Elena Kagan owes me an explanation of her private life
I want to officially join the phalanx of pundits on the right, the left and the middle who are demanding that Elena Kagan explain her private life to me in detail.
Let’s not be coy: I want to know your sexual orientation, please, Ms. Kagan. Promptly.
And no, it’s not nearly demeaning enough to hear former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer explaining that “I did not go out with her, but other guys did” in college.
I want details. I want you on Oprah. Or maybe Ellen. Maybe a Tiger Woods style interview with Bob Costas?
Writers as varied as Andrew Sullivan (the Atlantic) and Jack Shafer (Slate) have suggested that dishing about your intimate choices gets us to “the heart of the matter.”
I couldn’t agree more. Your resume as the dean of Harvard Law school and your tenure as Solicitor General are all well and good.
But I think that photo of you playing softball — run on the front page the Wall Street Journal, no less — is the real Rosetta stone that needs decoding.
We always knew that the “gay agenda” was underhanded. Now it appears that the plot involves underhanded pitching, too.
Conservative Pat Buchanan certainly thinks so. He issued a statement this week pointing out that “women’s softball has been associated with lesbians and being gay for a long time.”
He said women playing softball was sort of like “a signal, like two men sunbathing on a beach together.”
Thanks for that, Pat.
Now, Ms. Kagan, we would like an actual photograph of you sunbathing on a beach with someone.
It doesn’t have to be as spicy or revealing as Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown’s Cosmo centerfold spread. Or Barack Obama’s buff-on-the beach snapshot.
Just come up with something, anything, that I can add to my Politico pin-up collection.
And yes, before any of you Civics 101 scolds take me to task, this is exactly the kind of conversation that America has been needing for a long time.
Especially now that we’ve settled the question of whether President Obama is black enough (or American enough) and whether Miley Cyrus is a good influence on tweens.
America’s chattering horde needs something to talk about, after all. And we’d much rather analyze your ankle thickness than your legal scholarship.
So the ball is in your, ahem, court, Ms. Kagan.
In Arizona people who look vaguely Hispanic are now required by law to present identity papers proving that they are in the country legally.
It’s only natural that unmarried women of a certain age and body type be required to explain themselves (maybe a Lifetime television special?) before winning a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.
We all understand that every decision you make as a Justice will be shaped not by your intellect, your knowledge of the law, or your integrity — but by the choices you’ve made in the bedroom. (And, perhaps, at shortstop.)
In fact, I think we should scrap the Senate confirmation process entirely. I think Ms. Kagan should fire up a Facebook account, post some pics, and start dishing.
If enough of us normal Americans decide to Friend her, then she’s in. Now that’s democracy.
Do I detect a tiny note of sarcasm in that post Brian? :-)
Excellent, Brian. Thanks for shining a light on the absurdity of such inquiries.
Yeah, I mean if she had a couple of divorces under her belt or at least affairs we would all feel more comfortable.
Or at least more titillated.
–Brian, NCPR
Almost as relevant as Bork’s video-rental list.
Hey, we all know that lesbians control the weather, now they want to control the Supreme Court.
I don’t care if she has 3 heads and comes from Mars. Her writings in the the past indicate shes an extreme liberal. The SCOTUS is not the place for an extreme liberal with an extreme liberal agenda. It’s not the place for a person who bases some of their decisions on her “latino heritage” either (yes, I mean Sotomayor). More importantly in Kagans case is that she’s never sat on the bench. No track record of decisions folks. Remember when Bush2 nominated Harriet Myers? The cry rang out- “She’s unqualified!!!” Well, this appears to be another less than qualified nominee and one with some serious philosophical issues.
As for the lesbian issue- who freaking cares!
Tourpro- but, but Borks list WAS relevant! He was a righty!!!!!
Bret, if Kagan is what defines an extreme liberal for you – I’d love to see what would happen if you ever actually met someone who was truly from the far left.
If it makes you feel any better, a lot of people on the left are not happy with this nomination either. They were hoping for someone who was as politically left as Scalia and Thomas are right. Kagan isn’t even close to that person.
Funny post but a bit over the top.
The comparison of Kagan experiences to Meirs is absurd. Kagan’s background as the Dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General dwarf the accomplishments of Meirs.
Putting Kagan’s ideological predispositions aside, there seems to be a double standard regarding her sexuality. Nothing was made at the time of David Souter’s confirmation about his (rumored to be) homosexuality. Critics of Kagan should look to her publications, SG briefs and elsewhere to impede her confirmation, not her sexual orientation.
Pat Buchanan point would’ve been stronger if he discussed the LPGA – are there any photos of Kagan playing golf? :)
What is revealing about the issue is that answering a simple “yes” or “no” to the gay question is not being done.
Leaves one to ask, “what are they trying to hide?”
Bret:
1) Remember it wasn’t the just the liberals who were against Meyer’s – it was the conservatives in the GOP who sealed her fate.
2) There have been at least 40 justices who weren’t judges prior to being on the supreme court – including Rehnquist, Warren and Marshall
Hey…I’m just glad I’m not on the president’s list for a top appointment. I’m afraid any softball pix of me would date back to high school — when the girls were required to wear those cute dark blue “gymsuits” that we all found so feminine and flattering.
