Well no wonder the White House was so concerned with anyone thinking Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, is a lesbian: Tomorrow he’ll nominate her to the Supreme Court, NBC’s Pete Williams reports. Undoubtedly, Obama has the answer to her sexuality; don’t expect anyone to share it until after she’s confirmed.
Mike L.
Knew it would be.
Well I hope she’ll do justice.
TiredOldQueen@Queerty
I always thought the world would be a better place if Dykes were in charge. Of course, that was in the days when Dykes were our sisters in the struggle, tough as nails on the outside and sweet cream butter on the inside. Nowadays they are just as likely to be entitled PC man-hating millennials with no character and bad tattoos. So definitely, go for the Dykes — of a certain age.
scott ny'er
Is she really a Lesbian? That’s the first thing I thought when I saw/heard her. But I have terrible gaydar.
Erik
AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court http://bit.ly/aw4rhT — a lesbian born in the 60s, we’ve come a long way baby, yeah!
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Erik: she will vote against gay rights precisely because people think of her as a lesbian.
marcus
@D’oh, The Magnificent: I don’t think so. She was extremely vocal in support of the LGBT Community while at Harvard. She was the one who joined the lawsuit against military recruiting because of DADT, and when the gov’t forced the University to let the recruiters on campus, she encouraged the students to protest. I don’t know if she’s a lesbian, but she’s sure no shrinking violet when it comes to fairness issues.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@marcus: I hope you are right, but her record on diversity is one of the clouds hanging over her nomination at Harvard. At this point, with this administration, all one has is hope.
Ogre Magi
As Miss Shirley Q Liqueur said “I loves me a bulldagger”
Mike L.
Wow at some of the mainstream news sites, she’s basically being attacked completely on her looks, really homophobic/transphobic and shallow stuff.
As I said in the CNN one, I should be surprised but I’m not.
Seems that teabaggers seem to think they have the beautiful women, we’ll I’d rather have a smart woman on my side than some brainless bible thumping hag like Michele Bachman, or Sarah Palin any day.
It’s totally like being in high school again but on a much larger scale, and the “jocks” and “bimbos” still think they should be the ones with power over others.
Mike L.
@Mike L.: Want to make sure to say, the straight jocks and straight bimbo b/c in my case with good looking gay/lesbians in my school they were pretty cool. Although I might be wrong and just talked sht behind ppl’s backs, LOL joking but maybe hahahaha!
I hope and pray that she’ll be a good justice and she’ll interprite the Constitution in our favor, b/c the 14th amendment def applies to us.
She might be in the Supreme Court for maybe over 30 years close to forty if she really takes care of her health, and doesn’t accept food or water when attending conservative colleges or unis (lol).
SteamPunk
Healthcare overhaul, DADT repeal announcement, financial reform announcement, a “Wise Latina” and a rumored Lesbian Supreme Court Justice – all in less than 18 months. This Obama guy sure knows how to pick a fight with the GOP! 🙂
D'oh, The Magnificent
@SteamPunk: DADT repeal?
tjr101
I don’t know what to make of her. She seems liberal enough when it comes to the social issues which is paramount for me, however I’m not sure where she stands on executive powers and standing up for the small man. As the previous poster stated she can be on the court for a very long time once she remains healthy(she could lose a few pounds btw). If she turns out to be anything like the justice she is replacing I’ll be a quite satisfied American for the next few decades when it comes to her votes.
reason
@tjr101: Elaborate on your worries of executive power and standing up for the small man.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@reason: The question is whether she supports Bushian views of executive powers and other questionable positions that she sort of triangulated in the last decade. No one can quite figure out if she holds these views on the unitary executive or not.
If you want to see a full blast run down on the problems with this nominee, read Glenn Greenwald’s incredible work here:
“the case against kagan”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
“As I’ve previously documented and examine further below, the evidence that is available strongly suggests that a Kagan-for-Stevens substitution would move the Court to the Right in critical areas. But Kagan’s lack of a real record on these vital questions, by itself, should cause progressives to oppose her nomination. That’s true for two reasons:
“First, given that there are so many excellent candidates who have a long, clear commitment to a progressive judicial philosophy, why would Obama possibly select someone who — at best — is a huge question mark, and who could easily end up as the Democrats’ version of the Bush-41-appointed David Souter, i.e., someone about whom little is known and ends up for decades embracing a judicial philosophy that is the exact opposite of the one the President’s party supports?”
