Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Elena Kagan's unhelpful supporters

Elena Kagan's supporters don't do her or gay Americans any favors by publicly expressing their views on her sexual orientation. Whether or not a future justice is a heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant to questions about fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. That there are some bigoted Americans who would make sexual orientation an issue is no reason to grant them any legitimacy, which occurs when their perverse and offensive interests are addressed. The proper response is to treat the question of sexual orientation as the non-issue that it is and place the burden on the bigots to make their case in the public square… if they dare.

What's worse, by finding it necessary to declare that Kagan is not a lesbian, her supporters, wittingly or unwittingly, have lent credence to the specious argument that homosexuality carries with it a stigma, that it is a perversion and, thus, a disqualification.

In their zeal to protect Kagan's nomination, her defenders have given standing to those who would discriminate against gays, sanctioned similar inquiries into the sexual orientation of future judges, and further lowered the level of debate on qualifications necessary to serve on the highest court in the land.

By Colbert King  | May 16, 2010; 6:35 PM ET
Categories:  King  | Tags:  Colbert King  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Should we offer teachers buyouts?
Next: Sarah Palin wants to deny choice

Comments

As has been noted by columnists far and wide, Kagan's sexual preference is irrelevant to her qualifications as a SC Justice.

Just as lunatic is arguing that her excellent academic credentials make her a liability.

What of Scalia's sexuality or lack thereof? How about Thomas? And the fact that he is a moron?

Something is going on here with Kagan that has nothing to do with either her sexuality or the liability of her legal brilliance.

And that something, as it were, will out.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 17, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

When something is irrelevant Mr. King, why must you always write about it?

Posted by: bobbo2 | May 17, 2010 12:48 AM | Report abuse

King, you're off base. Kagan's sexual orientation is a legitimate matter for discussion. 95% of the American public is heterosexual, and many, if not a majority, distrust people who are homosexual. Many states in the country have had bills on their ballots regarding gay marriage, and most of them have been soundly defeated because most Americans do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Questioning her sexual preferences, particularly since she dresses like a lesbian, is totally on target.

Posted by: mike85 | May 17, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Nearly fifty-one per cent of Americans are female. YEt, nearly eighty per cent of the Supreme Court Justices are male.

The president and vice president are 100 per cent male. Have always been.

This discussion is as asinine as that which worries over her Harvard law degree.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 17, 2010 1:30 AM | Report abuse

another republootarded idea

full of sound and fury

signifying nothing

a perfect topic for the wapoop token liberal

Posted by: nada85484 | May 17, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

I fully agree with Mr. King's comments. The Obama administration has discredited any pretense of defending human rights and equal rights by "reassuring" people Ms. Kagan is not a lesbian.

Who cares if she is? I thought conservatives valued individual freedom and a right to privacy. Oh, I suppose those kind of conservatives hardly exist anymore.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | May 17, 2010 2:21 AM | Report abuse

But if we don't discuss Ms. Kagan's sexuality, Obama doesn't get credit for the gay demographic, which is clearly part of his rationale for this choice.

Posted by: Benson | May 17, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

"

King, you're off base. Kagan's sexual orientation is a legitimate matter for discussion. 95% of the American public is heterosexual, and many, if not a majority, distrust people who are homosexual. Many states in the country have had bills on their ballots regarding gay marriage, and most of them have been soundly defeated because most Americans do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Questioning her sexual preferences, particularly since she dresses like a lesbian, is totally on target.

Posted by: mike85"

Oh. She "dresses like a lesbian." How's that, mikey-poo? Like you do in your high heels and lace that you like to don when your wife and children aren't looking?

Funny, how all the stiff against the appointment comes from closeted queens who are too scared to come out. Right, Mikey-poo? Don't be scared: flaunt the lace. You seem to need it!

Posted by: thrh | May 17, 2010 2:57 AM | Report abuse

mike85, when given the right hose and bustier, is a pretty juicy little piece!

