This is it — the moment we’ve been waiting for, when President Obama announced the nominee to replace antigay monster Antonin Scalia. That nominee: Merrick Garland.
If everything was going normally in this country, the nominee would now go to the Senate, and our elected representatives would make a bunch of political speeches and hold confirmation hearings. But there’s nothing ordinary about this election cycle, or about American politics in general lately, so instead we’re going to get an unpredictable explosive circus with Republicans refusing to even consider the nominee, regardless his convictions let alone qualifications. (He’s a highly regarded moderate but would surely move the court in a progressive direction by virtue of his predecessor’s voting record alone.)
We don’t know a lot about Garland’s LGBTQ legal views at this point but his qualifications for the high court have never been an issue. Appointed to the DC Circuit by President Clinton, the Senate confirmed Garland on a 76-to-23 vote, with 32 Republicans voting in favor. Best of all, he clerked for Supreme Court’s famous defender or liberty and homosexuality, Justice William Brennan. At the Justice Department, he led the prosecutions of Ted Kaczynski, the unibomber, and Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City mass murderer.
Obama’s goal is to pull back the curtain on the civil war brewing right now in the Republican party. For a long time, there’s been a tension between the old-fashioned small-government Republicans, whose primary interest is in protecting the assets of the wealthy; and the crazy-eyed snake-handler Republicans, whose primary interest is Jesus and sticking their fingers in our eyes (and crotches).
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
That tension’s been waiting to explode for years, although the rise of the Tea Party let off some steam. Now that Donald Trump is ascending, that schism may finally explode, and internal GOP disagreement about how to handle Scalia’s replacement may drive the party even further apart. The Dems hope that Americans will like Garland, and feel sympathy for a guy who can’t even get a hearing for a job for which he’s clearly qualified.
No matter how the confirmation process goes, it’s hard to imagine the court ever having as antigay a figure as Scalia ever again, a dying breed in legal circles. And that’s important, because there could be several high-profile LGBT cases coming before the court over the next decade or two.
One of the biggest issues that could reach the Supreme Court is the passage of bizarre anti-anti-discrimination laws in various Republican-controlled states. These laws create obstacles to anti-discrimination protections, usually under the guise of “religious freedom,” and exist only to target LGBTs for unfavorable treatment.
These laws are probably not constitutional, thanks to Romer v. Evans. That’s the mid-90s Supreme Court decision that prohibited laws that single out gays & lesbians (trans was not in the equation yet) for mistreatment. The laws being passed by conservative state legislatures are similar, and it could require a Supreme Court majority to overturn them. If Garland is confirmed, we now have that majority.
Another issue that the court might rule on: banning “pray away the gay” camps. Various states have brought challenges to these abusive practices, and it’s possible that there could be a federal challenge from either side.
And of course there are still lingering issues relating to marriage equality. Just recently, the Supreme Court stepped in and issued a ruling that protected the rights of same-sex parents in a Georgia case. A court in Georgia ruled that a lesbian mother wasn’t entitled to see her own child because the courts declined to recognize her marriage license. That’s not acceptable, the Supreme Court ruled, since marriage equality is the law of the land.
That’s why Garland’s confirmation matters. Based on his record, Obama’s nominee is likely to be sympathetic to our causes. Whether Garland’s obstructionist opponents like it or not, this nation is well on its way toward full legal equality on all things LGBTQ.
Sweetie Pie
Does he keep it kosher?
crowebobby
Should the Republicans refuse to consider any Supreme Court nominee Obama proposes and then go on to win the election, could the Democrats counter by refusing to approve anyone the Republicans propose during their term in office. Wouldn’t happen, I know, but is it even possible? Anyone?
1EqualityUSA
I wonder if, in some meeting behind closed doors, they lined up 3 Justices and decided to float out the first, knowing he’d be picked off. Then the second gets floated, blown out of the water. Then when the political pressure is insurmountable, the third (most desired) Justice comes in a snags the bench. Either way, this will backfire on the Party of “NO.” Let’s clean up the House and Senate. We need fewer road blocks.
Tony Chaplinski
oh great! another reason for the gop to not vote for him
Kieran
It appears he’s being offered up as a sacrificial lamb.
captainburrito
@Kieran: I was thinking the same thing but i am guessing he agreed to it.
Bauhaus
@1EqualityUSA:
Clorox and a scrub brush wouldn’t be able remove the shit stain the GOP has created in the House and Senate.
captainburrito
@crowebobby: Depends if they win back the Senate. But long term it seems like a black mark against them and i don’t think voters would look kindly to that if it drags on longer. They could just push the Repubs to appoint a moderate like Kennedy.
Glücklich
@1EqualityUSA:
Nothing you suggest would surprise me. I’ve used similar tactics at work but my job is not to govern a country.
Fucked up thing is blocking an appointee just out of spite seems to be an already-reviled senate shooting itself in the foot with bullshit “sequestration” and other shutdowns still in most Americans’ recent memory. God forbid they just do their fucking job even if the job is “playing politics.”
1EqualityUSA
captain burrito, my intrigue-o-meter just shot into red….”agreed to it”….next level
GC1985
Garland is a moderate and very much a pragmatist. I am not sure the GOP will accept that though.
Hermes
@crowebobby: Sure – its a matter of political will.