“I believe Kagan’s absolute silence over the past decade on the most intense Constitutional controversies speaks very poorly of her. Many progressives argued (and I certainly agree) that the Bush/Cheney governing template was not merely wrong, but a grave threat to our political system and the rule of law. It’s not hyperbole to say that it spawned a profound Constitutional crisis. ”
For other perspectives, read this:
http://mydd.com/2010/5/9/the-elena
Including her issues with diversity at Harvard and the rather thin reasons why others support her. Much of this is because she’s bud with the president. She’s a Miers with slightly, only slightly, better qualifications. Someone loved the president, but not the best choice given who she’s replacing in the last remaining liberal on the court, and she’s a run of the mill centrist who prefers to kiss as they take risk. With her certain confirmation, the court now has no remaining liberals. Just centrists and conservatives.
For a discussion of why that is the case, read here as to why the president choose her (he once again was trying to hedge his bed by triangulating against the right and left) here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?hp
this does not bring up other issues with her nomination include the recusal issues, etc. They say she in the first year may not be able to hear over half the cases. But she’s the president’s man on the Court, for the role of the executive, is the concern.
Glenn predicted:
“There will, of course, be some Democrats who will be convinced that any nominee Obama chooses is the right one by virtue of being Obama’s choice. But for those who want to make an informed, rational judgment, it’s worthwhile to know her record. I’ve tried here to subject that record to as comprehensive and objective an assessment as possible. And now is the time to do this, because if Kagan is nominated, it’s virtually certain that she will be confirmed. There will be more than enough Republicans joining with the vast majority of Democrats to confirm her; no proposal ever loses in Washington for being insufficiently progressive (when is the last time such a thing happened?). If a Kagan nomination is to be stopped, it can only happen before her nomination is announced by Obama, not after.”
She guaranteed to obtain the position baring some unknown scandal with say Goldman Sachs (where she worked as a paid consultant).
In other words, its too late. We are stuck with an unknown which given the president’s credentials and belief in centrism raises major concerns considering the centrists have played along to many of the prior power reaches by the executive.
Who this helps.
D'oh, The Magnificent
to be clear- Glenn above is discussing how any progressive could be silent on the issue of the unitary executive, which can be explained here:
“The unitary executive theory is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President controls the entire executive branch. The doctrine is based upon Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests “the executive power” of the United States in the President.
Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine.[1] It can be said that some favor a “strongly unitary” executive, while others favor a “weakly unitary” executive.[1] The former group argue, for example, that Congress’s power to interfere with intra-executive decision-making (such as firing executive branch officials) is limited, and that the President can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set for those agencies by Congress. Still others agree that the Constitution requires a unitary executive, but believe this is a bad thing, and propose its abolition by constitutional amendment.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive
Practical implications: THe congress passes a law. The president signs the law, but adds a “signing statement” to define what the law is outside of just enforcing the law as passed by Congress. So, the effect in lay man’s terms is that the executive achieves a power grab over the other co-equal branches.
“The George W. Bush administration made the Unitary Executive Theory a common feature of signing statements.[20] For example, Bush once wrote in a signing statement that he would, “construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.”[21] Critics acknowledge that part of the President’s duty is to “interpret what is, and is not constitutional, at least when overseeing the actions of executive agencies,” but critics accused Bush of overstepping that duty by his perceived willingness to overrule U.S. courts”
The question is whether the Executive is a co equal branch or does it over rule the courts and Congress? In other words the prelude to dictatorship in its most severe form.
Paulesso
In my opinion, if she is gay and won’t say so, I think she shouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice. We’ve had enough closeted people in government. The Republicans are going to vote against her anyway. She should be able to admit the obvious and let the Democrats approve her. If they don’t we know who to not vote for next time
ossurworld
Is she a member of the Log Cabin Club? or did she just build one?
reason
To start I am not a progressive, thus my alarm bells have not gone off, but I am well aware of Bushes actions to expand executive power. It is clear that executive overreach can be severely abused when irresponsible figures such as Cheney ascend to the throne. I am pleased with the current administrations efforts to curb some of those abuses and empower individuals like the Attorney General Holder to perform his job without to much interruption. I like a system of internal checks within the executive, but am a little bit undecided when it comes to skirting Congress. Congress is a dysfunctional system that not only imperials the country by its extremely slow pace, but its inability to break away from the shackles of powerful interest and in its more recent history, about two decades, of pursuing gridlock for gridlocks sake is extremely troubling. Both branches may have swayed from original intentions, but it’s import that some type of leadership is present. Over several decades the executive has stepped up and lead, hiding things from congress at some times to do what is in our best interest specifically regarding foreign policy. Some times those decisions were wrong, but I believe more would have been lost to inaction caused by including congress than wrong decisions. I personally feel that the executive is less restrained by powerful interest both foreign and domestic because not only are their terms limited but their very being in power is coveted. The president can piss off the teachers union and labor and still get their support because they know that creating a rift will have a negative impact on their ability to get anything done since the presidents tenor is limited and future is uncertain. This gives the executive a bit more freedom. Limiting the terms of congress will do more to steer the government towards its original intentions than checking the executive. It would be nice to adhere to original intent, but both branches are not living up to that so adjustments must be made.