Posted by: thrh | May 17, 2010 2:59 AM | Report abuse

hey on your TV show with Gordon Peterson
the panel o fwhich yo are a part, discussed
the fact that the entire gay quetion came form teh gay community itself ( andrew sullivan)

it was the male gay community that because of its antiplathy to all women thta shot itself in the fot by raising the entire gay questions.

so step lying mr King or we will replay last satureday's TV program where these facts were discussed.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | May 17, 2010 4:54 AM | Report abuse

King understates the problem.

Barack Obama deliberately eliminated from his list of potential nominees any candidate who was openly gay, including Pam Karlan and Kathleen Sullivan, without regard to their qualifications.

How can we expect the media and public to treat Kagan's sexual identity as a non-issue while Obama himself continues to believes that same-sex couples are inherently inferior to opposite-sex couples and deliberately screens out any potential Court nominees based on sexual orientation? Obama does not deserve any break here.

Posted by: uh_huhh | May 17, 2010 5:58 AM | Report abuse

Kagan's sexuality should be irrelevant, as should Obama's color. But the fact is that many people are prejudiced to a greater or lesser extent and are more inclined to believe other accusations about them; particularly if those accusations play to the stereotypes.

Posted by: glennet | May 17, 2010 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Yael T. Abouhalkah(who favors gays on the high court) writing in the KC Star: "Knowing whether she's gay would help Americans know a little bit more about her and her life experiences."

What life experiences? Is that the best you can do, Yael?

Unnatural positions...?
Imagine living in a house where the front door enters through the master bedroom and you cannot at any time or for any purpose get to any other room in that house except by walking through that room and observing what is going on in that room. Who wants to live like that or would expect it of anyone else? It's ridiculous; it's demeaning for all of us as human beings.
It should not be tolerated by anyone.
It will be part of the hearing.

Posted by: martymar123 | May 17, 2010 7:29 AM | Report abuse


Who a person is is highly relevant. Why hasn't Kagan married? Is she abusive toward men? Is she a lesbian who is abusive toward women (same-sex marriage is permitted in Massachussets and Washington, DC)? Is she unmarried with some sort of lesbian or straight domestic partnership thingy? Maybe like the murdered DC Middle School principal, she just digs sex parties with several anonymous 18 year old males at once, which we are told is normal.

Let's not forget J. Edgar Hoover, a person who many believe was a closet homosexual and who therefore was a paranoid, self-hating, power-abuser. We cannot have another J. Edgar Hoover in high office, but refusing to scrutinize a nominee's sexuality and maturity is no way to prevent it.

Bork had a list of his favorite porno films published, including incidations of those he rented more than once. Thomas had a last-minute attack against his sexual conduct from a person who had never said a word to anyone before. A Supreme Court nominee's sexuality has always been fair game.

It is shameful for Colbert King to call good, responsible citizens bigots. A gay or lesbian can serve responsibly in high public office. But an irresponsible or immature gay or lesbian cannot.

Who is Elena Kagan? Contempt for the public is not compatible with public service.

Posted by: blasmaic | May 17, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Mr. King here commits the "is-ought" fallacy. Ms Kagan's sexual orientation may ought to be irrelevant to her confirmation, but it surely is relevant in the minds of many people in forming their opinions of her. It therefore is relevant. Those supporters giving their opinions on her sexual orientation respond to that reality.

But even at the "ought to" level, Mr. King's argument fails. A nominee's race or gender ought to be no criterion for confirmation than the candidate's sexual orientation. Yet we all do routinely expect to know what a nominee's race and gender are. We expect to know all sorts of non-dispositive personal information about nominees. It's part of our getting to know them. While it is undoubtedly true that bigots use such information against nominees, that is no reason to label generally those who use such information to understand and decide upon a nominee as bigots.

Posted by: MarkDavidovich | May 17, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Yes I can't understand why this is such a big issue with her supporters. They seem to protest too much. Is this a red herring? Is talking about something insignificant hiding something significant?
Or is this just that Liberal double standard?
Its sexual harassment unless Clinton does it. Its stimulus if they spend it, its deficits when Bush spends it. An African-American nominate by or within the GOP is an "Uncle Tom". Big Business is bad, but not those donations. The death penalty is wrong but abortions are nothing. Yes and Gay rights and marriage are progressive but not when its not politically expedient.

Posted by: flyover22 | May 17, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if King would consider another equally superficial criteria, race (or gender), as irrelevant in the same way?

Posted by: ArlingtonMiller | May 17, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Exactly. This wasn't an issue until liberals started coming out with denials of it. It may have been reported by the media, but the controversy over it was fomented by Kagan's supporters.

Posted by: jaebersole | May 17, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"she dresses like a lesbian,"

So that makes her a lesbian? And how does a lesbian dress? And who cares?

Posted by: skinky_1999 | May 17, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

http://www.needaseller.com

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$16

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

http://www.needaseller.com

FREE sHIPPING
........♫
....♫
..♪
........♬

...♪......♪

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


Posted by: bonilla201027 | May 17, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

JUST SAY NO TO THE APPARATCHI(C)K!

Be honest, King. Kagan is unfit for the Supreme Court. She is the descendant of European socialists FDR imported to establish a socialist heaven like his "friend" "Uncle Joe" Stalin's, a mass-murdering communist. Obamnesty wants her not as a jurist, but as a socialist appologist to approve the agenda, including CastroCare, crap and tax based on the global warming hoax, and amnesty for 30 MILLION illegal aliens (BUT NO TERRORISTS?), so that another 75 MILLION will invade our country. If the idea is to appoint a blindly devoted marxist, this apparatchi(c)k is PERFECT. But that is not what the American people want.
We want to keep our capitalist democracy.

Republican'ts, how about acting like you are somewhere besides a golf course, and give this Marxist the treatment Ded Kennedy dished out in his bloody hatchet job on the great jurist Robert Bork?!

Posted by: IowaPatN | May 17, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post will not "out" a gay or lesbian who does not want their lifestyle known to the public. So there is no way to know if we are reading the truth about Kagan's heterosexual orientation.

Kagan will be confirmed. Then she'll announce she's a lesbian. As the 2012 election approaches, America will witness the first-ever same-sex marriage between a lesbian Supreme Court Justice and her bride.

Then the White House, the Senate, and the House, along with a lot of state houses and governorships, will switch to Republican hands.

Posted by: blasmaic | May 17, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I would concur that her sexual orientation should be irrelevant for her fitness to server on the SCOTUS. Of course, if her sexual orientation influences her objectivity, that's a different matter. Her visceral reaction to military recruiters on the Harvard campus can certainly be viewed by reasonable people as a red flag that she may not be completely unbiased in matters of law concerning sexual orientation.

Posted by: randysbailin | May 17, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Ah, mike85 (aka ekim), right-wing bigot extraordinaire, welcome back! I'd grown to miss your idiotic blather; the return of your nonsensical claptrap is refreshing.

Here's today's burst of nonsense from you:

"King, you're off base. Kagan's sexual orientation is a legitimate matter for discussion. 95% of the American public is heterosexual, and many, if not a majority, distrust people who are homosexual. Many states in the country have had bills on their ballots regarding gay marriage, and most of them have been soundly defeated because most Americans do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Questioning her sexual preferences, particularly since she dresses like a lesbian, is totally on target."


I really enjoyed that. And, may I say, it's just like your usual work: meandering, off-base and utterly, utterly idiotic. Bravo!

Now, how is the effort to rewrite the Bible to make it more "conservative" going? Well, I trust?

Posted by: chert | May 17, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, ekim, I thought your post was the dumbest today by far, but I think that IowaPatN has you beat by a mile. My apologies again ...

Posted by: chert | May 17, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Well said, Mr. King. I think the key issue here is that of lowering the standard of supreme court justices.

Posted by: Jose5 | May 17, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Excellent article, Mr. King.

