"Praise for Sotomayor" proclaims the Washington Blade's headline, followed by "Activists 'encouraged' by Supreme Court pick, despite thin record on LGBT issues."
In other words, the Democratic Party loyalists leading our LGBT activist groups are swooning over self-described "wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor even though her record of ruling on behalf of gay legal equality is nonexistent. In the words of D'Arcy Kemnitz, head of the National LGBT Bar Association, "As LGBT Americans, we are excited to have more diversity on the bench."
And she does, after all, speak for all of us "LGBT Americans," right?
I suppose these left-liberal advocates are heartened by Sotomayor's disrespect for property rights and support for race-based preferential treatment, as part of what Human Rights Campaign leader Joe Solmonese praises as "Judge Sotomayor's record of fair-minded decisions." From this perspective, if you favor expanded government confiscation of private property and support blatant discrimination by government against white males, you are - wait for it - a progressive. And thus you must also be in favor of gay equality.
Well, probably she is, but Supreme Court justices have a way of ruling counter to what many of their early supporters expected, especially when they lack a record on a particular issue. Let's hope that on our particular issue that doesn't turn out to be the case.
More. The Washington Post reports that:
Sotomayor's religion - and her lack of a record on abortion rights cases - has helped spark some concern among liberal interest groups that she may not be sufficiently pro-choice for some of them. The White House on Thursday offered strong, if vague, reassurances that she would support abortion rights.
But apparently, no need to reassure LGBT groups, since they're clearly in the bag.
6 Comments for “Does Sotomayor Deserve LGBT Praise?”
posted by Clay on
I agree with the basic sentiment of this piece, Stephen. Gay organizations are way too quick to jump on these bandwagons no questions asked. But it’s a reach to slam Sotomayor over “Ricci.” From what I can gatehr, she and the rest of the appellate panel simply applied the law as written. While it may indeed be a lousy law, it’s inconsistent to both oppose judicial activism and simultaneously fault judges for not exercising judicial activism.
posted by avee on
It would not surprise me at all if a Catholic Hispanic justice were to favor affirmative action and government economic regulation, but rule against same-sex marriage (citing the great liberal president’s repeated assertion that marriage is by divine decree only between a man and a woman). And wouldn’t that be the final irony, given all the LGBT fundraising done with scare-mongering about the next Supreme Court appointment!
posted by Bobby on
Sotomayor is a racist, she thinks if a white Firefighter gets an A and a black firefighter gets a D then the white firefighter can’t get a promotion. That’s simply not fair, not right, not moral.
posted by Jorge on
The Sotomayor nomination has zero relevance to gay rights, except perhaps that the lesbian didn’t get it. Yes, the HRC is transparently hypocritical. You convinced me a long time ago.
Why on Earth they would want to support a woman who seems to think Latina women are better than white men is beyond me. Maybe they think real women love women who have curves.
posted by Bobby on
“Maybe they think real women love women who have curves.”
—I’m no expert on lesbians, but I hear they have little wars between the skinny straight-acting lipstick lesbians and the fat or butch bull dykes.
Either way, if Sotomayor had been white her nomination would have been withdrawn already.
posted by John Doe on
“I’m no expert on lesbians, but I hear they have little wars between the skinny straight-acting lipstick lesbians and the fat or butch bull dykes.” – Bobby
Indeed, you clearly are no expert on lesbians.