Will Kagan’s orientation be an issue?

posted at 6:18 pm on May 10, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’m not asking whether it should be — pencil me in as a “no” on that — but whether it will. I don’t see how it can be avoided, especially with gay marriage on the Court’s radar screen in the not-too-distant future. Some social cons will object to a gay justice and will want the GOP to find out what’s up with Kagan; some gay rights activists will object to a closeted gay justice and will want the White House to come clean. As much as centrists on both sides will cringe at the thought of an “is she or isn’t she?” subplot at the hearings, it ain’t the center that’s driving this train in an election year. With noted “conservative of doubt” Andrew Sullivan already raising the alarm that The One is advancing “the cause of the closet,” how long can Team Barry hold out?

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay … and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.

In a word, this is preposterous – a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority – and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality – is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice’s sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified. It’s especially true with respect to Obama. He has, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination. Well: does he view Kagan’s possible life-experience as a gay woman relevant to this? Did Obama even ask about it?

That’s the best argument for making this an issue. Per his own admission, The One’s a fan of “empathy” on the bench; to all appearances, Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” theory of jurisprudence was a feature for him, not a bug. If identity’s that important to judicial philosophy in the liberal imagination, then by Obama’s own standards, Kagan’s identity should be fair game. Problem is, as fun as it’d be to watch him squirm over this, to press him on it would jeopardize a moment when most of the right and left seem prepared to ignore the ambiguity about Kagan’s orientation and judge her on her qualifications. That seems like a good place for society to have reached; it ain’t “she’s here, she’s queer, get used to it,” but “she’s here, she may be queer, and it’s no big deal” ain’t beanbag. Do gay-rights supporters want to endanger that sentiment with an identity politics passion play at the hearings, replete with a Category Five media clusterfark?

Gibbs is taking a “none of your business” approach thus far. Libertarian-minded conservatives will, I trust, want to encourage him. The task for less libertarian-minded conservatives, I guess, is to decide how much they actually agree with Obama’s “empathy” theory of judging. If you think Kagan’s possible homosexuality will affect her vote on gay (or other) issues, even if she swears to judge cases purely on the legal merits, then you’re with The One. But please do explain why you think her orientation, rather than her liberalism, will be the determining factor. Because I’m pretty sure Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor are all straight, and I’m also pretty sure how they’ll vote if and when gay marriage finally reaches the Court.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I’m pretty sure that Ginsberg and Breyer are going to find a route to the right to gay marriage in the Constitution and neither or them are gay.

myrenovations on May 10, 2010 at 6:36 PM

It’s not going to be terribly difficult to do. Marriage has already been recognized by the court as a “fundamental right”. So any infringements of that right are subject to strict scrutiny. Is denying gays the right to marry “narrowly tailored” to a “compelling state interest”?

Then there’s the whole equal protection thing. Which is slightly less promising given that gays aren’t a suspect class.

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Andrew Sullivan says the Times Square Bomber acted alone.

Correction: Sorry; Andrew Sullivan says the Times Square Bomber acted “lonely”.

Noel on May 10, 2010 at 9:13 PM

I don’t care if she had sex with the neighborhood stray dog…

…what’s her opinion on the CONSTITUTION and the rule of law!!!!

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Heeers Pat?!!

She looks like Al Franken in drag.

roninacreage on May 10, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Of course she is gay. But no one should give a crap. I wish the Social Con groups making a big deal about it would shut the hell up and challenge her views instead.

Speedwagon82 on May 10, 2010 at 9:19 PM

We should not be promoting immoral people to high office.

I will make a qualitative judgement:

Homosexuality is immoral.

If we promote imorality our society will eventually suffer because immoral people consider themselves their own law, who is to judge right from wrong?

scotash on May 10, 2010 at 9:19 PM

First of all, what does “The Word” have to do with this? You don’t know of me well, I’m a Catholic at mass every Sunday. Sorry to pop your balloon.

JetBoy on May 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM

And yet, it doesn’t seem to be having any effect.

David2.0 on May 10, 2010 at 9:24 PM

I think SNL should bring back John Lovitz to do Kagan

iceman1960 on May 10, 2010 at 9:27 PM

If confirmed, I swear, SNL needs to do a skit of her with a little “mini me” wearing a robe in a spoof of Austin Powers, she totally looks like Mike Myers

ted c on May 10, 2010 at 9:27 PM

I think SNL should bring back John Lovitz to do Kagan

iceman1960 on May 10, 2010 at 9:27 PM

dude, that in-stereo posting on SNL…. weird…

ted c on May 10, 2010 at 9:28 PM

First of all, what does “The Word” have to do with this? You don’t know of me well, I’m a Catholic at mass every Sunday. Sorry to pop your balloon.