Ms. Kagan's sexual orientation (or lack thereof) is not a legitimate topic for discussion.

It would only become a legitimate topic for discussion if she brought it up herself and THEN made an issue out of it.

This is simply a rule of civility, it's not a Left-wing or Right-wing rule. I'm a conservative and I have zero tolerance for anyone who tries to argue this position.

Posted by: ZZim | May 17, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Sooner or later, and most likely sooner, a gay rights case will wind its way up to the SCOTUS. The issue will be the constitutionality of preventing two people of the same sex from getting married with all the bells and whistles that apply to opposite sex marriages. That case will be considered on the basis of equal protection and due process just as the California first and then the SCOTUS case that finally and justifiably outlawed miscegenation laws.

The issue is one of Justice recusal. If Elena Kagen is gay, which is not really an issue for her being nominated and confirmed, will she recuse herself from hearing and deciding that case when it comes?

At the end of the day, I believe three things are going to prove out.
1. Kagen will be confirmed.
2. The Case will arrive and Kagen will not recuse herself.
3. The Supreme Court will toss out as unconstitutional any State ban on full marital rights for those of the same sex to marry.
The right to marry the PERSON of one's choice is basic to the American way of life. The SCOTUS and California Supreme Court said so.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | May 17, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"particularly since she dresses like a lesbian"!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

To these nutcases, all you have to do to be a Patriot is wear a flag pin. All you have to do to be a Christian is to say so. We need a bill in Congress, the Sexual Orientation Dress Code Bill. It will be illegal to wear clothing that doesn't reflect your sexual orientation.

"particularly since she dresses like a lesbian" Ha ha ha ha ha!

Posted by: thebobbob | May 17, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The only reason people are commenting about her being a lesbian is because there is nothing else to talk about with her. She has no experience what so ever as a judge. She looks like a lesbian and people suspect Obama of pandering and being irresponsible with a supreme court nomination.

Posted by: peterg73 | May 17, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Bingo.

I practically NEVER agree with King. This time around he is right ON. Why would a person's sexuality even factor into the weighing of their professional competence. That is nothing but a diversion. This type of nonsense just points to the lousy sex lives of all these light weights. What an educational system.

Posted by: craigslsst | May 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Bingo.

I practically NEVER agree with King. This time around he is right ON. Why would a person's sexuality even factor into the weighing of their professional competence. That is nothing but a diversion. This type of nonsense just points to the lousy sex lives of all these light weights. What an educational system.

Posted by: craigslsst | May 17, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Bingo.

I practically NEVER agree with King. This time around he is right ON. Why would a person's sexuality even factor into the weighing of their professional competence. That is nothing but a diversion. This type of nonsense just points to the lousy sex lives of all these light weights. What an educational system.

Posted by: craigslsst | May 17, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Bingo.

I practically NEVER agree with King. This time around he is right ON. Why would a person's sexuality even factor into the weighing of their professional competence. That is nothing but a diversion. This type of nonsense just points to the lousy sex lives of all these light weights. What an educational system.

Posted by: craigslsst | May 17, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Kagan's supposed sexuality reminds me of the brouhaha two years over Obama's supposed religion. Assuming openmindedness, one would end up with similar denials: "Kagan isn't gay. Not that there would be anything wrong with it if she was."

So far, the second sentence is rarely heard this year, while it was pretty common to hear "Obama isn't a Muslim. Not that there would be anything wrong with it if he was." Do people not think that the second sentence NEEDS saying as much as it did the last time around? or do they think there would be a bigger problem if she was gay? Is it more debilitating in public life to be thought a faux Muslim, or a faux lesbian?

Posted by: alainek | May 17, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Clearly gender and sexual orientation mattered more to Obama on this appointment than actual judicial experience. While it is true to state that gender or sexual orientation are irrelevant to the job of supreme court justice, it would be willfully ignorant to deny it was a premiere consideration impacting nomination. One must ask, "Why are such job irrelevant factors so important to the President?". Is he ignorant of the nature of the job of Supreme court justice, or is it he merely is making a political appointment without regard for capacity to perform well in the job?