There has been a lot of talk for a while of diversifying the court and bringing in non judges, Kagan exemplifies that thought process. I am pleased that she is a consensus builder and brought professor with opposing views to Harvard. If one is confident in their views there is no reason to be afraid of opposing views, sometimes one may even find out that their argument was not as well thought out as they believed. We all know the benefits of diversity so why hinder diversity of thought in the judicial setting. Kagan clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and her liberal bona fides have been corroborated by her colleagues both liberal and conservative. I believe that putting justices on the court that are not afraid of being challenged, and are not rigid in their thought are more likely to steer the court towards its original intentions. Some will argue that the president should appoint a partisan like Bush did with Roberts and abuse his powers like Cheney, but this president seems determined to be more responsible and at least get the government on the trajectory of function how it was intended.
reason
@Paulesso: Just to bring this to your attention, the Democrats don’t have the numbers to approve anybody without Republican support. As it stands now, some Republicans and traitor Joe are open to her nomination, from history most know not to release a shred more information than is absolutely necessary if your trying to get nominated for a government position. It is at the point that Justice Roberts would have hid the fact that he was Caucasian to the Democrats if he could of.
Anna
@D’oh, The Magnificent: She might, if she behaves like the self-hating, back-of-the-closet-with-the-mothballs Republicans. But I think the evidence so far indicates she’ll support LGBT rights, whether she comes out or not. She stood up to the ROTC on DADT, barring them from Harvard’s campus because they discriminated against LGBT people. We will have to wait to see how this plays out, but I’m hopeful.
Britney
@Reason The democrats have 59 seats. They have more than enough without any Republican support.
Neal Carter
@Mike L.:
Sarah Palin is not brainless. You may disagree with her, and that is fine.
christopher di spirito
Elena Kagan is a curious choice for Supreme Court Justice.
As the first woman Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan enjoyed unprecedented expansion of the faculty, adding to it by almost a half. She hired 32 tenured and tenure-track academic faculty members but, of those, few were people of color and even less were women.
Why is this significant? Because over 50% of law school admissions are women. Yet, Kagan could only find seven women in the 21st Century to add to the Harvard faculty.
Kagan also has ties to Goldman Sachs. She was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute from 2005 through 2008, during the time she was dean of the Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms indicate.
I think when FOX News’ own Bill Kristol, a radical, rightwinger calls Kagan “a reasonable choice,” we should be worried.
Robert, NYC
I still have a problem with the Supreme Court. If Kagan is confirmed, we’ll have 6 catholics and 3 Jews. Hardly diversity! When Kagan was Dean of the Harvard Law School, she hired 29 tenured or tenure-track faculty members, but she did not hire a single black, Latino, or American Indian faculty member. Not one, not even a token. Of the 29 people she hired, all of them with one exception were white. Under Kagan’s watch Harvard hired 28 white faculty members and one Asian American.
WalkderDC
I am hoping that the pro-gay attitudes she showed at Harvard are how she actually feels and the issues she has pushed since becoming an employee of the administration were issues she was advancing because she was having to toe the company line. If she allows her actual opinions to come through then good for her. IF she keeps cow towing to the administrations mealy mouthed attitudes on gay rights, then she needs to be outed by everybody who knew her at Harvard. So I have my fingers crossed and I’m thinking good thoughts.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
First Sotameyer and now Kagen, looks like Obama is casting for yet another take on Beyonce’s “Single Lady” video…….. :-p
Forrest
Think we can get Betty wasww
DEREK WASHINGTON
1/ Sarah Palin is not brainless. She is not an intellectual, however, she is as cunning as George Wallace or Huey Long.
2/ Michelle Bachman is brainless.
3/ Dayum some of you Gays are hella smart! I was able to actually follow what you were saying even though a couple of new words got thrown at me! Bravo!
4/ I had no idea her record on diversity was so shitty. Hmm, do we always support The Gay even if they have a shit record on issues other than LGBT ones? Thoughts?
DEREK WASHINGTON
D’oh, The Magnificent
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to view.
@Erik: she will vote against gay rights precisely because people think of her as a lesbian.
Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
QUEERTY: STOP THE STUPID RATING SYSTEM. There is nothing about this comment that needs to be hidden.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@reason: Executive over reach has nothing to do with which administration is involved or with whether you are a republican or a democrat. It is about whether you see a constitutional limit to the president, or for that matter have a basic knowledge of history to know that presidential powers are limited because they are the prelude to dictatorships. Thisi not theory. Its already happened before. I really didn’t read most of your post as you started off wrong on two fronts that are some of the most basic to suggest you have the minimum level of competence to engage me in a discussion on whether she is right for the job. I honestly am not sure I like her, but I am sure that you should k now more about the subject than reading my responses and responding to them here to be able to say all the stuff you attempt to say with minimum back ground to make such judgments.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Anna: I think evidence is out on what she will or will not do, but people will pretend to know anyway based on what they want to believe.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DEREK WASHINGTON: Its okay. I am suggesting things may not work out the way people want them to. There are bound to be quite a few people who react badly to that given the nature of our society that this point.