JetBoy on May 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM

You, don’t know me apparently either! The cult of catholicism strikes again, all pomp, piousness and circumstance with no faith or knowledge, let alone wisdom in the Word. Try reading what God has said about it and inhale a little less incense, then pull the log out before you “pray for others” who are following his word.

melachiro on May 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM

First of all, what does “The Word” have to do with this? You don’t know of me well, I’m a Catholic at mass every Sunday. Sorry to pop your balloon.

JetBoy on May 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Couldn’t say it better!

melachiro on May 10, 2010 at 9:30 PM

I assume the left will play this for sympathy.

First she does not make public clarification of her GLB status. Therefore, it will be difficult to bring it up in questioning. Whoever tries to bring it up will be attacked by the left as a bigot, and a diversion will be created from the serious issues of her understanding of the law.

I assume she was chosen with this in mind. The left will embrace her as a symbol of victimization, and fill the MSM with useless discussion. A straw dog will be created and the left will spend their time attacking the bigoted homo phobe Dog on the moralist right, and the right will be forced to pretend they do not care about sexual orientation, even though serious legal challenges on gay issues are coming that could change the nature of this nation

People from both sides will pussy foot, and the hearings will be tainted by the characterizations of bigotry against anyone who challenges her intelligence. I have skimmed her thesis, I do not find signs of genius, or pragmatism, but just another ideologue.

The appointment will be unpleasant and help to fracture the nation. I suppose that is Obama’s goal. Plus, it distracts from the world economic collapse. I cannot wait for the next election

entagor on May 10, 2010 at 9:32 PM

We should not be promoting immoral people to high office.

I will make a qualitative judgement:

Homosexuality is immoral.

If we promote imorality our society will eventually suffer because immoral people consider themselves their own law, who is to judge right from wrong?

scotash on May 10, 2010 at 9:19 PM

oops…see above

melachiro on May 10, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Hoo-boy. The anti-Catholic bigots are at it again. (rolleyes)

Red Cloud on May 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM

The going gets tough…
And Zero will drop the bomb…
“Gay American”…

Haiku Guy on May 10, 2010 at 9:39 PM

The Constitution, madame. Bring on the Constitution. And, if you cannot, we want no part of you.

gordo on May 10, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Somehow, I lost my post, so I will try type it in again

Of course her orientation will be an issue. She does not seem to have clarified her orientation, and I assume that is the reason she was selected.

The issue will be a useful distraction from her real qualifications as a jurist.

The Left has already created a Moralist Right Wing Straw Dog and the MSM is filling with attacks on the Dog before the hearings even begin

Anyone who dares address her orientation in the hearings is already set up as a bigoted Dog, and such questions will be buried in a barrage of attacks against bigotry, and rhetoric in favor of homosexual rights.

The court is set to examine a slew of homosexual issues, which may change the nature of our nation forever, and federalize what used to be a State issue, and they are positioning a nominee with whom one may not discuss homosexuality in any depth, without being shouted down as a bigot

Meanwhile, she has a scant history to examine. I skimmed her thesis on socialism and did not find anything I would want on the Supreme Court. IMHO both a light weight, and a supporter of socialism

Both sides will pussy foot around the sex issue, since she has not given permission to be outed, while hard questioning on other issues will be criticized as bigotry

Another nasty summer in the USA. Cannot wait for the elections.

entagor on May 10, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Whatever. A compelling state interest is whatever someone wants it to be.

blink on May 10, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Naw. But a legitimate state interest is pretty much whatever someone wants it to be.

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Sorry I posted similar comments 2X

The first comments did not appear at once.

I now asume they were held for review

Guess I should copy out my comments before I send them. Then, I can comne back later and see if they passed the censors. Hot button issue, I suppose.

entagor on May 10, 2010 at 9:54 PM

I think we need a wise lesbina on the court.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 8:17 PM

ROFL!

David2.0 on May 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

I don’t feed trolls, Race Card. Be gone.

Philly on May 10, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Yeah, I get it. You can’t answer without making yourself look stupid. Admit it, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The Race Card on May 10, 2010 at 9:56 PM

That Obama did not choose a black female/male will end up being the bigger news. And the fact that 31 of 32 people hired by her were whites. Let the “national conversation” begin…

TN Mom on May 10, 2010 at 9:59 PM

I think we need a wise lesbina on the court.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 8:17 PM

winner!

ted c on May 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM

You, don’t know me apparently either! The cult of catholicism strikes again, all pomp, piousness and circumstance with no faith or knowledge, let alone wisdom in the Word. Try reading what God has said about it and inhale a little less incense, then pull the log out before you “pray for others” who are following his word.

melachiro on May 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM

There is meaning behind each incident of “pomp, piousness and circumstance”.

