"Dishy" Sullivan wants to "out" the "unmarried" Elena Kagan
Anonymous White House spokespeople have denied that Obama's latest SCOTUS nominee is a lesbian but many observers detect a Nixonian ring to such denials. Andrew Sullivan is apparently one of them:
"And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.
In a word, this is preposterous - a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority - and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality - is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified.
Source
She has certainly been vigorous in her defence of homosexuality and cases upcoming will involve it so she should recuse herself from such cases if she really is a lesbian. Is she staying in the closet so she will NOT have to recuse herself? For once, I think I agree with Sullivan.
17 comments:
IF she's an honest judge (hard to believe from a leftist, and she'd never have been nominated if she's not a leftist hardliner) she'd not let personal preferences and ideals drive her verdicts.
Of course that's a very big if, and I don't believe for a moment anyone pushed forward by Nobama would fit that profile...
Does anyone really believe that being a life-long leftist and a lesbian (she is both) is going to keep her from the court? It's a done deal! And since most of the American people, in their infinite weakness and stupidity, saw fit to elect an outright Marxist with zero experience to be their president, why should his pick come as any surprise. She's going on the court, not because of her experience, of which she has none, but because she will push the court further and further to the Left. She is in fact, a female (?) Obummer.
Is this the kind of court the people want? No, it is not, but they lack the brains, the strength, and the will to do anything about it. And since we now live under a one-party rule, (again, thanks to the mindless voters) they have nothing to say.
The fact is, because of the peoples lack of brains and will, it will take several generations (if ever) to undo the damage that's being done to this country. Perhaps the people deserve nothing better.
IF she's an honest judge....
Hard to tell since she has never been a judge before but yet has been appointed for the highest court in the land.
"She has certainly been vigorous in her defence of homosexuality and cases upcoming will involve it so she should recuse herself from such cases if she really is a lesbian. Is she staying in the closet so she will NOT have to recuse herself? For once, I think I agree with Sullivan."
---Not necessarily, a fair minded gay judge could have ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts simply because he supports freedom of association. A judge should only recusse himself if he feels that his bias is too strong to remain objective.
With that said, I don't support Kagan because she failed to support the military when they wanted to recruit on Harvard. Disagreeing with the military is acceptable, banning them from campus is not.
I could care less about her sexual orientation, after all, Obama's straight, so his Hillary, Nancy Pelosi and plenty of other progressives that are ruining this country. That's why I vote ideology, not sexuality, not marital status, all that is irrelevant to me.
A judge should only recusse himself if he feels that his bias is too strong to remain objective.
The actual standard is different. A judge has to recuse themselves if there may be an appearance of impropriety. The feelings of the judge are immaterial.
Why should it be considered a "conflict of interest" for a homosexual judge to rule on homosexual rights cases, but not when a heterosexual judge rules on the same cases? Don't both judges have dogs in the same fight?
So only Married Judges can rule on the rights of single people, and only single people can rule on the rights of the married?
A good judge (which I have no doubt she would NOT be) would read the language of the Constitution and make rulings based on what is SAID, not what is NOT SAID.
I don't give a damn about her sexual preference. I do care about her continuing disrespect of the military for enforcing a rule that Democrat politicians put in place.
Stan,
Why should it be considered a "conflict of interest" for a homosexual judge to rule on homosexual rights cases, but not when a heterosexual judge rules on the same cases? Don't both judges have dogs in the same fight?
Kagan should certain recuse herself from any cases that come before the SCOTUS if she has been involved in the case. This would include all of the cases that she oversaw as Solicitor General. This should also include any cases that involve Harvard, and I believe any cases that involve the military given her stances on their activities.
I too am uncomfortable with her recusing herself from cases simply because of a sexual orientation. However, hypothetically, if a judge has been an advocate for a certain group that promotes a certain point of view, if that organization or that viewpoint is central to a case, the judge is approaching a perception of impropriety.
I also agree with you that Kagan would make a horrible Justice. She does not have the practical experience of jurisprudence at any level and her writings are, at best, rather shallow.
Sorry, JJR, gotta disagree:
Would other judges also have to recuse themselves for being heterosexual? Would Clarence Thomas have to recuse himself from all issues related to race? Would the female justices have to recuse themselves from issues of gender? Can Scalia remain objective on issues of weight?
Haven't we had enough identity politics already?
Friends, if we add this all up, it tells us something. And that is, our system of government is a total mess. We have a system that is based on lies, greed, and corruption. If it were possible to remove those factors from the equation, the entire system would collapse. And it's not just the federal government. It's also true for state and local govt's.
When so few have so much power over so many, in time, the result will always be a negative one, especially for the many.
OK, I'll say it. I don't want any homosexual as a Supreme Court judge. Why? Because he/she cannot and will not uphold the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended. The United States of America was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and morality which specifically states that homosexuality is a sin.
Anon 1:48, where have you been? Don't you know that sane, rational, and logical thinking are no longer permitted by The New Order? Apparently, you are way behind the times.
There are now only 4 people on the SCOTUS who truly believe in the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders. Well, 4 1/2 if you count Kennedy, on occasion. Clearly, that is not enough to save this nation from becoming a Marxist state, something we are well on our way to becoming.
For those of us who truly love this country and don't want to see it become Venezuela North, the only thing that can save it is the voters, which means, we're doomed!
We often hear about so-called "litmus tests" for SCOTUS nominees. When they go before the congressional side show, all we get are lies and evasive half answers.
IMO, there should be only one test, one question. Do you believe in and support the US Constitution as written by our Founders. Yes or no"? If the applicant answers yes, and they are approved, they shoulkd understand that their appointment is based on their answer to that all-important question. If it turns out that they lied simply to get that approval, they (will) be removed.
So by your thinking, straight judges shouldn't get to sit on cases concerning hetrosexual matters? Or christian justices should step back from matters concerning their faith?
I didn't think so.
Only the minority opinion needs to distance themselves from participation in matters relevant to their groups. What an amazing display of discrimination.
I have no problems with a homosexual sitting on any court in the land - provided that they made their rulings according to law.
That's the only relevant criterion I can see.
5:42 PM. You are correct. All judges as human beings may have private prejudices of some sort reflecting their own personalities and backgrounds, but as appointed judges they are expected and required to put those possible biases aside and apply the law absolutely fairly and correctly. If they can be shown not to do so then obviously they should be dismissed from their posts.
I think that she should be asked is she is gay and I think she should be required to answer. If she says yes, we can all move along. If she says no, we can all move along. If she says no, and it comes out later that she blatantly lied, then we can have her removed from the court.
Post a Comment