Plus, I just got my hair cut short.
Dave, her thesis at Princeton (IIRC) gives the distinct impression she favors what amounts to the liberal agenda today- socialism, big government, limits of personal freedoms. Her one redeeming statement I’ve found so far in my research is that the reason Govt is attempting to limit speech is more important than the exact speech it’s trying to limit. That to me is common sense.
Jack/Blackus- yes, but a judicial record gives far more insight into a persons probable actions in the SCOTUS than her position at a college.
Are you now or have you ever been a heterosexual?
This country is hung up on sex.
Men can go topless but women can’t.
Men want women to wear skimpy bathing suits while they wear baggy trunks that don’t fit – I presume because they don’t want the women to know what they ain’t got.
And oh, by the way, we all really lust to know what you do in the bedroom and who you do it with as long as you don’t ask the people who are just eager to know.
Laugh, laugh, snicker, snicker and mean while the good ol’ US of A becomes the laughing stock of the world.
Brian raises some very good questions that should be answered before she is considered for the SC.
“Almost as relevant as Bork’s video-rental list.”
Not Bork’s, TourPro, Clarence Thomas’s.
Just want to help Bret keep his persecuted right-wing victims straight.
So to speak.
“The SCOTUS is not the place for an extreme liberal with an extreme liberal agenda.”
Agreed. But it’s fine to have extreme right wing ideologues like Alito, Roberts and Thomas. Not a problem.
“It’s not the place for a person who bases some of their decisions on her “latino heritage” either (yes, I mean Sotomayor).”
Agreed. But it’s fine to have someone selected on the basis of his Italian heritage, like Scalia:
From his hearing testimony:
“Sen. SIMON: And the President says, “It would be a good thing to have an Italian American on the Supreme Court.”
Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the President
making a decision on that basis, in part, assuming a field of equally
qualified candidates?
Judge SCALIA. NO; I think that it is a good thing. Certainly, in
my own hiring practices, I have tried to have a mix of people
among my law clerks, and elsewhere.”
“More importantly in Kagans case is that she’s never sat on the bench.”
Agreed. Anyone who hasn’t sat on the bench is unqualified for the Supreme Court, including:
Chief Justices
John Jay…………………..(1789 – 1798)…….Envoy, Ambassador
John Marshall……………(1801 – 1835)….Secretary of State
Roger Taney……………..(1836 – 1864)….Secretary of the Treasury
Salmon Chase…………..(1864 – 1873)….Secretary of the Treasury
Morrison Waite………….(1873 – 1888)…Pres, OH Constitutional Convention
Melville Fuller……………….(1888 – 1910)…..Lawyer
Charles Hughes…………….(1930 – 1941)….US delegate, Perm Court of Arbitration (The Hague)
Earl Warren………………….(1953 – 1969)……..Governor, California
William H. Rehnquist………(1986 – 2005)….Associate Justice, US Supreme Court
Associate Justices
James Wilson…………….(1789 – 1798)….Member, Continental Congress
Bushrod Washington…..(1799 – 1829)…..Lawyer
Joseph Story………………..(1812 – 1845)…..Speaker, MA Lower House
Henry Baldwin………………(1830 – 1844)…..Lawyer
John McKinley………………(1838 – 1852)…..House of Representatives
Benjamin Curtis……………(1851 – 1857)……MA State Legislature
John Campbell……………..(1853 – 1861)……Lawyer
Nathan Clifford……………..(1858 – 1881)….Lawyer
Noah Swayne……………….(1862 – 1881)…..Lawyer
Samuel Miller……………….(1862 – 1890)……Lawyer
Joseph Bradley……………..(1870 – 1892)…….Lawyer
Lucius Lamar………………..(1888 – 1893)…..Secretary of the Interior
George Shiras, Jr…………..(1892 – 1903)…..Lawyer
William Henry Moody………(1906 – 1910)…..US Attorney General
James McReynolds…………(1914 – 1941)…..US Attorney General
Louis Brandeis………………(1916 – 1939)…..Lawyer
George Sutherland…………(1922 – 1938)…..US Consul at The Hague
Pierce Butler…………………(1923 – 1939)…..Regent, U. of Minnesota
Owen Roberts……………….(1930 – 1945)…..Special US Attorney
Stanley Forman Reed………(1938 – 1945)…..Solicitor General
Felix Frankfurter…………….(1939 – 1962)…..Law Professor, Harvard
William O. Douglas…………(1939 – 1974)…..Chairman of SEC
James Francis Byrnes………(1941 – 1942)…..Senator
Robert H. Jackson………….(1941 – 1954)…..US Attorney General
Harold Hitz Burton………….(1945 – 1958)…..Senator
Tom C. Clark…………………(1949 – 1967)…..US Attorney General
Byron White………………….(1962 – 1993)….Deputy Attorney General
Arthur J. Goldberg………….(1962 – 1965)…..Secretary of Labor
Abe Fortas……………………(1965 – 1969)…..Lawyer
Lewis F. Powell………………(1972 – 1987)……Lawyer
Why should a liberal leaning president pick a liberal leaning justice to replace a liberal leaning justice?