David Ehrenstein
@Paulesso: She’s obviously gay and obvioulsy won’t say so.
OnCloud9
@Ogre Magi: Whatever became of Miss Shirley Q Liqueur?
OnCloud9
@ossurworld: Separated at birth: Lady Kanye at the Oscars and Elena Kagan.
christopher di spirito
It took Sarah Palin 6 or 7 tries at 6 or 7 universities to finally earn her undergraduate degree. Apparently, each time her GPA dropped to a level jeopardizing her sheepskin, she was smart enough to find another school with less stringent academic requirements in order to graduate.
One thing I think we can all agree on regarding Sarah Palin and her brood, it is this: they’re money-hungry grifters.
Since clawing her way out of Wasilla, AK (the meth capital of Alaska), she’s managed to become a national, political figure, who commands the attention of the braindead media, and best of all, since abandoning her day job as governor of Alaska, has pocketed a cool $12 million dollars.
I see Palin as the Heidi Montag of the far rightwing.
Comeoutwhereveryouare
@David Ehrenstein: She´s part of the Anderson Cooper club? Ha. To see him interview her would be quite an exercise in doublespeak and deceit.
Mike L.
@Neal Carter: She’s a brainless xtian dominionist who believes xtians should hold all offices in power to bring forward the situation for the second coming of Jaysuzz Christ. A lot of evangelical xtians around the world are like that at least those trying to make their gove more xtian.
Just watch this vid where Palin says about laws being made based on the bible, no gay rights, no pill for the women or abortion, slavery back??? so long as you treat the slaves well I guess she would think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_4dl7GDXzg&feature=player_embedded#!
D'oh, The Magnificent
Having dealt with closeted people in the legal community, I find it interesting that people assume her gayness is a plus rather than will be something that will lead her to vote against gay rights. I am assured however that due to DADT on the Harvard campus that this is not true although she also has a bad record on diversity there. So, I am left to conclude that people are projecting once again their desires rather than discussing the actuality of who she is. She’s “great” because we assume she’s gay and we assume that means a good thing. What if she’s not gay and what if she’s not great? How would you know based on her actual record? How much of that record do you know? If you don’t know it, shouldn’t that be a cause for concern given the gay rights cases heading to the pike like DOMA 3 in a few years?
Mike L.
@Neal Carter: You know what though on second thought, she isn’t completely brainless, she was smart enough to make a money career out of her popularity with the teaparty types and also smart enought to not have to know sht and be able to bs talk as good as any other republican with the scripts they get from their spinners.
Sam
I’ve got my doubts about Kagan (many of them, yes, from Glenn Greenwald). I can only hope that she’ll be a more liberal judge than a lot of progressives are saying she’ll be. She’s a bit of a black box; we’re judging her based on the tiny number of hints she’s dropped over the years about what she really thinks. That in itself is kind of disturbing, but still… we can’t vote to confirm her, we’ve got no role in this process, so all we can really do is either grind our teeth or hope we’re wrong. *Sigh*
One thing I strongly suspect: if Kagan is a lesbian and is in the glass closet, she’s going to be outed by the Republicans. Period. They are desperate and will use any weapon they have against any nominee Obama chooses. They’re also homophobic and have little imagination, so you know that in Kagan’s case, they’ll jump right to the lesbianism. I’ll bet you anything the Republicans will make this about “Do you really want a LESBIAN on the SUPREME COURT, making decisions about THOSE NASTY HOMOSESSHUALS???” Maybe if she was so deeply closeted that she got married to a man and had never been with a woman, she could avoid being outed. But if she lives with a partner and people who knew her personally had no idea she was in the closet, well, one way or the other, and whether she likes it or not, an out lesbian is going to be at the center of this confirmation battle.
This is gonna get interesting.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Sam: As true a comment about our lack of democracy I have seen.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
I have to agree with D’Oh on this one, for a couple of reasons:
The Salon article he posted is spot on. She’s a huge question mark, really known only by Obama from their days in Chicago. There are Judges who we know a great deal more about (and who are more qualified) and yet we get someone whose views are practically unknown as the selection. She’s done minimal legal writing and has only a couple of years of experience in private practice. This disturbs me.
It’s also very easy to be a liberal at a liberal school. And Harvard and Chicago are both liberal schools. Her academic record is not in question, but what is in question, at least in my mind, is the fact that the world of academia is not the same as the real world. She’s argued a couple of cases in front of the US SCt, and her attitude during those hearings was not quite what I would expect. It’s one thing to challenge the Justices professionally, it’s another to argue with them. But again, we have no legal writing, and a mediocre record in hiring practices at Harvard.
