• commentary
  • TUESDAY MAY 12 2009 6:00 AM

SCOTUS: Let’s Go Gay

Obama’s going to pick a Supreme Court nominee this year. This will be the first time we are going to have a justice picked by a non-asshole since the 90’s. Besides just a non-asshole, it’s the first time a president will pick a justice based on their credentials, instead of their insane right wing leanings and destructive business loving opinions. In all seriousness, if Justices Roberts and Alito could actually go down on corporations, they would. So this is a big deal. That’s why I think Obama should pick a gay woman. That doesn’t make sense after everything I just said, does it? Like I give a shit.

Let’s go gay. Let’s show the right wing what it feels like to watch an Alito take a seat on the bench. At least we can watch the right wing freak the fuck out and Senators filibuster for no other reason than because there might be a gay person on the bench. It’s a win-win. Do we have a gay woman who is qualified? Of course. Her name is Kathleen Sullivan.

Sullivan graduated from Cornell in 1976, did a little Oxford Scholar action for a couple of years, then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1981 (cough, cough, Obama, Harvard, cough). Harvard law professor Larry Tribe brought Sullivan on to work with him on a Supreme Court case and was quite impressed.

"Her sense of the most persuasive way to cast the issues and her rhetorical command were remarkable for any lawyer, much less a student. It was clear to me that I was dealing with the most extraordinary student I had ever had."



Sullivan went on to clerk for Judge James Oakes on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She worked for a couple of years in Boston for a law firm and was then recruited by Harvard as a professor – where she taught, ahem, Constitutional Law. At the same time, she was working it as a lawyer.

She was co-counsel with Tribe for the Georgia ACLU in Bowers v. Hardwick, an unsuccessful 1986 challenge to Georgia’s sodomy law as a violation of privacy rights, and in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, a successful 1984 defense of Hawaii’s land reform act against a taking clause challenge. Sullivan was the last attorney, following in a long line that began with James St. Clair ’44 (’47) and Professor Alan Dershowitz, to represent Frederick Wiseman in the "Titicut Follies" case, which has long been the basis of HLS’s federal litigation course. The case involved a gag order on a 1967 film about Bridgewater State Hospital; the gag order was finally lifted in 1991, when the judge decided that the subjects of the film would no longer be recognizable. Sullivan’s roster of cases also includes Anderson v. Green in which she made her second solo appearance before the Supreme Court in 1995, arguing on behalf of the right of newly entered poor mothers in California to receive AFDC benefits at the same level as longtime California residents. Sullivan says she won by virtue of mootness, and that the case is back on the Supreme Court docket this year.



Sullivan moved to Stanford Law School in 1993, where she became dean in 1999. In 2004, she stepped down as dean to become the director of the new Stanford constitutional law center. Oh, and she is the Stanley Morrison Professor at Stanford Law School. She is super qualified for the position. Oh, and she represented Mitch McConnell at one point. You know, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, also known as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. I’d love to watch Republicans mount a campaign against a supremely qualified lawyer who once represented their Minority Leader. It’s like a gift from God.

For Republicans it would come down to one thing: Her sexuality. And the time for this battle has come. Let’s watch our insane religious lunatic lawmakers try to take on an openly gay litigator who is far better than any of them.

A 1983 case Tribe and Sullivan worked on together involved defending the city of Boston’s policy of giving hiring preference to Boston residents on city construction projects. "I’m not sure I would have won without her," says Tribe, noting that he and Sullivan had a formidable opponent in Susan Estrich, who helped to represent the other side. "This was Susan’s first exposure to Kathleen, and Susan was immediately impressed by what a powerhouse we had in our midst." Estrich recalls having felt confident that her side would likely win the case, until she received a daunting reply brief coauthored by someone named Kathleen Sullivan: "I turned to my research assistant and said, ‘Who the hell is Kathleen Sullivan?’ I vowed never to be on the other side of this woman again. And I haven’t been. And I won’t be."



Kathleen Sullivan for SOTUS. Fucking bring it on.


FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday and Friday for more from FearTheReaper

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAY 12, 2009 07:30 AM

I like Kathleen Sullivan. I really do. But if there's one thing that conservatives are going to use to sink her (other than her sexuality), it's that she failed the July 2005 California bar exam. (She passed the test the next time it was offered). This was after she was dean of Stanford Law School. Now, there's a 100 reasons why someone would fail the attorney bar (if you've already passed the bar in another state, CA requires that you take a truncated version that many people argue is actually harder than the full version - IIRC the exam that year was exceptionally hard and something like only 25% of people passed the version she took), but that still looks really bad. It's just too easy.

Cash

Cash

I'm lost
OLD SKOOL

MAY 12, 2009 07:38 AM

FearTheReaper said:
Besides just a non-asshole, it’s the first time a president will pick a justice based on their credentials, instead of their insane right wing leanings and destructive business loving opinions.



As happy as I am that Obama is president....it's completely delusional to think the pick won't be politically motivated and/or influenced. It'll just be for different reasons than the previous administration.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAY 12, 2009 08:28 AM

Cash said:

FearTheReaper said:
Besides just a non-asshole, it’s the first time a president will pick a justice based on their credentials, instead of their insane right wing leanings and destructive business loving opinions.



