At least according to the risk takers placing bets with the over-under experts at Intrade. They’re taking buys on who’s going to win David Souter’s seat on the Supreme Court! So how are our girls Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan doing?
Not great.
Federal judge Sonia Sotomayor is in the lead, with a 28 percent chance of winning, according to users. And the lesbian ladies of jurisprudence? They’re way behind the pack, with Karlan at 0.9 percent and Sullivan trailing with just 0.8 percent.
The good news?
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.
Well, trading did just start. And: Some candidates like Harold Hongju Koh and Deval Patrick aren’t even being traded yet.
Jaroslaw
Pass out the most recent edition of The Nation magazine. There is an excellent article about various people’s choices for SCJ – great column about Pam Karlan – she was the first one mentioned and I didn’t even know she was a lesbian.
Too bad job interviews can’t be held like they are with the symphony – behind a black curtain. People don’t know if you are young or old, what race or gender – only your performance is evaluated.
Rob
Intrade might be a useful predictor of the outcome of elections. It’s not a useful way of predicting the President’s court nominations.
Remember, Obama was a constitutional law professor for a long time. He has his own views about who would do a good job on the Supreme Court. He’ll be sensitive to the political winds, of course, but compared with other presidents, he probably won’t rely heavily on his staff or on the press for advice on this issue.
Kevin@BGFH
My criteria for who I would like to see nominated:
1. Someone who unequivacably believes that the Constitution provides for the right to privacy. This is the foundation for most sexual privacy issues — contraception, abortion, sodomy laws, and (along with the 14th Amendment) miscegination laws and ultimately gay marriage laws. Pro-choice means more than just abortion; it’s the underpining of an entire judicial philosophy that rather mainstream at this point.
2. Someone with impeccable legal credentials. Someone undeniably qualified so that the right wing can’t use that to rally against them.
3. Someone without any skeletons in the closet. We don’t want an ideal nominee derailed because of tax issues or anything like that.
But by skeletons, I’m not talking about talking publicly about potentially controversial issues like abortion, provided that the context is in a legal context. It’s inconceivable that Obama wouldn’t appoint someone who is pro-choice, and highly dangerous to appoint someone whose views on the right to privacy have never been mentioned.
As a bonus, it would be nice to appoint someone whose life experiences help bring new perspectives to the Court. Diversity in its broadest sense (through race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, socio-economic background, or some combination of the above).
dgz
of COURSE sotomayor’s in the lead.
she’s a latina, an experienced judge, and (despite being fairly liberal) advanced under a republican administration. she’d be confirmed inside of 10 minutes. Obama’s trying to build a record of victories, and is unlikely to try pushing the envelope with nominees until round 2 or 3.
Jonathan
Um… you know that Pam’s GF is Kathleen’s ex, right?
Kevin@BGFH
@Jonathan: Seriously? Wow.
dgz
@Jonathan:
you’re kidding! well, i guess that means they won’t ever be on the Court together… awkwaaaaaard.
Max Power
Nobody is talking about it, but Elena Kagan – the current Solicitor General, and who is ranked second in these Intrade predictions, just after Sotomayor – is a confirmed pantsuit-wearing bachelorette also. I don’t think she’s ever publicly said she’s a lesbian, but it’s basically an open secret to everyone around her. I’m just saying.