The Word of the Lord is presented several times during Mass through readings and homilies.

I’ll put up the published works of my Church against yours regarding “Faith and Knowledge”.

Incense isn’t used regularly at Mass.

Oh yeah……one last thing………you are an ignorant bigot.

David2.0 on May 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM

I don’t see how her lesbianism could be an issue, because she’s going to be appointed anyway. If the issue is pressed and she declares her sexuality, then the Republicans will roll over durning the hearings. We should make the issue about her lack of experience and her liberalism, because at the end of the day, she’s nominated.

Dork B. on May 10, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Put me down as someone who does not want to know.
The thought of this hideous woman having sex with anybody is repulsive.

kangjie on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Doesn’t she have to get confirmed before she goes through orientation?

Daggett on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Kinda’ OT here:

Okay, so Greta was making the rounds asking about Kagan, before finally interviewing Senator Sessions in his office… and there was some sort of framed “Masters Of The Universe” print hanging on his wall!

I kid you not, he’s toally got a framed print of He-Man riding Battle Cat. There’s a plaque underneath it and everything.

Anyone know what that’s all about?! LOL!

Rude on May 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Ya know, after reading this thread, I guess the inevitable leftie comments about most conservatives being shallow homophobic cretins are true.

Many here seem to be going out of their way to help them make that precise point, anyway. By all means, please keep posting if you wish to provide them ever more ammunition in that argument.

Personally, in the context of why she’s even being discussed in the first place, I don’t care how feminine she is, what her orientation is, how much she weighs, is she Playboy material, what kind of hair-do she likes, whatever. Why the hell do you? You guys that are making those comments – is that really the best argument you have against her?

If so, she should be confirmed immediately.

I happen to think there are plenty of good reasons she should not get the seat, but precious few people seem interested in that.

So, by all means, get back to the important questions about her physical appearance and sexual preferences. Deep, riveting Constitution-bending stuff there, guys. Well done. Well done.

Midas on May 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Will Kagan’s orientation be an issue?

Will she look at everything through rainbow colored glasses?

jimmy2shoes on May 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Doesn’t she have to get confirmed before she goes through orientation?

Daggett on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 PM

FTW

skydaddy on May 10, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Liberals have brought sexual orientation into the public square with gay marriage and gays in the military. So by what basis do we say it’s a private matter for a justice who’ll be on the bench for the next 40 years? That’s until 2050 by the way!

Paul-Cincy on May 10, 2010 at 10:23 PM

And Sullivan doesn’t speak for gay activists. That’s not the point though. Allah said some, and, I believe, those were at least some of the some he had in mind.

Esthier on May 10, 2010 at 7:18 PM

You know what? If I threw money out of a window SOME of the people below would complain about it. They wouldn’t be the majority – or even representative of a significant MINORITY of the crowd though.

Will some SoCon’s object? Well – do SOME Tea Partier’s show up with signs with swastikas on them? Of course – but they aren’t representative of the Tea Party movement.

Now Allah objects to the media painting the Tea Party folks as “extremists” based on one or two signs. He also objects to the media complaining about non-existent violence coming from the Tea Party.

Yet he has no problems in taking a few obscure SoCons who might object to a Homosexual on the SCOTUS and painting them as a plurality. And … even when he can’t find any SoCon’s complaining about the sexual orientation of this nominee – he still throws it out there as if it’s happened.

Is this because he WANTS SoCon’s to drag this issue out the way the media seems to WANT the Tea Party to commit violence?

I don’t know – but it’s a strange coincidence.

Who speaks for SoCONs? Well – I would think the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins would come damn close – and least Allah has promoted the FRC in this capacity in the past yet …

The FRC and Tony Perkins hasn’t said a damn word about this woman’s sexual orientation. In fact, Allah has said more about it than the defacto mouthpiece of the SoCon movement.

Strawman much?

SoCon’s will oppose this woman on the grounds that she’s a flaming liberal progressive who cares naught for the constitution. We don’t have to dig into her closet. Hell, in today’s environment, she’d better not be CATHOLIC – because she’ll get more vile spewed at her for being associated with a Christian Church than she will her sexual orientation.

In this day and age – Homosexuality is a plus according to our sick social norms.

HondaV65 on May 10, 2010 at 10:23 PM

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Then I have a fundamental right to a Bar Mitzva. My theme will be great liberal military figures. (That won’t be hard to research)

hawkdriver on May 10, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Will Kagan’s orientation be an issue?

Will anyone watch msnbc to find out?

jdkchem on May 10, 2010 at 10:26 PM

No experience . . . no experience . . . where have I heard that before???