And as he noted, just because we *think* and *hope* she’s a lesbian (a) doesn’t make her one and (b) doesn’t mean she’s going to be writing all the pro-gay opinions for the Supreme Court.
There are just too many question marks here; I’d rather we get someone wh is a proven judicial progressive rather than a professional academic with minimal real-world experience.
ossurworld
@Robert, NYC:
Good heavens! A Supreme Court with Papists and Jews! Sounds like America at work.
Fitz
ugg. Closet people are ALWAYS dangerous.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Fitz: They very much can be because they are seeking to prove how un-gay they are by harming other gays in terms of their rights. That was my experience with a gay partner at a firm that everyone knew of his sexual orientation, but that didn’t stop him from being psychotic to other minority groups and gays in general to prove his worth.
reason
@D’oh, The Magnificent: For one I never stated that executive overreach has anything to do with political party. I am not progressive is a response to the prelude of that article that you recommended, but maybe you didn’t bother reading that either. The fact that you didn’t bother reading most of my post is one of my points. You are so afraid of hearing an argument that is not yours that you shut it out then try to fill in with what you imagine it said throwing in an ad hominem attack to disguise your tracks. Your thought process is the opposite of scholarly and I assume that is one of the reasons Kagan bothers you.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@reason: You stated you knew nothing about the subject, and when told about it quickly claimed it wasn’t relevant.
I didn’t bother to read your post because you are not intellectually interesting. The articles I recommend were in response to your claims of not knowing anything about the subject.
If by “progressive” you mean lacking in basic understanding of a subject, and unwilling to learn, then you are indeed not progressive.
However, having met and become friends with quite a few real conservatives, I can say that they too care about the extent of the power of the executive.
That you don’t care is a sign of your own issues that you are trying to pass off as ideology.
My reference to progressive was because it was a bizare for someone who is supposed to be a progressive replacing a progressive to not even have an opinion on the subject. Not because you needed to be a progressive to have a problem with executive over reach. Many conservatives have a problem with executive over reach. That you don’t know and then continue on to say you support the choice and president anyway is why I find you uninteresting as a discussion partner. You essentially are writing ” no matter what you say, I don’t care. I like the choice because I like the choice.”
reason
@Britney: On the surface it may seem like enough votes, but in actuality with judicial holds and the filibuster it is not that simple. It’s one of the reasons that a large swath of the presidents judicial nominees remain unconfirmed and has lead to the downfall of many nominees in recent history. It was one of the reasons that the republicans were arguing for the nuclear option and demanding up or down votes, just as this administration is now.
Sam
@D’oh, The Magnificent: That’s an unpopular opinion here, given that most commenters think Obama should be repealing DADT by executive order and should refuse to defend DOMA. They’re just fine with executive overreach… as long as it’s the RIGHT kind of executive overreach.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@reason: By the way, as I remember, Andrew Sullivan, whom I don’t like, is an example of a conservative who has spoken out against unitary executive power amongst a long list of others. But because you are too willfully ignorant to learn about the subject, and you got a few listings here from me that were discussing the topic from a progressive point of view, you respond based on the labels rather than the substance. Do you actually think you are someone who is remotely reasonable?
Sam
@Sam: I dunno. They didn’t out Napolitano, and there is that whole thing about those who live in glass houses vis a vis Condi Rice and Lindsey Graham.
Nice name, BTW.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Sam: a) Stop loss is not executive over reach. Its expressly in the statutory language. The ignorance here is stunning. I know this is a pop culture gay blog, but if you are going to speak on these issues, don’t come across as totally ignorant. b) your DOMA position is more arguable, but there is a difference between defending a law in the courts (which is arguable since you are asking a court to decide whether they agree with you or not) and unilaterally deciding to ignore the other two branches. There is also a difference between what you choose to use as your arguments. No one would go into a trial with a black defendant arguing that the reason we should convict is because we all know blacks are criminals. Yet, that was part of the DOMA brief. In fairness to the WH, they had sense moderated their statements because of the nature of the argument were seen as patently homophobic. The administration is not required as you suggest to argue homophobic arguments to defend DOMA. They can do as they are doing with the DOMA 3 fight happening in MA. Again, I suspect your statements are out of ignorance of the deeper arguments being made.
Bill Perdue
Those who held out some hope that Obama wouldn’t nominate a rightist for the Court are simply clueless.
The Democrat Party as a whole is right centrist and so are their nominees, without exception. All the nominees to the court for well over a century have been pro-business, anti-worker and union and they’ve upheld reactionary values as long they could.
Here’s the key to looking at the impact of nominations. On occasion, if they’re pressured hard enough the Supremes will rule to validate the role of mass movements for social change. Those are the exceptions. The rule is that the Supremes are there to the protect property rights of the looter class as well as the rigged electoral system that keeps them in power.
All this point conjecture about Kagan’s effect on the Supremes and their byzantine inner working is moot. The only way to change the law and the governments more harmful and obnoxious policies is via building massive movements for social change with a won’t take no for an answer agenda.
The three big court rulings on desegregation (1954), abortion and choice (1973) and striking down sodomy laws (1992) we not bolts out of the blue.
The NAACP had been active in the courts for decades trying to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 racist decision upholding “separate but equal”. In their decision the Supremes noted that segregation was an ’embarrassment’ that created propaganda openings for the Soviets. But the critical factor was the slow but steady growth of the militant African American movement that exploded during the 1960’s and won voting rights and widespread desegregation.
Those three victories, like all the great advances to extend democracy have been won, not granted.
The Supremes are never progressive unless they’re responding to pressure of some kind. Forget about the nominees, build a militant GLBT movement committed to mass actions
reason
@D’oh, The Magnificent: You seem to have a rough time comprehending what i’am writing. This is not a knock on you, but maybe I should have made it clearer. I never said I knew nothing about the subject, what I said is elaborate on your thoughts.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Elaborate – marked by complexity, fullness of detail, or ornateness.
You presented something that is not well developed, which is common on a blog, I was interested in what you were thinking so I asked you to provide more details on your worries and what you were thinking. If someone ask you for your thoughts at a board meeting, they’re not asking because they don’t have their own thoughts or are lacking in background information, they’re asking because the want diversity of thought. You may have provided an angle that would provide more illumination and that was what I was looking for.
reason
@D’oh, The Magnificent: Once again I have no idea were partisanship enters this equation. There are people on both sides of the issue across the political spectrum. If you actually believe that I came to you to be introduced to the subject you, once again, are severely mistaken. I asked for your opinion, apparently that is to much of an honor for you, and your taking it as if I am an unlearned pupil seeking wisdom from the professor. Your actions purvey that you are not some one that seeks out other opinions.
Samwise
@Sam: Haha! Thanks. I like your name too! -_^
I think I’m going to go by “Samwise” on here from now on, to avoid confusion.
Forrest
Can we please get Betty White to scream out Lesbian every time Elena has to answer questions at confirmation.
Forrest
Elena will be confirmed. An openly gay man would have a tougher road. With Kagan they don’t have to think about da nasty butt sex.
I. Macias, Jr.
There is no question that Elena Kagan lives, acts, and looks like a lesbian rug muncher, and all will come out during the confirmation process.
Joey O'H
I hope Elena Kagan is a lesbian. That would be great to have someone in the Superior Court who is gay.
Is Napolitano gay? They are both very butch.
My concern is with so many of Washington big wigs that got caught “gay” (Mark Foley, etc.), I worry if they’d go “hetero” and go against basic human rights for gays.
Joey O'H
@Fitz: You’re right, closeted people are dangerous. Very dangerous!
emjayay
There’s a high school (I think) portrait photo of Elena wearing wire rim aviator glasses. Not femmy aviator style. The real big ole standard aviators. Also she was (is?) a smoker, and one report refers to her smoking cigars at some point. Less credible of course, not being a photo, but those aviators….
Case closed.
emjayay
Here’s a link to the photo. Uh oh, plaid shirt too.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/10/1936376/smart-girls-were-the-rule-at-kagans.html
hephaestion
Elena Kagan looks exactly like Julie Goldman of “The Big Gay Sketch Show.”
juan iglesia-madera
A JEW AND LESBIAN. OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL IN A BASKET.
reason
@Joey O’H: She has already gone head to head with the military because of their DADT policy I don’t see why she would suddenly become anti-gay. If there was a closeted person elected to the court I don’t see them becoming anti-gay to hide their identity because it is a life time appointment. It’s not as if their constituents are going to kick them out of office during the next election cycle. She is not married, so it is not like she is carrying that baggage of oh I am married to this man and have lied to him for the last 20…
wannabegay2
ok, let’s scrutinize what the “gay mafia” and the democratic mafia has done (and i’m gay and a communist, so don’t accuse me of being biased rather than objective)
-when first the name elena kagan was brought in spotlight, Queerty, other gay blogs and major networks identified her as an open lesbian, proud to be a lesbian, with real chances of being the first open lesbian on the benches of the supreme court. two days later, when republicans started to attack this subject, no more lesbian around: kagan got back in the closet faster than the speed of light and now shes all hetero. i get this strategy, because theres lots of bigots out there, but just admit it!
-the same story with her resume: she’s being portrayed as this pro-republican pro-democrat, consensus person. she’s a crazy liberal and i hope she gets voted, because we need her!