Posted by: Wiggan | May 17, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Kagan's defenders have not "lent credence to the specious argument that homosexuality carries with it a stigma." They have simply displayed bigotry toward homosexuals. Will Mr. King be so circumspect in his characterization of her opponents as he has been of her friends?

Posted by: dupremail | May 17, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Jane Velez-Mitchell Rocks!! This lesbian tv host was just voted "person of the year" by the gay and lesbian pride festival. Watch her show to support this gay woman on TV!!! Her Show "Issues" is on everyday on the CNN headline news Channel

Posted by: JVMfan | May 17, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Her sexual preference is only relevant as it relates to issues surrounding her judgment, her understanding of the law, and any way that it may interfere with her passing judgments in line with the constitution and appropriate other statutes.
If she is gay, that is in no way an impediment to her serving on the court. If she is in the closet and ashamed of it, it gives a great deal of power to those who will out her convincingly. That would be a bad situation.
Unfortunately, this is close to the idiotic old CIA clearance paradox of denying people who were gay clearances, given that they might be blackmailed, for fear of having the CIA find out about their sexual preferences and losing their clearance. But it still is relevant in one tiny area.

Posted by: natecar | May 17, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

King, you're off base. Kagan's sexual orientation is a legitimate matter for discussion. 95% of the American public is heterosexual, and many, if not a majority, distrust people who are homosexual. Many states in the country have had bills on their ballots regarding gay marriage, and most of them have been soundly defeated because most Americans do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Questioning her sexual preferences, particularly since she dresses like a lesbian, is totally on target.

Posted by: mike85

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DRESSES LIKE A LESBIAN.


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

Posted by: theobserver4 | May 17, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

NO HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN, OR TRANSGENDER SUB HUMAN LIKE ELEAN KAGAN is FIT TO RULE on ANYTHING. THEY ARE PERVERSE, and ANIMAL LIKE in THEIR LUST. THEY HAVE NO QUALIFICATIONS to SERVE EITHER AS A SLAVE, or A JUSTICE on THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THEIR DESTINY is HELL, and THEN; THE LAKE of FIRE WHERE THEY WILL BURN FOREVER for THEIR UNNATURAL DESIRES, and DEMONIZED PERSONALITIES. THEIR ETERNAL DAMNATION is ONLY A HEART BEAT AWAY.

Posted by: LION7 | May 17, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

So tell me, LETFREEDOMRING2, when the issue of same-sex marriage comes up to the Supreme Court, should all of the presently or formerly married people on the SCOTUS recuse themselves? Because it is certainly an issue in which they have a personal interest.

I've read that specious argument in other blogs - it continues to be very, very far fetched, and exhibits little understanding of the rules for recusal. If recusal were required for any case in which a justice has or is perceived to have the same characteristics as one of the parties, that would mean that no case of racial discrimination could come to the SCOTUS, and quite probably no case of age discrimination.

This nonsense is based on an unfounded, totally unsupported allegation by a neo-con blogger. I think the WH had to deny it - we've all seen the political consequences of not denying false charges. But the rest of this speculation - she looks like, she dresses like, she's never been married, etc., etc. is so absurd I don't know how anyone can type things like that with a straight face.

Posted by: vklip1 | May 17, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Does the Washington Post actually have "posting standards"? LION7's crude fire-and-brimstone cursing of the candidate for the Supreme Court would appear to violate them, if they do in fact exist.

Posted by: spbphil | May 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Lion7, you missed your meds again.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | May 17, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Mike 85, uh, exactly how does a lesbian dress? Maybe like the gorgeous and out country music star Chely Wright? 95% of the nation supported slavery or were against womens suffrage at one time and that didn't make either of those positions right. Your comments are laced with so much small-mindedness that I'm forwarding them to my friends just so folks know that cultural Ludites are still alive and well. But hold onto your views--a generation from now they too will be in a museum.

