If someone's personal conduct doesn't reflect their characer, than what does? If a Justice nominee was a known LSD user, we would surely question their reasoning abilities. If they can't tell the difference between the male and female gender, doesn't that raise similar alarm bells? There is something deeply insane about a plump woman who uses another menacing looking, short-haired, man-hating 'female' as her sex partner and 'husband'. How have we gone this far off track?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: DesertRenegade
"She cannot be kept closeted not only from the public but from the
inquiring minds of the media." Oh, puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze...
2 posted on
05/10/2010 9:39:04 AM PDT by
jessduntno
(Kagan...Fili-bust her. Bork her. Bork her hard. She needs it.)
To: DesertRenegade
Don’t forget that as dean of Harvard’s law school she banned military recruiters because she considered the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” bigoted.
If she’s so opposed to “don’t ask don’t tell” she needs to prove it.
3 posted on
05/10/2010 9:40:14 AM PDT by
BuckyKat
To: DesertRenegade
Given the discussion that has already taken place about this, she ought to just say whether it's so or not. It's bound to come out (sorry) sooner or later.
4 posted on
05/10/2010 9:41:11 AM PDT by
Genoa
(Luke 12:2)
To: DesertRenegade
being homosexual is not shameful?
who wrote that?!
5 posted on
05/10/2010 9:42:06 AM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: DesertRenegade
She does need to openly proclaim her status as a fornicator. After all, isn’t she “proud” of her fornication?
To: DesertRenegade
Is there really a question here? As a liberal, I would expect that it would have an impact on her judgment, but then again I would oppose all liberals to the Supreme Court, whether she was a lesbian or not.
7 posted on
05/10/2010 9:43:30 AM PDT by
kevinm13
(Tim Geithner is a tax cheat. Manmade "Global Warming" is a HOAX!)
To: DesertRenegade
She may not be able to admit it either, because it could cost her a Supreme Court post.Ha!
In this Senate, it will be a big plus.
8 posted on
05/10/2010 9:44:52 AM PDT by
Jim Noble
To: DesertRenegade
The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?
_______________________________________________
Of course they will. Trouble is, there are very few SoCons in DC.
I’m waiting for the RINO’s to join the dems and gush all over her and then confirm her without delay.
9 posted on
05/10/2010 9:46:02 AM PDT by
Responsibility2nd
(PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
To: DesertRenegade
To: DesertRenegade
She wants to get on the Supreme Court lickety-split.
To: DesertRenegade
She certainly looks like a muff diver to me, but just as bad, she’s a part of zero’s gang of misfits.
To: DesertRenegade
18 posted on
05/10/2010 9:53:13 AM PDT by
UCANSEE2
(The Last Boy Scout)
To: DesertRenegade
Some caller had the audacity to ask Suze Orman this question on her talk show, and she answered with amazing truthfulness and matter-of-factness. How come it’s good enough for talk radio but not for the nation’s highest court?
To: DesertRenegade
I am sure that attacking her on the Lesbian issue would be very productive.
23 posted on
05/10/2010 9:59:41 AM PDT by
trumandogz
(The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
To: DesertRenegade
The White House has flatly stated that she is not gay,... Hey, 0bagger, what's "wrong" with being a Lesbian?
Have you checked with your Paki boyfriend or Sinclare lately?
To: DesertRenegade
I am sure that attacking her on the Lesbian issue would be very productive.
26 posted on
05/10/2010 10:02:34 AM PDT by
trumandogz
(The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
To: DesertRenegade
Elena Kagan, if nominated today, will be forced to face the press. BAAAAaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaa ...
27 posted on
05/10/2010 10:03:08 AM PDT by
dartuser
("Palin 2012 ... nothing else will do.")
To: DesertRenegade
This woman will be confirmed.
Frankly she is a distraction,while people speculate on her bedroom habits many things will go under the radar.
Its a double win for obama, a lesbian on the court and months of passing legislation, that no one pays attention too.
31 posted on
05/10/2010 10:08:02 AM PDT by
Kakaze
(Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
To: DesertRenegade
From the article: "The White House has flatly stated that she is not gay ..." The stupidity of the Obama administration never ceases to amaze me ... they should have realized that they have now made it an acceptable "issue", as it goes to the truthfulness of the WH and the nominee.
Although I respect others who feel differently, and while conceding that "character" is a fair criterion, I couldn't care less who she sleeps with ... I care about her intelligence, knowledge of the law, experience, and a willingness to grapple, in a reasoned way, with issues of huge national importance. She seems to be a knee-jerk liberal with no intellectual curiosity. Anywho who has written so little about the law does not have the passion for the law and for INTELLIGENT argument has no place on the Supreme Court.
35 posted on
05/10/2010 10:10:12 AM PDT by
In Maryland
("Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day ..." - Caroline Baum)
To: DesertRenegade
To quote another FReeper on a similar thread:
"If she isn't a lesbian, it is a terrible waste of ugly."
39 posted on
05/10/2010 10:15:17 AM PDT by
N. Theknow
(Kennedys: Can't fly, can't ski, can't drive, can't skipper a boat, but they know what's best.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson