Originally Posted by Donna2

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cologal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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 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.

Originally Posted by cashman

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 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.

Originally Posted by cologal

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?

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."

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

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

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!

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

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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

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!

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

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.

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

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon"
--Saul Alinsky-Marxist, Obama mentor

Originally Posted by Donna2

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

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

Originally Posted by cologal

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?

Originally Posted by Donna2

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

You are on!

Originally Posted by cologal

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.