• commentary
  • TUESDAY MAY 12 2009 6:00 AM

SCOTUS: Let’s Go Gay

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by nicole_powers

Tags: Supreme Court, Kathleen Sullivan

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

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
Brownize

Brownize

Frisco, TX
May 2009

MAY 21, 2009 05:01 PM

Pip said:

sarge13 said:

silversoul7 said:
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.



Now why, exactly, does the gender, race or sexual orientation of the nominee even matter? Shouldn't you be looking for the candidate who will interpret the law as it was written, not how they believe it should be?



In the entire history of our country there have been exactly:
2 women
1 African-American
0 Asian-americans
0 Hispanics
0 Gays
a small number of Jewish men.

Now normally we could say "Let it be the best person", but when so much of the country has so little representation on the court, it's ok to narrow the field down a bit. Half of America are women, it would be nice if maybe more than 1 member of the Supreme Court were a woman as well. But If you like the monopoly on power that rich old white men have had, then status quo is the way to go.



If you want representation, you should look to the legislature, who write the laws. They are our representatives. Judges simply interpret the laws that are on the books now. Putting someone on the bench who has a certain empathy for the plight of a specific group of people might find a law where no law exists, and create one where they believe there should be one, when that's not their job.

I know, you'll say the old white man has been empathetic to his old white friends from the bench, and that's not a horrible argument, but still, looking into a specific gender, race, or sexual orientation means you're looking for something specific out of their opinion, and not just their ability to interpret the law.

When it comes down to it, it's a political move on his part. If he nominates a gay, he gets gay votes. If he nominiates a gay black woman, well....he wins elections for liberals for years to come.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

MAY 22, 2009 08:44 AM

sarge13 said:

Pip said:

sarge13 said:

silversoul7 said:
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.



Now why, exactly, does the gender, race or sexual orientation of the nominee even matter? Shouldn't you be looking for the candidate who will interpret the law as it was written, not how they believe it should be?



In the entire history of our country there have been exactly:
2 women
1 African-American
0 Asian-americans
0 Hispanics
0 Gays
a small number of Jewish men.

Now normally we could say "Let it be the best person", but when so much of the country has so little representation on the court, it's ok to narrow the field down a bit. Half of America are women, it would be nice if maybe more than 1 member of the Supreme Court were a woman as well. But If you like the monopoly on power that rich old white men have had, then status quo is the way to go.



If you want representation, you should look to the legislature, who write the laws. They are our representatives. Judges simply interpret the laws that are on the books now. Putting someone on the bench who has a certain empathy for the plight of a specific group of people might find a law where no law exists, and create one where they believe there should be one, when that's not their job.

I know, you'll say the old white man has been empathetic to his old white friends from the bench, and that's not a horrible argument, but still, looking into a specific gender, race, or sexual orientation means you're looking for something specific out of their opinion, and not just their ability to interpret the law.

When it comes down to it, it's a political move on his part. If he nominates a gay, he gets gay votes. If he nominiates a gay black woman, well....he wins elections for liberals for years to come.


it's not just that. SC justices also have a lot of value as figureheads. given equal qualifications, putting a minority or a woman on the bench is a sign of progress--it encourages those who are pushing for equality, and discourages those who oppose it.

and, really, if we're arguing that justices of a given gender and ethnicity are going to favor their own, well, why wouldn't you want as diverse a group as possible?

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

MAY 26, 2009 08:35 AM

Looks like he went Hispanic.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 26, 2009 08:24 PM

Or he choose a competent candidate. . ..

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAY 26, 2009 09:24 PM

sarge13 said:
If you want representation, you should look to the legislature, who write the laws. They are our representatives. Judges simply interpret the laws that are on the books now.


The activity of "intepretation" also creates new law.

Just so you know, for future reference.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 26, 2009 10:11 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

sarge13 said:
If you want representation, you should look to the legislature, who write the laws. They are our representatives. Judges simply interpret the laws that are on the books now.


The activity of "intepretation" also creates new law.

Just so you know, for future reference.

That just goes to show how much Australians know.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews