I’m a little curious why anyone thinks it’s relevant that she’s Jewish or gay. My concern when it comes to this appointment is that Kagan is a socialist who has written shockingly anti-American commentaries, one who believes in the rule of whim rather than the rule of written law. As a fellow human being, I’m concerned regarding her salvation, but that’s not relevant to her appointment to a position that is far above the pay grade for which she is qualified. Let’s stick to the facts: she doesn’t believe the words of the Constitution are relevant to the job, so she is unqualified for a position on the Supreme COurt.
Because it's all a diversion from this:
My concern when it comes to this appointment is that Kagan is a socialist who has written shockingly anti-American commentaries, one who believes in the rule of whim rather than the rule of written law.
It goes to imposition of her recreational sex behavior politics on others.
Because of HER personal sexual behavior she decided to ban military opportunity careers for those on Harvard law property.
It is no different than asking if she is a communist, socialist.
Her acceptance speech kept using the phrase “THE COLLECTIVE”.
since the collective has to endorse sexual behavior must the collective ban religion? must the second amendment now be defined as a collective right not individual?
she is a law school ivory tower creature.
these are all litmus tests that define her behavior.
“I’m a little curious why anyone thinks it’s relevant that she’s Jewish or gay.”
I think it’s a simple matter of people being concerned that a ‘woman’ who can’t even distinguish between male from female has no business sitting for a lifetime term on the USSC. You don’t need any degrees to figure that one out.