Last night’s The Rachel Maddow Show was the gayest piece of cable news programming we’ve seen in a while: Maddow, a lesbian, welcomed Salon scribe Glenn Greenwald, a gay man, to discuss Elena Kagan, the maybe-lesbian. What a lovely place to discuss whether it’s appropriate to brand Kagan as the Democrats’ Harriet Myers.
Maddow says the comparison of Kagan to Myers is not about the judicial qualifications of each, but about the “resistance from the base of the president’s own party” about the nominee. Greenwald is, no surprise, among those driving that dialogue.
(Following Greenwald’s appearance, Larry Lessig from Harvard Law School made the case for Kagan, and attacked Greenwald’s authority, which eloquently responds to here.)
Kagan voices the concerns plenty of progressives should have: Her “blank slate” on almost every meaningful issue “tell us very little about the kind of judge she would be,” says Greenwald. So far, however, Greenwald is among the few on the left so vocally going after Kagan; even Glenn Reynolds is supporting Kagan. His criticism is not enough to sink a Kagan nomination. But it’s getting the ball rolling.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
With friends like these……………
Hank
I think most Democratic voters wanted a progressive president. Obama is far more conservative than many people wanted. Kagan isn’t a bold choice. What if she’s another Clarence Thomas? John Paul Stevens is a liberal. Why wasn’t someone similarly progressive chosen?
doubting thomas
Wouldn’t it be a hoot, if Conservatives sink Kagen because they think she is a closeted lesbian, when she is really a closeted Conservative?