Posted by: kdo1 | May 17, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Elena Kagan's supporters don't do her or gay Americans any favors by publicly expressing their views on her sexual orientation. Whether or not a future justice is a heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant to questions about fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. That there are some bigoted Americans who would make sexual orientation an issue is no reason to grant them any legitimacy,


Sure it makes a difference because you made it that way. You question people’s ability because they smoke, do drugs, have debt so sexual orientation is just as relevant as the rest. But being a LIB T@RD the rules should only apply when you feel they should. LOL Thank god for the US Constitution or imagine what bozo’s like this would ban.

Posted by: askgees | May 17, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Nearly fifty-one per cent of Americans are female. YEt, nearly eighty per cent of the Supreme Court Justices are male.
The president and vice president are 100 per cent male. Have always been.
This discussion is as asinine as that which worries over her Harvard law degree.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 17, 2010 1:30 AM | Report abuse
But not as asinine as your post. What does male or female have to do with anything. This is about interpreting the law. Not about equal representation. If this is the argument you want then start with local, state and fed governments and what percentage of male/female employees they have. Determining the law in not gender specific. Unless that is you all are hoping they pass a law forgiving you for acting the way you do EACH AND EVERY MONTH. But I doubt that will happen so your argument is pathetic.


LIB = ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

Posted by: askgees | May 17, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Jane Velez-Mitchell Rocks!! This lesbian tv host was just voted "person of the year" by the gay and lesbian pride festival. Watch her show to support this gay woman on TV!!! Her Show "Issues" is on everyday on the CNN headline news Channel
Posted by: JVMfan | May 17, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse
Well I guess when you’re 4’ and an obnoxious little troll you have no choice.

Yea, yea, yea, I know it’s a birth defect. LOL

Posted by: askgees | May 17, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

No, it does matter.

Whether or not this SHOULD be an issue is irrelevant. Of course it shouldn't be of any issue whether or not she is gay, but it is. After all, the Senate would NEVER confirm a gay justice to the Supreme Court. Not anytime soon, at least.

This country hates homosexuals. If the overwhelming popular opinion against giving gay people basic rights and the lack of federal action to do so aren't enough to convince you of that, just peruse the comments section.

"askgees" equates homosexuality with drug addiction.
"mike85" is so afraid of homosexals, he is against people looking like they might be one.
"blasmaic" posts under the assumption that homosexuality is sexual deviancy.

So much talk has been about nominating a justice in touch with this fictional "Mainstream America". BULL. If "Mainstream America" is a land of bigotry, then it is a land that has forgotten the tenets on which it was founded -- such as men being created equal, and the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, and I proudly recognize myself as an anti-Mainstream American.

Because given the ideals this country was founded on, homophobia is anti-American, and Mainstream America is anti-American.

Posted by: joshlct | May 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Does the Washington Post actually have "posting standards"? LION7's crude fire-and-brimstone cursing of the candidate for the Supreme Court would appear to violate them, if they do in fact exist.

Posted by: spbphil | May 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps you should call your mommy. Grow up...

Posted by: askgees | May 17, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: joshlct | May 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse
No, it does matter.

Whether or not this SHOULD be an issue is irrelevant. Of course it shouldn't be of any issue whether or not she is gay, but it is. After all, the Senate would NEVER confirm a gay justice to the Supreme Court. Not anytime soon, at least.

This country hates homosexuals. If the overwhelming popular opinion against giving gay people basic rights and the lack of federal action to do so aren't enough to convince you of that, just peruse the comments section.


_____________________________________
Are these household pets???? Of course not and they have the same rights as you and I try pulling your head out of your @zz and you might realize this. What they want is MORE RIGHTS than you and I. Wake up simplet0n.... I guess you can’t fix stup1d.

Posted by: askgees | May 17, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

As a lawyer, I agree that Ms. Kagan's sexual orientation is not, strictly speaking, relevant to her ability to the job. Heaven knows many straight people (and I am not opining one way or the other as to Kagan's sexual orientation) have done the job quite spectacularly. As a gay man, however, it is relevant to me on a very personal level.

