No Gay or Lesbian Jurists — The Bigotry Setup

John Thune:

[C]onservative leaders have warned the nomination of a gay or lesbian justice could complicate Obama’s effort to confirm a replacement for Souter, and another Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.

“I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now,” said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. “It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he’ll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.”

Thune is in the GOP leadership, so this is the message going to their crew. Of course, Sessions tells the Hill that sexual orientation is not “an automatic disqualification”. How about telling us its not on the list of qualifications at all, Senator?

Jim DeMint “wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a gay nominee, though he said Obama should avoid nominating someone based on ethnic or social profiling”. That means what? That you’ll use the excuse of “profiling” for voting No if the nominee doesn’t look like John Roberts?

Saxby Chambliss says, “It’s something I’d have to think through with respect to whatever issues might be forthcoming that the court may have to consider.” So he needs to think about it. It is 2009, Senator — just saying it doesn’t matter what a person’s sexual orientation is the right response.

But not one he’ll likely get away with, of course. Lisa Murkoski seems to have a decent grasp of how not to look too bigoted and John McCain waves it away, but really, they aren’t planning on voting Yes for any nominee in the first place. You’d think that their leadership would have the good sense to know that showing your strategy in standing with the bigots really wasn’t necessary when you had no intention of doing anything but voting NO in the first place.