Is Obama's Supreme Court appointee's sexuality an issue?
 

Is Obama's new Supreme Court appointee gay?
Does it matter?
If it doesn't; why all the secrecy?
What do you think?

Here's a story by Andrew Sullivan, the same man who made Sarah Palin's life miserable by investigating her son Trig's parentage; so he no rightie.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-th...drew-sullivan/

It matters, only if sfe is an activist.

Yoda

If Barney Frank can continue to get re-elected then
 

why would it matter about Kagan?
To each his/her own....for their private (no pun intended) choice(s)....as well as each to their own opinion about it.

btk

OK; but then why all the secrecy?

This is the hardest part about a smear....has she been asked directly, if so how has she answered? I really don't know because I haven't researched this but it makes no never mind to me. But 1 blogger started this, true or not, and now Why all the secrecy?

It has been said that "A lie is half way around the world before the truth has time to put its shoes on."

Why do you classify the question as a "smear".

I think it matters significantly. The Supreme Court will be called on to make decisions on same-sex marriages. The court needs to look at this with clear heads and not be influenced by a member with an agenda.

There is not much to go on that her "sexuality" has influenced her work in any way.
 

I doubt if the SCOTUS justices being heterosexual influence their decisions in any way. Why should it be any different for a gay/lesbian justice unless as some other poster wrote-- an activist is involved? Kagan does not show up in any gay/lesbian activist searches that I have seen.

I do question her ability to get past Obama's shadow as she seems so much of an Obama political player.

Once she is on the bench the shackles will be removed and sexual identity will be moot. She is activist orientated as when she went after the military for their "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policies.
Obama, who has little , if any, private sector experience, always has a political agenda. He did not pick her name out of a hat.

While I don't consider someone's sexuality any problem....historically accusing someone of being gay or outing them has been a blood sport. But I think you probably know that. Most of that is changing as the younger generations start to take over.

What was the purpose of the blogger posting that Kagen was gay? Why did you ask if it was important but why did you speculate about the "secrecy"?

If she isn't then it isn't a secret!

Aren't there more important issues at stake than someone's sexuality?

Well, maybe to you or maybe to me, there are more important issues but to millions of people it is definitely a big deal. I am not going to delve into people's beliefs or people's religion, but that is just a fact of life.

OK; let's get it in the open. Donna is trying to answer this and as usual I mostly agree with her take on an issue, but what intriguing me is that when a fact is hidden it is usually for a reason.
Reporters are now trying to determine her sexuality because it is not evident. Mayor Koch in NY went through the same scenario.

I just think that a Supreme Court Justice that is going to be deciding issues that will impact the American people for generations should not be concealing anything. We have a right to know every aspect of this person.
If anything is being concealed about a candidate I suspect a hidden agenda that would be revealed if that secret came out.

What is this hidden agenda? I don't want to find out too late to do anything about it, but that's probably going to happen.

I heard today that the Obama regime is not going to divulge her sexual preferences because they are baiting the republicans.

They are waiting patiently for the republicans to say something or out her about her preferences so that Obama can pounce on that and gain sympathy for her to make the confirmation process easier for her.

Baiting is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Hopefully the Republicans will not fall for it.

Hey, isn't this the transparent president. The one who said everything will be done in the open. If you believe that I have some swamp land for sale. LOL

Donna....if you were to do some research on this issue I trust you find that highly closeted gays have been the most vocal anti-gay. They have to be or else risk being outed. Just in the past few years several closeted politicians have been outed and when their voting record was rabid anti-gay.

well well
 

I am sure you would agree that a rabid anti-gay person is unfair to gay people and therefore should recuse themselves from voting on gay issues.
You probably then would agree that this would only work if we knew the sexual preferences of the Judge in advance. Otherwise the system would not work.

I am really confused now.....It has been reported that the White House asked her and she said she was straight. She dated men in college.


This is just a crazy statement....

Reporters are now trying to determine her sexuality because it is not evident.

She isn't married...that does not make her gay. It makes her NOT married thats all.

Prove that she is gay....find her partner or a former partner. Or give it up.

I would suggest you do know the sexual perference of this person. She says that she is straight her friends say that she is straight. She is an unmarried woman....I had at least 3 aunts who were unmarried. None were gay. Just unmarried. They used to be called Old maids.

