building a list of reasons Obama is too extreme. #3 is just sauce for the red states.

The usual suspects, e.g. Bayh and the Nelsons, would crumble and the nomination would be lost.

On the other hand, nominating her could serve to grease the nomination of a followup nominee. The Republics and DLC getting their props with their supporters by beating up on Karlan lets them give the next nominee a pass. "As bad as the eventual new justice was, we did succeed in preventing a far more radical nominee from getting in," they would exclaim.

And to anyone saying, "who cares what the Republics will do," please take note of the highlighted portion of this post. I don't care what the Republics think, but we won't get a justice without some DLC support. So we are stuck appeasing them to some extent.

[Sensitivity]

36. Where did you find her RES?? She has had vast relevant exp for one under 50

An active litigator with 4 wins at the Supreme Court

Eminent scholar -- now the principal author of "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"

Social activist throughout her career featuring her work for NAACP but also her founding of the
Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to provide FREE litigation at the highest level plaintiffs without the funds.

Highly respected professor, lecturer at both University of Virginia and Stanford

Frequent Television and Radio commentator


What more do you want from her.

[w4rma]

40. She is a good choice. Perhaps the very best choice. (nt)

[Sensitivity]

42. That't the opinion of legal scholars who know her -- Link

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/pam_karlan_and_souter_s_seat_stuntz/

[ruggerson]

47. So all high profile gay people need to be in the closet to advance their careers?

oookie doke.

[Sensitivity]

50. Karlan had been a strong supporter of GLBT rights without talking about her sexuality

The issue is focus.

[ruggerson]

51. Do you even begin to understand how offensive and vile your OP is?

[Sensitivity]

54. The Nation's 4 pages of discussion manages to avoid refs into sexual orientation

BRAVO!

Karlan is named by three of the eminent legal commentators regarding the best person of "Follow Souter" and no one mentioned her orientation.




http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/following_souter?rel=hp_picks

[hulklogan]

48. When the gays said "We want a gay candidate," many said "Just nominate the best person."

And now that we've found a gay candidate who is, in fact, among the best possible choices, many say "Obama can't nominate her because she won't be confirmed."

Which is it?

[Number23]

52. Thanks for the information on her

I had no idea. So far, there has not been a single person named as a possible SC nom that I think any of us should have a problem with.

We have an embarrassment of riches! I hope that most people here recognize that.

[cwcwmack]

55. in your opinion...

what do you believe makes Karlan more qualified than Sullivan?

Specifically... I'll be waiting.

[Sensitivity]

56. Not more QUALIFIED than Sullivan, but more suited in my opinion to engage

in the kind of legal argumentation needed to move a SC decision:

More passionate for social justice -- see pro bono emphasis in work for NAACP and founding of SC Litigation Center

Reputed to be more willing to respect and engage her ideological adversaries

Seems more spontaneously witty and takes herself less seriously

Her writing seems more engaging

A few years younger and seems less set in her intellectual and personal commitments

[JNelson6563]

57. I'm pulling for Granholm, actually.

I have nothing against Karlan, I think Granholm would be the perfect choice.

Though if Obama nominates Karlan, I'm on board 100%, of course.

Julie

[Sensitivity]

58. Do we have any evidence she's ready to tangle with Scalia et. al??

[JNelson6563]

60. She's fought some bloody wars & won.

So yeah, there's lots of evidence there. If you think battling Dominionist Rethugs is bad, try to win the nom for Dem Gov candidate with labor backing someone else. As much as I support unions I know what I speak of when I say that labor politicos make wingers look gentle in comparison. Remember, we're talking MICHIGAN here. Labor's no longer the national giant it once was but it still has quite the stranglehold in MI Democratic party politics.

Granholm was an ass-kickin' AG too.

Julie