No writings, huh? Are you sure? No way to tell what she stands for? Huh!

She’s from Chicago, right?

So what she stands for is unswerving obedience to Obama.

GTR640 on May 10, 2010 at 10:27 PM

I don’t give a mound of rhino dung if she’s gay. I care that is an ideologue liberal, however.

As for marriage being a right, however, I disagree. If it’s a right, who wins, the church that doesn’t want to perform a gay marriage ceremony or the gay couple? Is it a personal right that wins or protection of religious freedom? In the current climate I’ll give you one guess who would win.

A civil (legal) union is the only thing that might work.

linlithgow on May 10, 2010 at 10:28 PM

I should add that we should take to task any GOP who decides that they need to vote to her, (as they did with Sotamoyor), to avoid any appearance of bias.

Appearance be damn, just DO THE RIGHT THING.

linlithgow on May 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM

As for marriage being a right, however, I disagree.

linlithgow on May 10, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Everyone has a right to marry.

Homosexuals complain that they can’t marry – they certainly can. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman – they can marry the opposite sex.

They aren’t being treated any differently than I am. I cannot marry a man either. I also can’t marry a pig, a fence post, or a roller coster. I can’t marry multiple women. I can’t marry little boys or little girls.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman – and every individual already has the right to enter into that union.

HondaV65 on May 10, 2010 at 10:32 PM

I’m gonna be in the “I don’t care about the gay crap” crowd. I mean, seriously? There’s even a question about that?

I’m also gonna be in the “WTF? She’s got ZERO experience” crowd, and think that she shouldn’t be confirmed for THAT reason.

HAnthonyWayne on May 10, 2010 at 10:36 PM

The main concern, in an issue such as this, has always been the possibility of blackmail. A person who is willing to openly admit they are gay, can not be subjected to blackmail for it. If they avoid making public comment about it, for whatever reason, there is the potential that they could be blackmailed in order to keep it quiet.

Now, if Kagan were to just say she were gay and feels it would affect her rulings no more than a justice being heterosexual, everyone would move on from that and the possibility of blackmail would be nil, in my book.

bflat879 on May 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM

This whole “gay” thing is nothing more than a DIVERSION that the White House is hoping that they can peg the opposition as being “bigoted” etc.

We have to stay focused on her views on the Constitution, and face it the only way that she’ll not be confirmed is if it turns out that she had sex with a fallen angel named Lucifer and even then…….1/2 the GOP will probably vote for confirmation.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 10:43 PM

If she’s a lesbian, it ain’t by choice. Yeesh.

Ronnie on May 10, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Stranger than truth?

notropis on May 10, 2010 at 6:51 PM

The state O’bama claims to have been born in!

The candidate they smeared is the current Figurehead Governor, Linda Lingle. She just had 90% of the Democrat bills she vetoed overridden, and that was last week alone.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2010 at 10:45 PM

I don’t care if she had sex with the neighborhood stray dog…

…what’s her opinion on the CONSTITUTION and the rule of law!!!!

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Pappy, you are an abject fool. It is muddle headed thinking like yours that has led us so far off track.

Morality counts. Don’t you get it?

gajaw999 on May 10, 2010 at 10:46 PM

This whole “gay” thing is nothing more than a DIVERSION that the White House is hoping that they can peg the opposition as being “bigoted” etc.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Well if that’s the case then the administration is also getting support from Allah and HotAir – in drumming up a moral standoff that hasn’t happened.

SoCons oppose this woman because of her Marxist views – not because she may be Homosexual. Sorry to disappoint people – but that’s the fact.

The whole “SoCons are opposing this woman because she’s gay” thing is a complete media fabrication.

HondaV65 on May 10, 2010 at 10:55 PM

If Dick Cheney were on the court, how do you think he would vote?

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 7:09 PM

He would petition for a recess and then ask you to go hunting with him?

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2010 at 10:57 PM

To me, Allah, it’s not a question of libertarian-minded conservatism versus “less” libertarian-minded. The question is, will she perform all her duties in accordance with the spirit of judicial restraint, with a mind to uphold the Constitution as written, and without urges to get on the soap box? The “wrong side of legal discrimination” criteria opens up a whole hornet’s nest in regard to possible activism. It strikes directly at her ability to perform her duties.

I’m not sure, if this is true, that she’s a pick worthy of the seat in ANY form and I’m not sure we should be cheering her on in that case.

Then again, with BHO this is probably the best we’ll get without knowing more. At least she isn’t Harold Koh.

Ryan Anthony on May 10, 2010 at 11:00 PM

We should not be promoting immoral people to high office.

I will make a qualitative judgement:

Homosexuality is immoral.

scotash on May 10, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Having a same sex attraction is NOT immoral. Not anymore than having an opposite sex attraction.