How much you want to bet that she is a gay woman?

This strikes me
 

as one of the silliest discussions I've read on this board. Traditionally, the President nominated someone who he felt was a highly capable jurist, and if the Senate agreed with that assessment, the individual was confirmed.

This tradition continued until 1987, when Judge Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate because he believed the role of the Judiciary was to see that the constitution was upheld and that Judges should exercise judicial restraint and avoid legislating from the bench. Since that time, judges are being evaluated, not on their competence but rather by their political philosophy - liberal meaning that the Constitution is a 'living' document and the words be changed to fit the needs of society; or conservative, those that believe the Constitution was written in clear English and that changes to it should come from the legislative branch of government. I do not know nor do I care about Ms. Kagan's views in this matter. The lady is clearly qualified and should be quickly confirmed by the United States Senate.

Her sexual orientation is none of our business and bringing into the discussion is 'yellow journalism' at its worst! Every person has views on specific subjects that they may wish to see changed; however I hope we all realize Robert Bork's wisdom when he said, "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else."

Harriet Meirs II
 

If Harriet Meirs wasn't qualified, why is this person qualified? They have basically the same references.

Omg!
 

BBQ man, I'm with you! hahaha! This entire thread is hysterical! :1rotfl:

It would be beyond hysterical, if it wasn't so sad. Do some of you even think about what you write. Recuse herself if she's gay. Seriously??? Obama always has a political agenda? hahaha! HE'S THE PRESIDENT! Ya think?

Here's how it will go down. Whether she's gay, a spinster, or a liberated woman that doesn't need a man in her life... she will be confirmed. Deal with it.

I just love reading the stuff in here! :popcorn:

BTW, is Clarence Thomas still searching for pubic hairs in his coke can??? :laugh:

Well, I'm glad that us "sad people" give you a laugh. We must be like the jokers that the Kings and the "high and mighty", keep around for laughs.

Oops, must go now, the queen needs to be cheered up.:a20:

Have you heard about that high horse they used to talk about?

If you don't have any proof....GIVE IT UP.

Just a friendly wager. She will "come out of the closet" after she is confirmed. What say you?

You are on!

OK. Do you want a time limit? I say she will come out within 2 years. The first few months will be getting her feet wet and getting up to snuff. After the dust settles and she is all caught-up, she will let her guard down.

What if she "bats from both sides of the plate"? :)

Again and again in these political posts when a serious discussion is taking place and the "liberal" doesn't like the issue or has "nothing" of value to rebut with; the tactic is to ridicule the questioner or the issue.

Do you think that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are not activist justices? Give me a break.

One example, please, of any of them writing law instead of upholding the Constitution. I'm retired, I can wait for the answer.

Don't hold your breath waiting, RichieLion. We don't want to lose you.

Citizen's United

Really? The Supreme Court in this case overturned the illegal restricting of free speech guaranteed by by the First Amendment of the Constitution and you call this "judicial activism"? Oh please!!! Come up with a better answer than that.

Oh, and in addition; this decision was authored by Justice Kennedy; so your answer, besides being wrong on the face of it, was not authored by one of the four "conservative justices" named by Saratoga.

Since when is a Corporation a person with free speech?

I hope the following definition of a corporation clears this up for you Cologal. In any event the decision was written by Justice Kennedy. Try to find one written by Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas to rebut the original point. You're in left field here.

"What Does Corporation Mean?
A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes.

The most important aspect of a corporation is limited liability. That is, shareholders have the right to participate in the profits, through dividends and/or the appreciation of stock, but are not held personally liable for the company's debts."

I guess that judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. I see the Citizens United case given corporations overwhelming say in politics. If you don't like that case perhaps the equal pay case that this court overturned saying the woman had to file within 18 months.

You made my point Cologal. Thank You!!! The Supreme Court, by law, can not view an issue except by how it complies with the Constitution. There is no room for "eye of the beholder". The law is the law Cologal. If the law is flawed, as you seem to think so, it has to be changed by the House and the Senate in accordance to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no role in the making of law. When it does it's unConstitutional.

Also, again, the case you cite was written by Justice Kennedy. Usually he's one of "yours".

The law is subject to interpretation that's how we come to have your and mine as you say. I said judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder.

Somewhere something says " We the people" not "We the corporations"