He BGB
I’m going to be an ass and say all I care about is he liberal for gay rights? Don’t care about guns, abortion, taxes, jobs, etc. Does he make decisions based on his religious beliefs like Scalia? Which is so against American beliefs church and state separation and all
Kangol
He’s a center-right jurist, and not a liberal, but he’s to the left of Scalia, so he would shift the court left. In essence, he’s probably ideologically close to Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by Reagan but who would be far too left-wing for the current GOP, which ought to tell you how far off the cliff they’ve driven.
One scary thought is that if Trump wins, he’s talked about appointing that horrid anti-gay “judge” Andrew Napolitano to the court. As if there wouldn’t already be a circus in the White House and the Congress (Ben Carson allegedly was promised a post, and probably Chris Christie and Sarah Palin), we’d have a nutcase on SCOTUS who’d make Scalia look like, well, William Brennan!
1EqualityUSA
Glucklich, as for the Tedious Right, their message doesn’t resonate. This is why cheating is necessary–reindeer games.
Since their message is a hot mess, they will now dangle the SCOTUS, as a carrot, in front of targeted noses.
For some Christians, vehemently displaying their disdain for our community, the GOP fits for them. When religion and political spheres entwine, lock talons, both are tainted and neither are satisfied. Symptoms are as plain as day. Contentious and unpleasant strife. Attribute it to lack of skill or blatant defiance, either way, it edifies nobody. Christ was not a political figure, as much as Rome thought so.
Fear and loathing has been given a voice through the Republican Party. Untrustworthy characters surface, as bouys, tethered to lakes of hate. These antagonists bring with them a miasma of fetid, judgement-impairing gasses. Fostering unresolved fear in their unenlightened hearts, chosen words fly out of downturned mouths, no mind to the harm done. And woe to those, not ascribing to their personalized interpretation. Political pressure, oppression, accusatory words, unskillfully deployed, must be a form of biochemical warfare. There are no bullet holes. Words shift energy this way and that. They incite and shift our minds. They damn us. Worldliness is a statement of affirmation. The symptoms show and the obsolete, they squirm. When a message no longer inspires, and this neglect becomes glaringly apparent, danger, danger little stranger. Power will do that.
Harlan Snyder
I think you might be jumping the gun just a bit. If the senate will not hold hearings it’s all a moot point.
Glücklich
@1EqualityUSA:
You ought to write for the NY Times or Mother Jones. Sheer poetry.
1EqualityUSA
I see things as pictures and describe it as best I can. Thanks for your sweetness, Mr. Glucklich. I enjoy your humor too.
Glücklich
@1EqualityUSA:
Makes sense, you being a painter ‘n all. Mr. Glücklich, another painter, doesn’t read or write well – dyslexic – so I’ve never thought of writing as you describe. Interesting. And extremely effective.
1EqualityUSA
I am too.
1EqualityUSA
words look like alphabet soup sometimes and commas are such bitchy little snots.
1EqualityUSA
there should have been a comma in between “bitchy” and “little.” (snots)
Petra Madero
😉
jkb
And his corporatist agenda?
GG
Oh, Qweerty.
“Just recently, the Supreme Court stepped in and issued a ruling that protected the rights of same-sex parents in a Georgia case.”
– No. It was an Alabama case, filed in Alabama, tried in Alabama.
“A court in Georgia ruled . . . ”
– No. It was an Alabama court ruling.
“. . . that a lesbian mother wasn’t entitled to see her own child because the courts declined to recognize her marriage license.”
– No. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiff saying the Georgia court had erred in allowing the plaintiff to adopt the children in the first place.
“That’s not acceptable, the Supreme Court ruled, since marriage equality is the law of the land.”
– No. SCOTUS overturned the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision not on the fact that ‘marriage equality is the law of the land,’ but because of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution which requires states to accept court actions/decisions of other states.
Qweerty (and others), look here if you are interested in the facts of the case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-lgbt-adoption_us_56dd92b7e4b03a4056791e4f
dwes09
@Sweetie Pie:”Does he keep it kosher?”
By which you mean what exactly?
dwes09
@GC1985: “Garland is a moderate and very much a pragmatist. I am not sure the GOP will accept that though.”
Within moments of the announcement, some GOP higher up (might even have been Rense) referred to Garland as “a left wing activist judge” who has no respect for the constitution. These are, after all, the people who consider Obama a radical!
spiritedrandy
The post’s premise that Judge Garland or any other nominee will affect LGBT cases is strange. Justice Kennedy has led a 5 vote majority in pro lgbt cases and that won’t change. Of course, he too is old, as are Ginsburg and Breyer, so a Dem appointee to Scalia’s seat provides valuable insurance. But it’s not a game changer. Garlland is a great pic; I just wish he was younger.
Blackceo
I just want to talk for a second how wonderfully WASPy his name sounds. I can’t think of a Jewish guy with a more WASPy name than Merrick Garland. I envision him spending his weekends in Nantucket in boat shoes and Vineyard Vines/Ralph Lauren prep gear with Buffy and Chip prepping the sailboat to spend a day on the water. With a name like that he had to make something of himself. I love it.
As for the pick itself, I think its a calculated move on Obama’s part. This guy is for all intents and purposes a centrist. He’s white, older, has gotten Republican praise in the past, and they still are going to not give him a vote. Some are saying Obama should’ve made a nomination that would fire up the base in November like picking a Black female or Latino male. The court is essentially Christian and Jewish, everyone either from Yale or Harvard, or one of the Ivys. Needs a bit more diversity. But if a Democrat wins the White House in November they are gonna wish they had Merrick Garland instead of who Hillary or Bernie will choose.
kzen64
Both sides play games with judicial nominations. It’s only when the other side is doing it that it’s suddenly wrong…