What one does with the attraction in either case is where the immorality lies. And both can be just as egregious of sins.

Gay marriage is wrong. And the goal of those promoting it have nothing to do with civil rights. It is an attempt to inflict their morality on religion. To force God to do their will.

To force society to declare the laws of God to be sin.

No matter the laws of the land, sin is still sin.

But one cannot claim homosexuality wrong and promiscuous heterosexual sin less so. That is simply not correct.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Oops that would make more sense if I’d remembered the indention of the quote.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Everyone has a right to marry.

Homosexuals complain that they can’t marry – they certainly can. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman – they can marry the opposite sex.

They aren’t being treated any differently than I am. I cannot marry a man either. I also can’t marry a pig, a fence post, or a roller coster. I can’t marry multiple women. I can’t marry little boys or little girls.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman – and every individual already has the right to enter into that union.

HondaV65 on May 10, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Yawn. Change “man and a woman” with “white man and a white woman” and then look up Loving v. Virginia. You’re making pretty much the exact same argument.

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Then there’s the whole equal protection thing.

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 9:10 PM

And that all depends on what type of Supreme Court Justice “interprets” it.

See the 2 Supreme Courts involved with the 2000 Presidential election. The State Supreme Court-comprised of all Democrats (FLA)-were Frank Rich-slapped by SCOTUS, first by a 9-0 humiliation. And the later smackdown (the equal protection clause violation issue) was 7-2. Scary that even 2 would dissent, but of course one of them is Ruth Buzzi.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2010 at 11:14 PM

See the 2 Supreme Courts involved with the 2000 Presidential election. The State Supreme Court-comprised of all Democrats (FLA)-were Frank Rich-slapped by SCOTUS, first by a 9-0 humiliation.
And the later smackdown (the equal protection clause violation issue) was 7-2. Scary that even 2 would dissent, but of course one of them is Ruth Buzzi.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2010 at 11:14 PM

I know you keep posting that to try and get a rise out of me, but it’s so clear that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, that it’s just sort of amusing, really.

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 11:16 PM

I wouldn’t assume a gay judge necessarily thinks gay marriage is required by the Constitution. And I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that all gays think that they must have gay “marriage” (as opposed to civil unions) in order to be equal to hetrosexuals.

Jimbo3 on May 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM

I do not see how Allahpundit can be so naive about what a gay Supreme Court Justice means for this country, closeted or not. The first and foremost line of defending the notion of gay rights comes from the false view that homosexuals cannot but engage in homosexual activity, that they are fatalistically determined to do so. What would such a view do to our criminal justice system? Are criminals born that way: rapists and child molesters? These are both sexual activities and one cannot logically isolate homosexuality and claim it is the only one uniquely unavoidable. I serious question one’s judgment when it is argued that his or her sexuality is not a choice. This seems to reveal a level of self deception that would permeate all other judgments one would make. So yes, Kagan’s sexuality is an issue, but not as much as her friendliness to the gay rights agenda.

Having a gay Justice would also put Christians on notice that their freedoms to preach against a sin like homosexuality is going to change. Hot Air just picked up on the UK arresting and fining preachers for claiming homosexuality is a sin. Imagine what will happen here in America once a gay Justice is influencing decisions?

Blue Collar Todd on May 10, 2010 at 11:33 PM

Qu33rs are both immoral and hypocrites. That’s why they should be kept off the court. Along with any other members of a group that are immoral and hypocrites.

If that means bigot, so be it.

platypus on May 10, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Imagine what will happen here in America once a gay Justice is influencing decisions inflicting delusions?

Blue Collar Todd on May 10, 2010 at 11:33 PM

Fixed it.

platypus on May 10, 2010 at 11:38 PM

No matter Kagan’s sexual choices she is not going to see the law in differently than anyone else Obama chooses.

It doesn’t matter.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 11:39 PM

It doesn’t matter.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 11:39 PM

It doesn’t matter because she’s ain’t it. Jug Ears is Duh Won. Neo is The One.

Kagan is the sacrificial lamb. Think sacrifice fly in baseball.

platypus on May 10, 2010 at 11:46 PM

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Yawn. You’re not even making an argument that makes sense by dragging Loving into it.

Miscegenation != homosexual marriage. Look up Baker v. Nelson. The question of whether or not it is legal for states to define marriage as between a man and a woman has already been settled.

And it doesn’t help your argument.

Ryan Anthony on May 11, 2010 at 12:08 AM

I’ll tell ya – I’m sick of the whiny RINO’s on the whole gay marriage amendment issue.