Plus, let's keep it real for a minute - contrary to popular belief, judges (and lawyers) really are human beings too. As such, they bring their entire life experience to the bench with them, whether you like that experience or not. And that experience is going to affect how they see the world and what their leanings are, especially in the hard cases that SCOTUS regularly hears and decides. It is not realistic - and, I would argue, not even desirable - to expect otherwise. I personally do not want to see cases decided by robots who are utterly out of touch with their humanity. After all, it was precisely the rigidity of law that led to the creation of parallel equity courts in England so that justice could be done when the result at law was too harsh, and those equity courts are part of our common law system today. So I do think that the entirety of one's background is relevant to deciding whether or not to give them a lifetime judgeship, not just their so-called "qualifications" (whatever that may mean) to do the job. And I believe this is true regardless of the ideological leanings of the nominee or of the president who nominates him or her.

...And, while we're on the subject of qualifications, I say kudos to President Obama for not nominating an appellate judge for this spot. I think it is important to have some Supreme Court justices who have done something besides spending their entire legal careers as government lawyers and judges. I have the utmost respect and admiration for my colleagues who devote their lives to public service, and many of them would (and do) make excellent judges. The fact remains, however, that all too many judges today do not have a good grasp of the realities of private practice, of civil litigation, and/or of family law cases, among others, before they take the bench. I know most of Kagan's background has been academic, and I'd have liked to see someone nominated who actually spent a lot of time in the litigation trenches, but at least she wasn't a career government lawyer. In my book, that is a plus, given how many of our current justices were career government lawyers and appellate judges. It is important to have some diversity of experience on the Supreme Court bench.

Posted by: stodge | May 17, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: askgees
Are these household pets???? Of course not and they have the same rights as you and I try pulling your head out of your @zz and you might realize this. What they want is MORE RIGHTS than you and I. Wake up simplet0n.... I guess you can’t fix stup1d.
--------------

Thank you for your eloquent response to my post.

Posted by: joshlct | May 17, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

She's got a face only a mother could love. Elena Kagan is not gay. She is sexually unattractive by anyone's standards. She is what in Yiddish is called a meeskite.

And her ego must be so huge that it makes her even more repulsive. This woman wants a seat on the Supreme Court so badly that you know she would run over anyone in her path.

Apparently everyone can't see the obvious. No man married her because she is fat and homely and because her single-minded ambition to become a Supreme Court justice, a political hack instead of a real lawyer, must be so repulsive that no one would have her.

That's all I have to say about gay people. Gay people are not ugly and fat. Gay people of either sex usually look absolutely awesome. They don't marry not because they are homely and repulsive. They don't marry because the legal system will not allow them to marry. That's all.

The point is that this woman is homely and her personality must suffer from blind ambition. She's played so many political games and the relatively little experience she has had as solicitor general is merely a drop in the bucket. Hardworking women who don't go to Harvard are never going to be on any snobbish elitest lists for Supreme Court nominations. This is about snobbery and elitism and why the Democrats should practice being democrats with a lower-case "d" if they want to appeal to the majority of humanity in America. That's all.

Get rid of this meeskite and pick some Southern woman who went to Baylor University or some Midwestern woman who graduated from Michigan. Stop being such insufferable snobs. You'll lose your souls if not every election from now till doomsday if you keep it up.

Posted by: eyemakeupneeded1 | May 17, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

She's got a face only a mother could love. Elena Kagan is not gay. She is sexually unattractive by anyone's standards. She is what in Yiddish is called a meeskite.

And her ego must be so huge that it makes her even more repulsive. This woman wants a seat on the Supreme Court so badly that you know she would run over anyone in her path.

Apparently everyone can't see the obvious. No man married her because she is fat and homely and because her single-minded ambition to become a Supreme Court justice, a political hack instead of a real lawyer, must be so repulsive that no one would have her.

