A gay US Supreme Court Justice?

**Mikelus Trento** · May 28, 2009, 07:43 AM

As with the "muslim for US Supreme Court Justice" poll, this one asks if you would be in favor of a gay US Supreme Court Justice?

For me, although I'm sure the US gay population exceeds the 1% mark of the muslims makeup, I'm also just as sure it's not 10%, which is my personal threashold since there are 9 Justices. Being gay, in and of itself, would not make me oppose a nominee.

Would YOU support a gay nominee?

**Pengo** · May 28, 2009, 07:49 AM

As long as they do the job to the letter of the law, where is the issue?

**Enemy of the State** · May 28, 2009, 07:54 AM

Why the hell does it matter if they are a large part of the population? If they can do their job right and uphold the constitution, of course there isn't any problem!

**Desperado †** · May 28, 2009, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Timothy Leary

Why the hell does it matter if they are a large part of the population? If they can do their job right and uphold the constitution, of course there isn't any problem!

Precisely.

We don't choose our leaders due to their eye colour, or their eating habit in ratio to the number of the populace that have that eye colour or that eating habit. These things, like your personal sexuality or religion, are completely irrelevant to the job.

The question is how well that person will do the job, not minor, unrelated details like these.

**Mikelus Trento** · May 28, 2009, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Desperado †

Precisely.

We don't choose our leaders due to their eye colour, or their eating habit in ratio to the number of the populace that have that eye colour or that eating habit. These things, like your personal sexuality or religion, are completely irrelevant to the job.

The question is how well that person will do the job, not minor, unrelated details like these.

Your statement of "how well they do their job" can be very subjectively defined. For example, if you are opposed to gay marriages, and a gay Justice decided on a case in favor of gay marriages....would you think of them as doing their job? Or abusing their position?

The point of having all significant portions of the population (numbers wise) represented is so that all the varied groups in America feel they have representation on the highest court in the land.

**Desperado †** · May 28, 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

Your statement of "how well they do their job" can be very subjectively defined. For example, if you are opposed to gay marriages, and a gay Justice decided on a case in favor of gay marriages....would you think of them as doing their job? Or abusing their position?

Not allowing your personal situation to avert your decision on the case is part of being a good judge. Everybody has personal factors which may effect on the case, a gay judge being no different. A good judge will not let these effect on the verdict, and it's by how good a person is we judge them for a position, not by their sexuality or if we have a group of people in ratio to the features of the popularity.

The point of having all significant portions of the population (numbers wise) represented is so that all the varied groups in America feel they have representation on the highest court in the land.

So you can only be represented by somebody the same race, gender, sexuality or religion as you? Bullcrap. Besides, it's not about representation, it's about justice.

**Mikelus Trento** · May 28, 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Desperado †

Not allowing your personal situation to avert your decision on the case is part of being a good judge. Everybody has personal factors which may effect on the case, a gay judge being no different. A good judge will not let these effect on the verdict, and it's by how good a person is we judge them for a position, not by their sexuality or if we have a group of people in ratio to the features of the popularity.

So you can only be represented by somebody the same race, gender, sexuality or religion as you? Bullcrap. Besides, it's not about representation, it's about justice.

The common wisdom here is that someone who is "like you", bringing a similar set of life experiences to the table, is more likely to render decisions that would be in agreement with what you would favor.

Prengo....the problem is that the Consitution can be interpreted in different ways.

**Karoliner** · June 03, 2009, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

For example, if you are opposed to gay marriages, and a gay Justice decided on a case in favor of gay marriages....would you think of them as doing their job? Or abusing their position?

A lot of people wanted segregation when it was struck down by the Courts. Were they not doing their jobs?

**Shi Huangdi** · June 03, 2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Karoliner

A lot of people wanted segregation when it was struck down by the Courts. Were they not doing their jobs?

The Courts did as much to promote slavery and segregation as to end them (e.g. Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Furguson). And it was the Republicans in Congress, along with Democratic President Johnson, who finally passed the Civil Rights Act which really did away with legalized segregation.

**Pontifex Maximus** · May 28, 2009, 08:21 AM

Moved to the academy.

**Pengo** · May 28, 2009, 08:51 AM

I'm not sure that a judge can change the law in this instance, its the politicians who do that. What exactly do you mean by rule on gay marriage? In what instance?

**Mikelus Trento** · May 28, 2009, 08:56 AM

I'm confident that the US Supreme Court can overturn discriminatory laws made by the states.

**Pengo** · May 28, 2009, 09:05 AM

Only if backed up by legitimate references, such as to a piece of paper that speaks about the equality of all men.

I mean a judge can't just create a crazy law because they want to.

**Mikelus Trento** · May 28, 2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Pengo

Only if backed up by legitimate references, such as to a piece of paper that speaks about the equality of all men.

I mean a judge can't just create a crazy law because they want to.

The "legitimate reference" would be the US Constitution.

**Pengo** · May 28, 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

The "legitimate reference" would be the US Constitution.

So if the constitution allows for it then thats bad? I'm confused.

**C-Rob** · May 28, 2009, 09:20 AM

I don't really care what they do in the privacy of their bedroom...

**Nikos** · May 28, 2009, 10:04 AM

ON TOPIC

Who cares if they're Gay? As long as they do a good job I wouldn't care.

**Ahlerich** · May 28, 2009, 10:06 AM

so the polls show beeing gay is a little less unacceptable as beeing muslim

**MathiasOfAthens** · May 28, 2009, 10:11 AM

I voted yes, but suspect condemnation on the right if anyone who was attracted to the same sex was nominated, their attacks would consist of fear that a national gay marriage law would be established or something to that effect. I do not believe the country has reached the point yet that any such person would be nominated within the next couple years but hey anything can happen. Already we have seen Obama take a stand at world and national energy needs. After changing the MPG rules china followed suit with a similar bill.

**Valus** · May 28, 2009, 10:42 AM

I see no problem with having a gay judge and I cant see why anyone would be opposed to it, I cant understand what the logic would be behind such a stance..