Look – I don’t have to care whether or not gay marriage is legal to not want SCOTUS to make up another law granting a right that is not in the Constitution. How about they work on letting us keep the ones that are specifically in there, such as the first and second, first?

besser tot als rot on May 11, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Again, to embrace the gay agenda is to embrace marxism. They support the same construct. Pillars of the same false religion.

True_King on May 11, 2010 at 12:24 AM

crr6 on May 10, 2010 at 11:09 PM

heard of strict and intermediate scrutiny? probably not.

besser tot als rot on May 11, 2010 at 12:24 AM

The first and foremost line of defending the notion of gay rights comes from the false view that homosexuals cannot but engage in homosexual activity, that they are fatalistically determined to do so. What would such a view do to our criminal justice system? Are criminals born that way: rapists and child molesters?

First off, are you gay? I’m guessing no, so I can assure you that unless you’ve felt bisexual attraction to someone of your own gender, you’re not going to make a choice to be gay. Ditto for the gay person. They don’t make a choice to be gay. It just happens one way or the other.

And second, yes, I’d argue that pedophilia is just as hardwired as hetero and homosexuality. Some of them can refrain from giving in and live a fairly normal life, but if they give in, they should indeed be warehoused if not executed because there is no fixing them.

In my opinion, anyone using theology to force their politics on someone is offensive and immoral. I don’t care if your religion informs your own politics, but I’m not going to live my life differently because I came to a different conclusion about Jesus through His words.

kc-anathema on May 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM

In my opinion, anyone using theology to force their politics on someone is offensive and immoral.

kc-anathema on May 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Strawman.

besser tot als rot on May 11, 2010 at 12:34 AM

I for one do not want a liberal lesbian lawyer with almost no court experience on the Supreme Court.

Take your pick.

Abysmal.

But that is ahem par for the course for the Bummerman. I would not expect anything better but only something worse. Yeah, and it can always get worse. Rock bottom don`t exist . . . . You can keep on digging your hOle. Like Bummerman is doing for/to us.

What can the Bummerman do you for?

A lot and none of it is good.

Sherman1864 on May 11, 2010 at 1:08 AM

I’m of two minds on this. On one hand, I think the collective “So What” about her sexual orientation is a good thing for the country and the hyper-partisanship we have seen lately. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that Kagan isn’t Al Franken in contacts and a green pantsuit.

Kaisersoze on May 11, 2010 at 1:12 AM

In my opinion, anyone using theology to force their politics on someone is offensive and immoral. I don’t care if your religion informs your own politics, but I’m not going to live my life differently because I came to a different conclusion about Jesus through His words.

kc-anathema on May 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Ever heard of natural law?

tcn on May 11, 2010 at 1:26 AM

I was wondering who would bring this issue up first. Kagan’s homosexuality is a BIG deal, just like Obama being the first (half) black American president. We are all the sum total of all our experiences, and these experiences will effect our judgement. Just like being raised poor, or being raised on a farm as opposed to being raised in a city all will effect our world view.

I’m tired of the PC crowd telling me that when considering someones qualifications for high office I am to ignore their sexual proclivity, their heritage, their gender or the color of their skin. Just as knowledge of marital status, criminal history, physical and mental health is necessary when making a considered choice of who to hire for the highest court in the land, so too is one’s sexual preference. If that makes me a homophobe, racist, bigot, so be it.

Tonynoboloney on May 11, 2010 at 1:30 AM

I wonder if Salem reads their comment sections and wonders what in the hell did they buy?

Chickyraptor on May 11, 2010 at 2:49 AM

I think that dude’s going to make one hell of a justice.

DrZin on May 11, 2010 at 3:04 AM

Nothing personal ever matters about these radicals.

Next thing you know, they’re running the country.

How’s that working for us?

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2010 at 3:22 AM

Tonynoboloney on May 11, 2010 at 1:30 AM

You’re a voter, you get to concern yourself with whatever you want, but I don’t think it’s smart to focus on their personal lives so much. The reality is that the quality of our public representation has continually and consistently gone downhill as the amount we focused on their personal lives increased.
The more we focus on the private lives of politicians, the more we delude ourselves into thinking that it’s somehow important, the more we shrink the talent pool to only those so ambitious and power-hungry that they watch everything they say and do, practically from birth. Unfortunately, in that talent pool, they tend to only be skilled at covering their butts in the media.

Your points are valid, to an extent. My personal opinion is I’m less concerned how you came upon your philosophy as I am with the philosophy you’ve come upon, but yeah, if she’s gay that shapes her judicial perspective. It only gains significance by the lack of any serious legal writings. Still, in general focusing on the whole “Is he cheating on his wife with a dude?” stuff just makes it so that the people who could actually lead get killed by the media. I’d wager there isn’t a single founding father who could’ve passed through current standards of media scrutiny.

galenrox on May 11, 2010 at 3:45 AM

Strawman.
besser tot als rot

Socons saying that they won’t put support anyone who isn’t their religion is a strawman? Try actually arguing instead of throwing around one-word responses to sound like a debater.