FlopsyMopsyCT
I have heard absolutely nothing about any judicial experience she’s had. Has she ever actually been a judge? The brief bio I read about her mentioned nothing about federal trial or appellate judge experience. No doubt she knows her way around the courtroom and the procedures, but being a lawyer is different than being a judge. If I am wrong on her experience, someone please correct me.
FlopsyMopsyCT
OK I just did a quick mini wiki-esque research study and apparently the position of Solicitor General has some judicial like functions such as selecting requested certioraris from the exec. So her qualifications, although they are without any official judgeship, have a judicial character. However, does anyone know if its unusual for a person to be brought onto the SCOTUS without prior judicial experience?
Samwise
@FlopsyMopsyCT: It didn’t use to be unusual, but lately, it’s become more rare.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@FlopsyMopsyCT: Historically, this was not the requirement. All of these issues of “is she qualified” grew out of the conservative movement’s attempt to demonize the federal bench so that they could place far right wingers on the bench as I remember. There’s not even a requirement that a nominee has to be an attorney.
This over emphasis on “qualifications” along with “judicial activism” were tools of derailing liberal leaning nominations, or at least, that’s my recollection of the history of nominations. The former being a means by which people wanted to find an “objective” standard to judge nominees, and conservatives wanted to argue so long as they were “qualified”that should be enough no matter how bat shit insane their record is. In other words, they wanted Democrats to rubberstamp Republican choices. Rather than challenging these ideas, the Democrats simply began to emulate them as I remember.
The later requirement of “no judicial activism” that Democrats now buy hook, line and sinker is particularly interesting regarding Kagan since she’s most likely a centrist who will move the court to the right because of the judicial activism currently being pushed by the right ward bloc of the court that includes Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia. If you read some of their rulings, including their interpretation of Civil Rights Act statutes or Scalia’s dissent in Kelo, you will see that they are almost making things up as they go.
My problem with Kagan is that she continues a line of justices who will more than likely continue to undermine the democratic principles that were set up by FDR and others to protect us from the extremes of free market fundamentalism as well as civil liberty principles that we have come to appreciate as Americans. I don’t think she’s an extremist, but I think her lack of intellectual vigor will make it difficult for her to counter the conservative bloc.
christopher di spirito
Elena Kagan: “No Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage
http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/elena-kagan-there-is-no-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/
This startling information was gleaned from her nomination for U.S. Solicitor General when Kagan filled out questionnaires on a variety of issues. While she bobbed and weaved on many issues, offering safe responses which support the legal requirement to follow precedent and enforce presumptively valid statutes, on the issue of same-sex marriage Kagan was unequivocal.
In a response to a question from Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Ms. Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same sex couples to marry:
1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.
a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?
Elena Kagan answer: There is no Federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@FlopsyMopsyCT:
She has never been a Judge. She served as a law clerk, did a couple of years in private practice, and then moved through the worlds of academia and government. She has argued about seven cases in front of the US SCT, and has been quite combative during those arguments, which isn’t too terribly professional, IMO.
In terms of bringing non-Judges to the bench… Starting in the 70’s, the courts became the place where appointees were culled from. Although there have been a couple of recent appointees with little to no judicial experience prior to appointment to the highest court in the land, it’s becoming rarer. John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Sonya Sotomayor, the entire makeup of the current court, have all served as Judges on the Appeals Court.
Robert, NYC
No. 74, Christopher di Spirito, Kagan’s statement may or may not be correct about same-sex marriage but under the 14th amendment, ALL citizens are guaranteed equal protection meaning that no minority should be discriminated against. Denying us that right is unconstitutional in light of the amendment. I dont know how she could defend her statement based on that. I’m not comfortable with her nomination one bit. She might be one of those conservadems who votes against us, just as we saw eight of them vote away our right to marry in NYS last December where I live. She’s hardly representative of a progressive, just like the one who picked her.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): THe basis however for that in the 70s was the conservative reaction to the warren court and its liberal leaning. The “qualifications” shtick was in part to start what has been a 30 year or 40 year project to pack the federal bench with conservatives. That’s why they stall the Democratic picks even outside of the S Ct. Many people don’t realize just how conservative the federal bench is now due to this long term strategy.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): Correction: I say conservative, but I mean reactionary.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@christopher di spirito: Her statement was about the state of enforcing present law rather than about whether she think there ought to be such a right according to the constitution. Those are very different questions for a lawyer. Her duty as counsel for the president is to enforce the laws as they exist now. Her duties as a S Ct justice is to shape the case law to reflect what the constitution requires. She can believe that she must enforce the law as it stands (No lawyer would disagree with that and indeed you see that in comments from GLAD as to the administration’s duty even in the DOMA 3 case), but also, nevertheless, find that in a case that may come before the S Ct that there can be a determination that that equal protection requires marriage rights to gays. There isn’t any contradiction here if you understand what the ethical obligations of lawyers are. They are required to zealously represent the interest of their client, or , in this case, the executive branch. The duties in the executive branch is to follow the state of current law.
Her statement is literally true: There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage.
However, that doesn’t say whether she would claim that a case could not find it in the future.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
When a Judge is elected to the local bench in my jurisdiction, s/he is required to participate in what we affectionately refer to as “baby judge school”. It teaches the basics of civil and criminal law, judicial ethics, etc. We even have schools in my jurisdiction for district magistrates. We don’t put anyone on the bench until they can pass these classes. We require, regardless of the baby Judge’s/Magistrate’s legal experience, that s/he participate in this program. It doesn’t matter if the newly-elected Judge was the Chief DA for 30 years, the Chief PD for 30 years, or one of the most well-known civil law attorneys in the jurisdiction, s/he must do it.
If we assume that a Judge hearing cases at the common pleas level needs to have a certain level of education to be a judge, then why do we not assume the same for the United States Supreme Court? This isn’t a Court dealing with little cases or cases which can go up to another court for appeals should a mistake be made. The USSCT is the highest court in the land and sets the law the rest of us have to follow.
While her much-touted ability to “build consensus” is a great tool for a law school dean, we have practically no legal scholarship coming from her, no opinions written and decisions made to determine how effective (or not-so-effective) she will be on the bench, and no idea what her demeanor will be. If we have to base the last on her seven appearances in front of the Supreme Court, then she’s only fair to middling as she tends to argue with Justices with whom she doesn’t agree, to the point that she has been criticized during oral arguments by other Justices.
There were more-qualified progressive justices on the short-list and Obama should have chosen one with experience, not an academic. We don’t need an unknown right now. We’re losing a very progressive Justice, and we cannot afford to have him replaced with what could end up a loose cannon.
ousslander
@Robert, NYC: maybe they were the best for the job
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): The supreme court is a political rather than judicial position. Its job is to interpret the constitution as a check on Congress and President. Your view of the Court is one that has only recently, and in my view, erroneously taken root. That’s why people say silly shit like “If you vote for marriage equality on the court, then you are voting for judicial activism.” That’s an absurd statement since this does nothing more than reduces the Courts role to rubber stamping whatever the status quo is.
Bill Perdue
@ousslander: Superstitious people are unqualified to be judges.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
You can say you feel my view is erroneous, but that doesn’t make Kagan any more or less qualified, nor does it make your view correct, quite frankly (as the saying goes, just because you think you’re right doesn’t mean I’m wrong).
I am well aware what the Supreme Court’s role is since what the USSCT says impacts my clients, and that’s what this is about. She’s unpublished, has what is apparently an argumentative demeanor when presenting oral arguments to the Justices she hopes to work with, and has spent most of her time in the world of academia. The academic world of law school is a dramatically different culture than the actual practice of law, I know that for a fact since I’ve been there.
Based on everything I have read about Kagan and her legal career, I do not believe she is qualified to sit on the bench of the highest court in our nation. Period. There are better candidates, and Obama made a mistake with this pick.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): It is more than what I think. It is something that I can back up, and I am fairly certain that you can’t. My point is that your whole frame is one that is made up in the last few decades by the right, and like a good little puppet you don’t even realize your strings are being pulled.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@D’oh
Believe whatever you want at this point, you’re not going to change my mind via personal attacks.
I have my beliefs and knowledge and life experience and professional experience, and while you may not agree with them, it’s clear that you’d rather engage in personal attacks than discussion. I see it quite frequently on Queerty (even when I’m *not* involved in the discussion you go out of your way to make uncalled for comments about me), and I refuse to reduce myself to your level.
We’ll have to agree that neither of us agrees with the other. Peace.
alan brickman
THE RATINGS SYSTEM IS JUST CENSORSHIP…..DOES THIS MEAN WE CAN HIDE THE UGLY MORNING GOODS GUYS TOO?…..
alan brickman
AND COMMENTS ABOUT BLAMING ISRAEL FOR EVERYTHING???….
Paulesso
@reason: @Reason
I think you should be aware that only 51 votes are needed to approve a nomination to the Supreme Court. It is more difficult for the Republician Senators to use procedure to block a SCOTUS nominee. I think the Democrates can handle the extra vote to overcome a Republican filibuster, if they want. The problem is getting the Democrats to support her. I still think she and others shouldn’t hold these high offices of they can’t come out.
Paulesso
@Fitz: @Fitz
I agree with you, closeted people are dangerous. They cause scandal when they are found out and have to resign, they try to hide behind anti-gay activities, and they can be blackmailed. We don’t need that on the Supreme Court.
Raydaronthegaydar
Lest be honest.Obama picked her for the lesbo vote.period.