SOME
NOT ALL
Posted on 05/11/2010 6:22:59 AM PDT by shortstop
Is she a lesbian?
That’s what America wants to know about Elena Kagan.
Is she queer.
No one will say that out loud, and I’m not sure how much of it is more than basic curiosity, but it is the top thing on people’s minds.
How do I dare say that?
Because it’s the truth.
Throughout the day yesterday, I went to Google and typed in the words “Elena Kagan.” As I typed in more letters, and the predictive indicator tried to finish my phrase, it gave an insight into what America is looking for.
The predictive indicator takes your keystrokes and compares them against similar keystrokes people have already typed in and then, based on what others have searched, offers you the same thing.
It is, in effect, a running poll of what the millions and tens of millions of people online are thinking.
Through most of the day, these three words were in the top four suggestions from Google: “Husband,” “married” and “personal life.” Either “husband” or “married” was the top selection all day.
Further down the list there were things like “Supreme Court,” “solicitor general,” “Harvard” and “law school grades.”
But those were nothing compared to “husband,” “married” and “personal life.”
They wanted to know if she was gay.
I’ve wondered why, and if there was any significance to it.
Did they wonder because of her looks?
It is harsh to say, but did America look at her grooming and personal appearance and see a stereotype?
If so, there’s the potential for that to be cruelly and completely unfair.
But sometimes people look a certain way for a certain reason. There is an element of choice in some aspects of appearance, and while anyone can choose to groom and dress in any way they choose, sometimes in their choices there are messages – conscious choices.
Some women look “butch” for a reason.
Others look the same way for no reason at all.
That’s what makes that whole judge-a-book-by-its-cover so unreliable.
Did they wonder because she’s not married? Barack Obama has now nominated two single women to the court, which may be nothing more than a coincidence.
If America wanted to know if Elena Kagan is gay, what did it plan to do with the information? Was it plain curiosity, or was it an element in the formulation of their opinion of her?
Did folks want to find out if she was a lesbian because they didn’t want a lesbian on the Supreme Court?
There’s no way to know.
CBS News famously posted a blog a few weeks ago which claimed, on the basis of sources at Harvard, that Elena Kagan was gay. The White House denied it and CBS apologized.
But what if the White House was wrong, what if she is gay?
Would that change support for her, one way or the other? Would it be relevant?
Well, it might be if the issue of gay marriage should ever find its way to the Supreme Court – something which is possible and maybe even likely.
Should a gay justice be allowed to rule on gay marriage?
What about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? That program will face the Supreme Court eventually.
Further, if it were the case that Elena Kagan is a lesbian, would the concealment of that during the confirmation process be some act of fraud or deception?
People will have to decide.
Personally, I wouldn’t be much bothered if she were gay. I would be very bothered if she were gay and hid it. I’m willing to accept others, but I’m not willing to be conned.
Either way, I think the nominee or the White House should directly, honestly and courteously address this issue. Because people are curious – Google proves it.
Personally, I think presidents should be given wide latitude to appoint who they want. I don’t think advise and consent should turn into a trump card.
But I believe the safeguard of Senate confirmation exists for a good reason, to assure the acceptability of nominees and the preservation of principle.
And with that understanding, I have reservations about Elena Kagan.
The first obvious one is her prejudice against the American military. As dean of the Harvard law school, she forbad military recruiters from coming on her campus or contacting her students. Many other college administrators did this at the same time – as a protest against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – and they all were wrong.
They all were despicable.
Barack Obama is replacing a World War 2 combat veteran with a justice who wouldn’t even let the military on her law-school campus.
To me, that is a trumping disqualification.
Another problem I have is diversity. Not the fake diversity used by the liberals as an excuse to load their constituents with special favors.
Rather, I’m bothered that the Supreme Court looks nothing like America – not in its skin color, but in its cultural background.
With the appointment of Elena Kagan, the court would be comprised exclusively of Catholics and Jews. For the first time in history, there is not a single Protestant on the Supreme Court.
The largest religious demographic in the country is not on the high court. One of the smallest religious demographics – Jews – is dramatically over represented.
But we all knew that was coming.
What hasn’t been pointed out is that, if Elena Kagan is confirmed, four of the nine justices will be from New York City.
All liberals, all from New York City. The city has 19 million people, in a nation of more than 300 million. In other words, New York City has 6 percent of the nation’s population and 40 percent of the seats on the Supreme Court.
Must be there aren’t any smart people anywhere else in the country. Must be the only place they can find big-government liberals for the court is within the five boroughs of the city of New York.
That doesn’t look like America, it doesn’t even sound like America.
But so it is.