Ever heard of natural law?
tcn

You mean survival of the fittest and living like animals? Or are you picking and choosing what natural laws you live by?

kc-anathema on May 11, 2010 at 4:14 AM

kc-anathema on May 11, 2010 at 4:14 AM

This isn’t the kind of “natural law” to which tcn referred. Natural law is a philosophy discussing the nature of things, in particular human beings. It goes beyond our makeup, and deals with our purpose. It is the basis of Western civilization. It is truly tragic that so many people have no understanding of it.

DrMagnolias on May 11, 2010 at 5:55 AM

We should not be promoting immoral people to high office.
I will make a qualitative judgement:
Homosexuality is immoral.

scotash on May 10, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Don’t you mean that homosexual activity is immoral? If so, I’ll agree with you. Just include certain kinds of heterosexual immoral activity as well when you paint with that broad brush of yours.

Look, she banned military recruitment at Harvard. She is unqualified. Case closed. The fact that she appears to be a really smart bull dyke lesbian is irrelevant to the argument.

BigAlSouth on May 11, 2010 at 7:25 AM

We should not be promoting immoral people to high office.
I will make a qualitative judgement:
Homosexuality is immoral.

scotash on May 10, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Homosexual activity is immoral, as is certain types of heterosexual activity. You paint with a pretty broad brush.

BigAlSouth on May 11, 2010 at 7:28 AM

Because I’m pretty sure Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor are all straight, and I’m also pretty sure how they’ll vote if and when gay marriage finally reaches the Court.

I’m pretty sure Ginsburg has no sexual orientation. Kagan was opposed to partial birth abortion. Obama voted for infanticide. Kagan’s sexual orientation is of no concern. Let’s confront the imposter on the White House before he destroys this country.

Basilsbest on May 11, 2010 at 7:46 AM

…I can assure you that unless you’ve felt bisexual attraction to someone of your own gender, you’re not going to make a choice to be gay. Ditto for the gay person. They don’t make a choice to be gay. It just happens one way or the other.

kc-anathema on May 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM

That’s a perfect argument for why no homosexual should ever be put in any position of power or authority where their decisions will affect the lives of others.

Someone who is incapable of controlling the most basic human activity is not normal.

Ooops. Now someone will come along and claim being gay has nothing to do with sex. Riiiight. I keep forgetting that. Sorry.

Jaynie59 on May 11, 2010 at 7:56 AM

I don’t care if she had sex with the neighborhood stray dog…

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 9:18 PM

I actually would like to know that about her … kind of. depending on the breed it could definitely say something about her in relation to how she would approach certain legal issues, not the least of which would be animal enslavement

BrideOfRove on May 11, 2010 at 8:17 AM

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010

I would tend to agree with you that this whole lesbian issue is a diversion and it’s important for certain people to focus on what matters. But this site is for more than staid discussions of weighty issues. I come here to vent and express opinions that often have little to do with hard facts. Snarky comments about her fugliness, clothes, sexual orientation, etc. is part of that. Short of phone calls and letters to our representatives, we don’t have any power to affect this issue so we vent any way we can. This is one way. It is up to the Senators who have to vote on her (God, help us) to ask hard questions and decide on her fitness for the court. That most of them use the hearings as a dog and pony show and decide on purely PC reasons is ultimately our fault. We put those scum in office.

SKYFOX on May 11, 2010 at 8:22 AM

I believe her nomination is nothing more then a Trojan horse. She will get rejected making room for Woods or some other God awfull liberal/communist. Personally, I hope she make it through. She is a lightweight and won’t have a chance to challenge the true scholars sitting on the bench. I would rather have a liberal lightweight then someone more intellectualy dangerous.

trs on May 11, 2010 at 8:27 AM

She looks like Fred Flintone.

Let’s see if her first official opinion as USSC justice is “Yabba Dabba Do

petefrt on May 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Liberalism goes along left-wing nuts. There will be a major holdup if marriage comes to court. I believe men will ban together and hold a big “no” against it.

The ladies may feel that it is time to not necessarily pursue The Won’s agenda, but that they feel it is time for legal rights for homosexuals. I know what way Sotomayor is gonna swing, that’s not hard to tell. Her sexual orientation is none of my business, but you know how much hell this is gonna raise if she comes “out”.