That's all I have to say about gay people. Gay people are not ugly and fat. Gay people of either sex usually look absolutely awesome. They don't marry not because they are homely and repulsive. They don't marry because the legal system will not allow them to marry. That's all.

The point is that this woman is homely and her personality must suffer from blind ambition. She's played so many political games and the relatively little experience she has had as solicitor general is merely a drop in the bucket. Hardworking women who don't go to Harvard are never going to be on any snobbish elitest lists for Supreme Court nominations. This is about snobbery and elitism and why the Democrats should practice being democrats with a lower-case "d" if they want to appeal to the majority of humanity in America. That's all.

Get rid of this meeskite and pick some Southern woman who went to Baylor University or some Midwestern woman who graduated from Michigan. Stop being such insufferable snobs. You'll lose your souls if not every election from now till doomsday if you keep it up.

Posted by: eyemakeupneeded1 | May 17, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

As usual, Colbert King gets to the heart of the matter with a powerful combination of "ability to cut to the heart of the matter" and backbone. Always a joy to read him.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | May 17, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

the exact same people who hate this president because of the color of his skin are the same ones who will deride this nominee because she never married and dresses differently, therefore she must be a lesbian.
if being married and heterosexual is the criteria of being a moral human being and eligible to be on the supreme court.can i introduce you to:
vitter,ensign,craig,foley,delay,clinton,sandford,spitzer,jesse james and our all time favorite tiger woods.

Posted by: ninnafaye | May 17, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Why are we having this discussion?? When CBS News posted something saying she was gay, the White House very forcefully said she was straight. I think they said it twice. According to the Messiah, Kagan is not gay.

Are all you liberals assuming that the White House would lie about this just to get Kagan confirmed?? If so, you people are despicable, and more dangerous to the politics in this country than any so-called hate group or militia.

Posted by: sunnyroberto | May 17, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm really tired of this discussion about Ms. Kagan's supposed sexual orientation. Why is it that people always assume that because a person has never married that she or he must be gay? Why can't people assume that the person just hasn't found their soulmate or prefers to be single? Talk about discrimination! Why is it okay for people to discriminate against singles? It was unfair for people to assume that Justice Souter was gay just because he never married. Does this mean that every single nominee will have to put up with this extra scrutiny because they are not married? There are a lot of people in Washington who should be ashamed to use another person's single status against them.

Posted by: mumthere | May 17, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Every single nominee will certainly face every bit of mud that can possibly be tossed at them for the foreseeable future.

That's a shame.

That "being homosexual" is still viewed as "mud" that can be tossed at a nominee is a shame.

That a church-going advocate for black issues would call people out on this issue is heartening. And a close reading of Colby King is usually heartening.

When one of his critics has endured the discrimination he's endured, and accomplished what he's accomplished, I'll certify them as worthy to debate him. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, Colbert is King.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | May 18, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

douglasbarber, you make a good point.

We need to look more closely, and more often, at the "who" behind the words we are reading and heeding. I regularly check out bylines and bios because the "who" matters just as much as what is being said--and sometimes, more.

Based on what we know of Mr.King and his history, it would indeed be hard to find anyone more worthy of being listened to and heeded. But the heart and soul he puts into his writing is what makes him worth reading. Yes, I am a fan, too.

Posted by: martymar123 | May 18, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

At first I thought King was right. Then, it reminded me of the Birthers. And what did Obama do? He verbally denied their statements, many times. But he retained the right to basically say "Case closed, I don't HAVE to produce my documents, but I will state that it is untrue. I was born in the USA and that is a fact."

So here, it is again played out first in the media (practice for later, by every side), and people around said "it is not true, she is not a lesbian." If I was straight, I would want to be allowed to be out and proud, why not. And if I was slightly Bi or completely Bi, I would also want the right to have my private sexual life private, if I so chose. I think they played it right by answering. She may even be, what's the word, non-sexual, who knows? Not relevant.

Posted by: LawsLuvr | May 18, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company