Cipollini is not alone in his determination to make foolish comments about Lenk’s nomination.
Councilor Jennie Caissie of Oxford called Patrick’s comments odd.
“I don’t think he said when he found out that Fernande Duffly was a heterosexual that that was happy coincidence, so why even bring it up?” Caissie said, referring to Patrick’s previous nominee to the state’s high court. “If she’s a good judge, she’s a good judge, period. Take the sex out of it.”
Well, Jennie, maybe you should direct your question to the reporter rather than the Governor, since it’s actually the reporter who decided to “bring it up.” And I love your “take the sex out of it” comment, as though the confirmation hearings are going to focus on what lesbians do in the bedroom. Grow up, for God’s sake.
And as for this:
Caissie also took issue with Lenk’s comments about the court’s landmark 2003 decision, known as the Goodridge case, which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts. Lenk was able to get married as a result of that decision.
“It was almost too jovial, the celebration of a case that was very controversial,” Caissie said of Lenk’s comments. “I think it may provide some insight into her judicial philosophy and whether she believes judges should be more active on the bench than simply apply the law.”
Um, Jennie? Goodridge actually is the law. Let’s just leave it at that.
Fortunately for my position that the Governor’s Council should be abolished completely, nitwittery on the Council is not limited to Republicans.
Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning of Salem faulted Patrick for focusing too much on Lenk’s sexual orientation instead of her judicial record…. Manning said the public will see Lenk as filling a niche for Patrick, rather than winning the post on her talents.
“It’s very sad that someone with her education and experience and legal acumen is being reduced down to a tagline about her sexual orientation,” Manning said.
“His checklist of firsts is undermining the obvious qualifications of Barbara Lenk, and her reputation as a legal scholar is damaged by that because people are going to assume she isn’t qualified.”
No, Mary-Ellen, what’s “very sad” is that people like you insist on ignoring Justice Lenk’s qualifications and just talking about the fact that she’s gay. Again, Patrick did not bring the subject up. He was asked about it, and he responded. Nobody is going to “assume she isn’t qualified” unless people like you keep suggesting that she was only nominated because she’s gay.
Memo to Brian Joyce: I hope you’re still pushing your proposal to eliminate this ghastly body.
Yes, the opinions expressed herein are idiotic, or even outrageous, but no more so then some of things Jesse Helms has said at the federal level about certain Presidential nominees. The merits of the body’s continued existence and opinions expressed by some of its members have nothing to do with each other. If we abolished the GC in favor of Senate advice and consent you could just as easily have Senators expressing these opinions. Given the various outrageous remarks we hear from some quarters today, such elected commenters apparently think they can get away with it politically.
<
p>Yes, and they would do so in the course of their elective office role and not get paid EXTRA to utter such nonsense. Plus, there are usually many more rational people in the senate than there on this silly GC at any given time, which would have a mitigating effect on the type of idiocy spouted above.
<
p>The GC is a waste of taxpayers’ money and, given this latest crop, an affront to thoughtful, informed, and educated people everywhere.
the GC provided a check on his power. Not sure when the last Governor was appointed by the King.
Lemme see…..I think the last time a Governor was appointed by the King was when I was setting up a penal colony in New Holland….
…unless you count the miliary rule of General Gage. As a state the Governor’s Council was originally selected by the Senators from among themselves, but are now popularly elected. I think there is something to be said for separating advice and consent from the Senate, which can tie confirmations to other political considerations like they do on Capitol Hill. At the end of the day, as long as they are elected there is enough accountability by definition.
<
p>That you say this doesn’t make it true. People only pay attention to a few political offices, at best. The rank and file citizen of this state doesn’t even know the GC exists, much less what it actually does. If anything, and I think the current examples make for ample evidence, it’s quite the opposite: making these positions elected positions actually makes them less accountable.
A lot of voters pay very little attention to their perennially unopposed state-reps-for-life, but that doesn’t mean we should eliminate the legislature.
we know doesn’t work just doesn’t seem right to me. It’s essentially blaming the victims.
<
p>The degree of difference between how much people pay attention to state reps versus Governor’s Council is several magnitudes, and you’ll note the fact that almost every year at least a couple of them are held accountable. Whether it’s Mass Equality’s run at anti-equality Democrats years ago that changed hearts and minds through high-profile incumbents losing primaries, or it was this past year’s elections, in which more than a few reps lost their seats, it happens on a much more regular basis than the GC and the races receive far more attention, as well.
To David…actually rather than “insist on ignoring Justice Lenk’s qualifications,” I pointed them out as you can plainly see from the excerpt above. I understand you are upset, but please…be accurate. Thank you. Mary-Ellen Manning
First, thank you for posting here.
<
p>Second, I am happy to concede that I perhaps overstated my point about your “ignoring” Justice Lenk’s qualifications.
<
p>However, let’s review your comments.
<
p>
<
p>Who, exactly, is doing the “reducing” to a “tagline” about sexual orientation? Certainly not the Governor, who didn’t mention it in his opening remarks, nor in his press release. When asked about it by the press, what was he supposed to do? Refuse to answer the question? That would be silly. It seems to me that his response – that it’s a good thing, but that the most important thing is how well-qualified she is – was perfectly appropriate and kept the focus where it belonged. My reading of your comments is that you did not strike that balance nearly as successfully, and that your comments, rather than the Governor’s, are what tend to draw the focus to Justice Lenk’s sexual orientation.
<
p>That is exacerbated by your comment about a “checklist of firsts.” I assume you would agree that someone had to be the first openly gay nominee to the SJC. What do you think Governor Patrick should have done – refuse to nominate a gay person in order to avoid the “checklist of firsts” problem? That is obviously a discriminatory and counterproductive solution. And as for people “assuming” that Justice Lenk isn’t qualified because she is the first gay SJC nominee, well, “people” will only do that if they have a reason to do so. Certainly, no such reason is coming from the Governor, who has continually emphasized her qualifications. Sadly, it seems to me that comments like yours are exactly the kind that are likely to cause some people to have the negative reaction you fear.
David:
<
p>One of the reporters asked me a question that went something like this: the Governor said in his press conference that he likes “firsts”, you know…first Asian to the SJC…first black Chief Justice…do you view Lenk’s appointment as a niche appointment in his “checklist of firsts?” To which I responded “His checklist of firsts is undermining the obvious qualifications of Barbara Lenk…”
<
p>The reporters approached us…not the other way around…and they approached us with the specific intent of getting a reaction to Justice Lenk’s appointment as the first openly gay future member of the SJC.
<
p>My comments were made after at least one newscycle…please take a look at the headlines (read: tag lines) regarding Justice Lenk’s appointment, which came out before I made my remarks. You can’t seriously be holding me responsible for all of the references to her sexual orientation made in every major newspaper and across the country before the reporters approached me.
<
p>This story line was already set in motion…and not by me…the reporters asked me legitimate questions, and rather than run from my truthful and candid responses…I stand by my remarks, not a single one of which could be construed as a negative remark about Justice Lenk.
<
p>Mary-Ellen Manning
Councilor, you have made no secret of your disdain for the Governor and you have once again allowed your personal vendetta to infect your better judgment.
<
p>Here’s a couple of your other quotes regarding this nomination:
<
p>Here’s all we need to know about Councilor Manning:
<
p>To your credit, Councilor, you have removed the juvenile pictures from your website comparing the Governor to a crying baby. Still, referring to the Governor as a “control-freak” and accusing him of “puppeteering” and “silencing dissent” says far more about your agenda than it does about his.
Hers, that is, not yours:
<
p>
<
p>No evidence, and why would he plant the question? If he wanted to come out and say, “I’m proud to have broken another barrier by nominating the first lesbian to the SJC,” he could have without the game-playing. I certainly don’t want a lockstep partisan on a body whose mandate is almost entirely to provide a check on the Governor, but Councilor Manning very often makes comments that cause me to think, “You are a Democrat, right?”
If the only appropriate discussion was of judical credentials, why did the Governor choose to answer the question and create this discussion? You can say the reporters ‘chose’ to bring it up, but the Governor ‘chose’ to anwer.
<
p>I am no fan of Cippolini, but I do not think it fair to slam him for commenting on the ‘issue’ of gender orientation when the Governor started the conversation in the first place. I am NOT saying that her orientation is something that needed to be ‘covered up’ in any way, but if it is OK to talk about it in addition to her qualifications, then you need to accept that the comments will be both positive and negative.
No, I emphatically do not. The only basis for “negative” comments about the fact that an openly gay person has been nominated to the SJC is that openly gay people shouldn’t serve on the SJC. I reject that proposition out of hand.
<
p>Also, you may not have noticed that your position is self-contradictory.
<
p>
<
p>OK, so you’re saying the better course would be to completely ignore the issue – to pretend that it doesn’t exist, to the (ludicrous) point of refusing to answer direct questions from the press about it.
<
p>
<
p>Oh, uh, OK.
<
p>Don’t be ridiculous, PP. The Governor was asked a direct, legitimate question, and he answered it in a legitimate and respectful way. And guess what: it is actually something that matters. It mattered that Louis Brandeis was the first Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court, that Thurgood Marshall was the first African American, and that Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman. It mattered that Roderick Ireland was the first black SJC Justice, as your hero Bill Weld stated. (Globe, 5/23/97: “Weld has already publicly proclaimed his admiration for Ireland, as well as his desire to appoint a black justice.”). All of these things represent progress over discriminatory barriers that, in the past, would have made these things impossible. The destruction of those barriers is a good thing for society, and therefore it matters.