As happy as I am that Obama is president....it's completely delusional to think the pick won't be politically motivated and/or influenced. It'll just be for different reasons than the previous administration.



Then it's a good thing that wasn't the point I was making.

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

MAY 12, 2009 08:42 AM

As I understand it, Obama will most likely pick a Hispanic woman. Now, if there's a Hispanic gay woman he can pick, that would be really interesting.

code_red

code_red

Portland, OR
July 2005

MAY 12, 2009 09:31 AM

+1, FTR.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

MAY 12, 2009 10:23 AM

*Phew*

A FTR column I can just say "Amen" to! wink

A thought occurred to me as I was thinking about the nomination the other day. There will be a lot of hay to make on the Dem side when Republican senators start saying "harrumph" to whoever Obama picks. It's one thing to hem and haw and waste lots of time on justice nominees when everything is copacetic. But when we're still in the midst of the fallout from the torture issue, and we're still dealing with the economy, it should be pretty easy to paint the nay-sayers with a rather broad brush.

However, I can also see Democratics fumbling that ball nonetheless. We'll see.

Weatherpunk

Weatherpunk

Japan
June 2008

MAY 12, 2009 12:28 PM

Kathleen Sullivan sounds good on paper, and it certainly would be awesome to watch Glenn Beck's face explode on live TV, but when has the government (in recent memory) ever done anything that made total sense?

Jace

Jace

Reno, NV
February 2004

MAY 12, 2009 04:43 PM

This would be fun to watch.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 12, 2009 05:05 PM

I'd be interested to see how they respond to the Midkiff thing.

misandry

misandry

I'm lost
March 2009

MAY 12, 2009 05:14 PM

evil right wing...evil right wing. we get it. now instead of right wing judges, we will have left wing judges. Just as crazy, just as insane.

cabaretic

cabaretic

Birmingham, AL
March 2005

MAY 12, 2009 05:23 PM

They'll scream bloody murder but be unable to stop it if by chance she is selected. Right now, however, everything the GOP yells about rings hollow--more hollow than normal.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

MAY 12, 2009 07:09 PM

misandry said:
evil right wing...evil right wing. we get it. now instead of right wing judges, we will have left wing judges. Just as crazy, just as insane.



Um, you do realize that Antonin Scalia more or less thinks Jack Bauer is a real person and that Justice Roberts once ruled against a wayward 12-year-old girl that took a french fry on a subway, right?

It's not like any of the truly crazy left-wing type stuff would ever get anywhere near the SCOTUS, so please back your stuff up or stuff it.

Anesthetize

Anesthetize

USA
October 2007

MAY 12, 2009 09:13 PM

misandry said:
evil right wing...evil right wing. we get it. now instead of right wing judges, we will have left wing judges. Just as crazy, just as insane.



stockula, is that you in there?

Sociodrunk

Sociodrunk

Canada
January 2008

MAY 12, 2009 09:17 PM

Toku666 said:

misandry said:
evil right wing...evil right wing. we get it. now instead of right wing judges, we will have left wing judges. Just as crazy, just as insane.



Um, you do realize that Antonin Scalia more or less thinks Jack Bauer is a real person and that Justice Roberts once ruled against a wayward 12-year-old girl that took a french fry on a subway, right?

It's not like any of the truly crazy left-wing type stuff would ever get anywhere near the SCOTUS, so please back your stuff up or stuff it.



in the states, the left wing have not come of age yet. just wait, though.

the french fry incident is NOTHING!

It's easy to jump down a right wingers throat to "back up their claims" just because of opinions. With the right left-wingers around and the states could go the way of Canada as far as courts.....
Ask anyone involved in Canadian media (besides the untouchable CBC) and they will tell you they are scared shitless to say ANYTHING that someone can twist into "hurt feelings" thus filing a human rights complain with the government.

In Canada we have a liberal regime. we have a "conservative party" that makes ralpg nader look like george bush..... and a human rights commision that fines family restaurant owners because they kicked out a pot smoker - A fast food joint was charged because they fired someone becasue they didn't want to wash their hands - finned someone for reprinted a danish cartoon (while saying nothing negative)of the prophet mohammed - banned a minister from ever preaching again because of his views (moderate to americans)on gay marriage - and cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year so moderate conservatives can defend their political incorrectness because people pretend to have "hurt feelings"
-all of this with no proof of anyone doing anything wrong. the HRC has a 100% conviction rate.

if this is what you want, so be it. but the left are not really aware at what could happen because it hasn't happened yet. if you think the left are not crazy, guess again. just as crazy as the right. we are all people.. instead they are becoming increasingly arrogant and trash anything right of center based on hatred.

Sociodrunk

Sociodrunk

Canada
January 2008

MAY 12, 2009 09:19 PM

i am not trying to smash the left here, it's just BOTH sides have crazies. crazies that feel they have a god given right to force moral judgement on people.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next