SOME
NOT ALL
By golly, Kevin’s better looking.
I was thinking more along the lines of Lou Costello.
Me? I don’t give a rat’s ass if she is gay or not. I’ve known plenty of gays in my life and most of them don’t bother me. The only ones I’ve ever “minded” are those that are political and militant gays. Time will tell if she is one of those.
Quite honestly, I wouldn’t care if Obama’s nominee was a two-headed, striped hair dwarf...with a limp, provided this person had enough sense to read the Constitution (in its plain English that a 6th grader could read) and then rule on the merits.
If she can’t do that, NO DICE. If she can, LET’S GO.
Just as all “straights” are not in favor of things like gay marriage, not all “gays” are in favor of them, either. If you doubt me, go over to Hillbuzz.
That’s a bunch a gay Chicago former Dems, who worked for Hillary, and then for McCain/Palin. They are now Palin fans and met her in person when she was in Illinois.
They are freedom loving gay men, who hate Obama with more passion than I can even describe here, who are also very opposed to gay marriage, for example.
There are a million reasons not to confirm a radical Leftist who has written of her hope for the failure of Reaganism and the rise of "perfect socialism".
However, strong majorities have arisen who will defend what they call "sexual freedom" (slightly less strong in the case of abortion).
Opposing a nominee for her lesbianism will rally the 25% of the electorate who care, but will alienate the other 75%.
Just to lay my cards on the table, I think America is lost without mass conversion to truth, including the rejection of most varieties of "sexual freedom", but political battles are fought to win.
This issue is a loser.
I went looking because I have no idea who Kevin James is, and after finding a pic and wanting to post it, I scrolled down and found ... YOUR comparison is much better than mine was ... pretty freakin’ amazing.
All the people whop complained about Harriet Meirs for the same justifiable reason should anti-up and speak out against her on this one issue. It trumps everything else.
Forget she is a silver-spoon in the mouth elitist who grew up a in a privileged life, forget she attended Princeton University, was dean at Harvard, and was only a solicitor general for one year under BO. Forget the fact that she has pronounced herself a far left-wing radical in her writings, and opposed ROTC on campus because of “Don't ask, don't tell”. Forget the fact this witch is only 50 years old, so Obama's tentacles will be on the court for generations after he leaves office.
The woman is UNQUALIFIED. Unless a candidate has sat on the bench and has a record on their view of Constitutional issues as a adjudicator, how in the hell can they be judged???
The last go-around, with Sotomayor, we were told we needed a candidate who “looked like America.”
In Kagan, Obama has chosen an androgynous lesbian socialist who has lived her life in a Harvard bubble.
So by the Sotomayor standard, exactly how many Americans does Kagan look like?
Her personal sexual preferences should not be an issue, per se. But how they influence her thinking on Constitutional issues IS.
But, since she was never a judge, we have no idea where she stands with respect to any homosexuality related issues, aside from the ROTC issue, which is not a good sign.
That’s an even better resemblance.
I agree with your view of her sexuality. I really don’t care. Word has it the wise latina is a lezbo too.
But she obviously is a raging leftist. But what else would we expect from the Marxist dictator wannabe Zero.
Elections have consequences beyond Congress and the White House.
She looks like a morph of Patches Kennedy and Bobcat Goldthwait...
+ 
Really? I'd be a lot LESS bothered if she hid it. I'm only a little over 30 yrs old but I hear there was a time when people USUALLY hid it and most people were grateful they did.
As for the stereotyping and profiling, nobody ever said it was a perfect system, but it's useful. Why do you think people do anything at all about their appearance? It's human nature -- and the nature of anything else with eyes -- to judge others by appearance. We expect others to "profile" us. So it's a good system; it usually gives correct results. Should we brand it unfair and forbid it because it isn't perfect?
If you come across a woman who looks like Little Annie Tranny, she just might be. And if she is, is it so much of a stretch to think she just might be a flaming leftwing welfare statist, libero-fascist, 0bamunist?
Come on, Bob Lonsberry. Quit puckering up and form some opinions like you used to.
She’s a national disgrace just like the thugs in the White House.
Laz might not hit it, but Chaz would....
I beg to differ. We have no idea where she stands? Her "personal sexual preferences" are a dot we must not use to make connections? If she's gay, I for one have a very good idea where she stands. I should have such clues at Hialeah.
Moreover, personal sexual preferences were very much relevant and permissible when Clarence Thomas was being grilled like spare rib on a spit.
Why does it appear that carpet is more fattening to women than it is to men?
Just a question.
Ah, she just looks like a good, good, girl with her hair in curls and precious as pearls/not
No, I’d hit it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
