The U.S. Supreme Court this morning said a Christian student group that sought both funding and recognition by the University of California’s Hastings College of Law cannot deny membership to gays and lesbians.

Hastings’ policy forbids official recognition of student groups that discriminate on the basis of religious views or sexual orientation.  But the Christian Legal Society, which sought school funds, requires members to sign a statement of faith and rejects members who engage in “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.”

According to the Associated Press:

The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group’s First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college’s decision.

”In requiring CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (picured), who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for the court’s liberals and moderate Anthony Kennedy. ”CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strong dissent for the court’s conservatives, saying the opinion was ”a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.”

”Our proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom of express ‘the thought that we hate,”’ Alito said. ”Today’s decision rests on a very different principle: no freedom of expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”

An official with the anti-gay group Focus on the Family finally came out and said it today:  sexual orientation should be a litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court, and gays need not apply.

Greg Sargent, who blogs at the Plum Line, has been reporting on mixed messages coming from the group over the possibility of an openly gay nominee for the high court.  Today, Tom Minnery, a senior vice president for Focus on the Family, finally admitted a gay or lesbian sexual orientation alone, regardless of a nominee’s record or views, would be enough to disqualify her or him in the eyes of his organization.

Focus officials, fearing their original messaging on the topic was too soft on homosexuality, sought to backtrack today with the following:

“We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior — be it heterosexual or homosexual — certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

Sargent, seeking more clarity, reported:

I wanted a bit more on this. So I asked the author of this statement, Tom Minnery, a senior vice president with the group, how this backtracking came about.

“I don’t think it’s correct to say we’re backtracking,” he told me. “We didn’t get it right the first time.”

Asked if the new statement meant that being homosexual is a deal-breaker, Minnery replied: “Someone who is a practicing homosexual is a non starter for the group.” Asked if this was the case no matter what the person’s views, he replied: “That’s correct.”

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is widely expected to retire at the end of the court’s term, setting up another round of media short lists of potential replacements.  Once again, two accomplished lesbians are in the mix.  This time, however, the speculation comes on the heels of a 60 minutes/Vanity Fair poll that showed 55% of Americans would support an openly gay justice.

The Huffington Post today puts forward nine potential picks, including Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School, and Kathleen Sullivan, also a professor at Stanford Law as well as its former Dean, both openly lesbian.

Both choices have drawbacks that lead some observers to conclude they are not at the top of White House lists and may not make it onto a final “short list” from which the president will choose his nominee.  Sullivan, for instance, is said to be a strong contender for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Photo:  Agence France Presse

When will America see its first openly gay Supreme Court justice, and what will it take to get us there?  The Advocate’s Chris Bull asked legal and political heavyweights those very questions for a piece in the magazine’s August issue.

Even though some of President Obama’s first judicial appointments were open lesbians, “(g)ays not only lack the electoral weight of other minority groups, but also are nearly nonexistent in the federal judiciary,” Bull writes.  If Obama were to nominate a gay justice, he’d likely have to look outside the federal courts–something that’s not commonly done, according to one expert:

“Federal courts are the ultimate establishment institutions,” says Robert Raben, a former aide to the House Judiciary Committee and founder of the Raben Group, a Washington, D.C.–based lobbying firm. “The overwhelming majority of district and appellate court judges have some relationship with a U.S. senator. Local political leaders get nominees into the feeder. It’s anything but random — they need to be from the right law firm, social club, or fund-raising committee.”