- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Liberal Democrats have formed a strong allegiance with the lesbian, “gay,” bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. President Obama is doing everything in his power to promote their agenda throughout all areas of government, and the judiciary is no exception.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said recently he “was shocked to learn there were no openly gay male judges on the entire federal bench,” so liberals have set out on a crusade to rectify that, effectively implementing homosexual quotas.
I say “homosexual quotas,” because that is the extent of their “commitment” for now. Although they talk about the LGBT community, they are not quite prepared to force men dressed as women down your throat … yet.
Last year, Sen. Schumer kicked off his campaign to meet this homosexual quota by taking marching orders from the Human Right Campaign (HRC), the nation’s most radical pro-homosexual group, and recommending Daniel Alter to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. HRC had been campaigning for the openly homosexual Alters since December 2008. At an HRC dinner, Schumer said Alter was “a history-maker who will be the first openly gay male judge.”
Of course, being a homosexual has nothing to do with someone’s judicial qualifications, but what the liberals know is that by doing this, they ensure the political backing of those very powerful pro-homosexual groups.
Alter’s nomination ran into a bit of a problem at the White House, though. Reports surfaced that Mr. Alter, in his capacity as director of civil rights at the Anti-Defamation League, had advocated against businesses’ use of “Merry Christmas” during, well, the Christmas season. Alter said, “Our diversity has made us great and will continue to make us great, and [Merry Christmas] undermines both the holiday spirit as well as the message I think Americans should be sending to each other.”
Alter apparently also believes that the words “under God” should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance. He said the case brought by atheist Michael Newdow against “under God” in the pledge “was a good case at the wrong time.”
Schumer, of course, had no trouble with Alter’s views, but apparently even the White House could see that they were a bit extreme. So the White House backed away from his nomination, though the administration would not be deterred from its main goal.
Where Sen. Schumer failed, President Obama tried to succeed by nominating former “DOJ Pride” board member Edward Dumont to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dumont, whose nomination is still pending, would be the left’s new political puppet to tout as possibly the first “openly gay” man to be appointed to a federal judgeship.
Dumont is a homosexual activist who has been involved in every aspect of the homosexual agenda, including advocating for a constitutional right to homosexual “marriage.” But once again, his radically liberal philosophy does not end there. For example, in Washington v. Glucksberg, he argued that the word “liberty” in the U.S. Constitution guaranteed the right to assisted suicide, an idea that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, undeterred by his embarrassing episode with Alter, Schumer continued his search for a new “openly homosexual” candidate of his own. In this instance, otherwise qualified candidates need not apply. If you were not “gay,” you did not meet his criteria. So he searched until he finally found someone. He recommended, and the president nominated, Paul Oetken (an even more in-your-face homosexual activist) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Oetken’s resumé includes a brief for the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association that helped bring about the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy decision at the Supreme Court. Schumer noted that Oetken is “a strong advocate” for the LGBT community and felt he needed to mention his work for the radically liberal Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union. He has also written in favor of physician-assisted suicide.
Apparently, those are all great qualifications for a judgeship in the minds of Sen. Schumer and President Obama. Oetken’s hearing was on March 16.
Seeing the way liberal Democrats treat judicial nominations, one can understand why they are pushing for a process that would exclude a nominee’s judicial philosophy from consideration. Apparently, the issue of judicial philosophy pales against the far weightier consideration of the nominee’s sexual preferences.
Mario Diaz, Esq., is policy director for legal issues at Concerned Women for America.