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
The President is a Democrat, the Democrats have a 59-41 majority. She clearly has as much experience as many previous justices; she will be the next justice
i don’t have anything novel to add to the thread, but yep, when bret writes
Well, this appears to be another less than qualified nominee and one with some serious philosophical issues
it’s just baloney. kagan’s qualifications blow miers’s out of the water. and those “philosophical issues” are nothing more than that bret is an arch-conservative (to the right of rush limbaugh, by his own admission!) and kagan isn’t. in reality kagan falls within the mainstream confines of american jurisprudence. just as blackus says, barring a major unforeseen development, she will be confirmed (and should be confirmed, i might add).
If we are going to look into sexual orientation, how about we determine the sexual orientation of Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell before we go after Kagan. Those two actually hold elective office.
Whatever Pat Buchanan is smoking, I want some.
Do Mary Cheney and Condoleezza Rice play softball too?
On the Log Cabin Republican softball team who plays left field?
This brings up so many questions that the MSM haven’t dealt with to this point. I’m so glad that King Rupert is getting those slackers at the WSJ to finally do some reporting.
Wow, all thouse women on Southern Baptist women’s softball teams and college sorrority teams are all boinking each other after the game? Who knew!?
Hey anon, how about coming up with a screen name so I can keep you and the other anons straight?
Bork or Thomas, either way your favorite movies aren’t what I look for in a SCOTUS candidate. Unless it’s snuff flicks and kiddie porn, then I ahve a problem, and I hope you would too.
11:15- you went to a lot of work for nothing. My point was Miers was said to be unqualified because she NEVER SAT THE BENCH. Can you possibly make the connection between the two people? I know you’re 10x smarter than I am, but even a dummy like me can see the problem there. Consistency, or rather the lack of consistency. That’s not victimhood, that’s a double standard.
Thanks for the info on Scalia. I had never heard that before. I think he’s wrong if he’s saying, like Sotomayor, that ethnicity makes youa better nominee. Ethnic views aren’t supposed to be part of the SCOTUS decision making process last I heard.
Bret: Please tell us what IS supposed to be part of the SCOTUS decision making process?
And – would our world fall apart if all the Lesbians and Gays came out of the closet and showed you that we are everywhere, we are parents and leaders and mechanics and the cable guy and farmers and mothers and bus drivers and live next door to you and teach your kids and sit in the next pew in church and pick up your garbage and serve on the Town council and anchor the news desk and care for your eldererly father in the nursing home and sit at the family Thanksgiving table ——————- yes, we are everywhere and have been since the beginning of time. We are our world. Always have been, always will be.
The SCOTUS (ever notice how elite conservatives love to use SCOTUS and POTUS) decision making process is whatever conservative say it is. We all know that short of nominating someone recommended by Republicans (and even then the Repubs would vote against the nominee), anyone President Obama nominates is going to be attacked for all sorts of absurd reasons. Ninety-nine percent of the attacks based on nothing.
Blackus- The decision making process at SCOTUS is supposed to be based on a fair and impartial view of the Constitutionality of the law or decision brought before them without respect to the race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation or sex of the litigants unless that is an element of the case. To say a gay, Italian, Hispanic, white, black, male or female would be better capable of making a proper decision than another Justice who lacks the particular trait of the person in question not only implies the other Justices are incompetent and unqualified, but that SCOTUS Justices are supposed to be activist judges. To my way of thinking the purpose of a SCOTUS Justice is preserve the letter and spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, nothing more, nothing less. In that light any SCOTUS Justice should err to the conservative rather than liberal, to be liberal in that sense if to become an activist by default. To remain conservative is to maintain the status quo of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Of course if you feel the Constitution is a living document that can be changed at societies will or, even worse, that it’s an outdated set of ideas unworthy respect….then we’ll can never begin to understand each others view.
PNElba- Wouldn’t you agree the same thing can be said for any right wing nominee too?
“Hey anon, how about coming up with a screen name so I can keep you and the other anons straight?”
OK. How about “anon”?
Bret, no I wouldn’t agree. Everything I’ve read points to Kagan being pretty much “middle of the road” politically. But you have to admit, the Tea party has changed everything for the Republicans. They cannot move far enough to the right to please the ‘baggers’. As for the Constitution being a living document….how can it not be. There are provisions for amendments. Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government should run an air traffic control system? That’s just fascism and it takes away my freedom.
The photo proves that Kagan wasn’t on the bench, she got in the game!
Okay PNElba, if you just want to argue have at it. Or you cam discuss this, your choice. I’ll leave you with this point- amendments to the Constitution, changes to the Bill of Rights, neither are made by the SCOTUS. Those are made by the Representatives of the people of the States, not the court.
Everything I’ve seen so far points to Kagan being a far left candidate. Once again perception is the difference.
William Hague appears to share a lot in common with another (dead) well-known entertainer, a liking for young people, many of them youths, and an abnormal childhood. Is William Hague a political version of Michael Jackson?
I wish more people would write blogs like this that are actually interesting to read. With all the garbage floating around on the web, it is a great change of pace to read a blog like yours instead.