*Wow, look at all THAT money!*/truth

ProudPalinFan on May 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM

Personally, I hope she make it through. She is a lightweight

trs on May 11, 2010 at 8:27 AM

She looks like a lightweight to me too. They say she’s likable. That’s a good thing. But being likable and judicially persuasive are two different matters. A likable lightweight would be about the best we could hope for.

petefrt on May 11, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Again, to embrace the gay agenda is to embrace marxism. They support the same construct. Pillars of the same false religion.

True_King on May 11, 2010 at 12:24 AM

There are plenty of fiscal conservatives who are gay. There are plenty of people who have served in the armed forces who are gay and many still do. How do you think San Francisco got it’s gay community?

Homosexuality was a criminal offense until 1993 in Russia. Like many here, the official Communist position was that homosexuals are not a ‘social minority’ which deserved any recognition or protections.

I’m interested in hearing how being gay is somehow one of the pillars of Marxism.

lexhamfox on May 11, 2010 at 8:33 AM

Dean of Law at one of the nation’s foremost ideological universities, never worked in the private sector, affiliated with Goldman-Sachs, and long-time aquaintance of many of the democrat leadership…

And people here are saying she will be a moderate or lightweight on the court? Is this place commented solely by Michael “Obama will govern as a Clinton-like centrist” Medved?

Inanemergencydial on May 11, 2010 at 8:38 AM

As some have noted here I do not care what her sexual orientation is as long as she upholds the consitution and doesn’t side with the left rulings from the bench. If she was picked because she is the most qualified great if she was picked solely because of her sexual orientation I am opposed. Maybe she is a gay conservative there are more than a few of us out (npi) there though the media ignores us

Santa

SANTA on May 11, 2010 at 8:53 AM

It won’t be a factor in the confirmation process. By 2025, though, NASCAR will be banned for climate change, the NFL and NHL will be banned for bullying, and Heather will have three mommies.

Little Boomer on May 11, 2010 at 9:13 AM

I’m not a libertarian, though I have libertarian leanings. Perhaps that explains my reluctance to take a postion that her homosexuality is irrelevant, or maybe my understanding that – and this is from a completely secular point of view- it does or certainly can affect her suitability as a justice. It’s a factor.

Without describing all the reasons it matters, I’ll just say I won’t pretend it doesn’t matter. I want a justice who is unwilling to cheat the law to gain a social “advance” or change.

SarahW on May 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Don’t see it as an issue unless it colors her decisions, and that’s something we won’t know until it’s too late. Looking at Kagan’s photo,it was remarked yesterday that Sotomayer would become the most attractive woman on SCOTUS should Kagan make the grade, probably a new experience for her. I am ashamed to say I snickered.

jeanie on May 11, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I’m kinda torn on the issue of “being out” in Kagan’s case. It seems to me that The O would see this as an attribute, if she were a lesbian. It’d be another “history making” appointment. I’m guessing they’ll play the gay card if she has a tough time in the confirmation hearings.

It seems the Dems like gays in public office because playing the gay card is easier than arguing any actual pertinent issues. This is true of all minorities. They are just useful tools for Dems in this regard.

When I hear though that gays should stay in the closet and not make a big deal out of it, it sounds awkward. I know she shouldn’t act like some militant , angry person spewing HRC talking points. But what if a gay candidate had their spouse with them at ceremonies and public appearances , (like Mary Cheney and Heather on Election Night 2000.) What if they weren’t militant, BUT still didn’t hide it by growing a beard marrying someone of the opposite sex. Would that be “too out”?

How “out” is “too out” ? At what point are we at the acceptable “don’t make a big deal about it ” threshold???
We can’t be accceptable in the GOP community unless we meet this ambiguous standard.

Lothar on May 11, 2010 at 9:47 AM

What? Rosie O’Donnell was busy?

Captain America on May 11, 2010 at 9:51 AM

I think this is an important milestone for gay Americans. Now they, along with other minorities in America, have one of their own on the Supreme Court. Perhaps some time in the near future we will have a president who will appoint a transgendered American, so they can be represented, too.

chris999 on May 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM

It is possible for a well adjusted person to simply decide to live a homosexual lifestyle (or bisexual one for that matter) without it negatively impacting their judgment, such the way one might decide to live a celibate lifestyle. If, however, one identifies as ‘gay’, and constructs a lifestyle around that social construct, it does have an impact on their judgment.

Count to 10 on May 11, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Nobody likes ugly lesbians.

logis on May 11, 2010 at 10:07 AM

It won’t be a factor in the confirmation process. By 2025, though, NASCAR will be banned for climate change, the NFL and NHL will be banned for bullying, and Heather will have three mommies.

Little Boomer on May 11, 2010 at 9:13 AM

I don’t know about ‘Heather’, but I’ve had one mother and two step-mothers at the same time.

Count to 10 on May 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4