Supreme Court Nominee a Lesbian?

[amicus]

The accusation has been buzzing around DC just under the radar for some time now, but is not being discussed or even mentioned in the Media. Why?

Respecting an individuals rights to whatever sexual inclination one may have is one thing, a Supreme Court Justice that will face Military and Civilian cases concerning Gay Marriage and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', is quite another.

I don't recall any Atheists on the Supreme Court, nor have I ever heard, before now, accusations of homosexuality addressed to a Nominee or a sitting Justice.

Senate confirmations hearings got underway this morning, those who keep up with things are no doubt aware of the event and the possible outcomes.



http://gawker.com/5535425/is-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-really-a-lesbian

Verdict: Between the hair, the softball, the "open secret" at Harvard, the purported partner, and the Andrew Sullivan outing, I'm going to go ahead and guess she's gay. It should be interesting to see how her orientation plays out during the confirmation process and whether or not anyone on the Judiciary Committee will come right out and ask her.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-by-Wall-Street-Journal-softball-picture.html

In an attempt to lay the issue to rest, friends of the former dean of Harvard Law School have publicly said she is not gay
One was Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York who resigned after he was caught using an exclusive prostitution service.
"I did not go out with her, but other guys did," said Mr Spitzer, a fellow undergraduate at Princeton. "I don't think it is my place to say more."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37114.html

Elena Kagan is not a lesbian, one of her best friends told POLITICO Tuesday night, responding to persistent rumors and innuendo about the Supreme Court nominee’s personal life.
“I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37114.html#ixzz0sAZco4rn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-garry-/charge-elena-kagan-with-h_b_569730.html

Regardless of whether she is gay, straight, in or out, she is, best I can figure, highly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. The more I read about her, the more strongly I feel that she is a first rate choice. Not because I am gay. Because I am an American who believes that the Supreme Court should be filled with the best and the brightest. And she is, without question, a member in good standing of that club.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8606913872.html

s Elena Kagan a Lesbian? Media Ignores Four Harvard Students Outting Supreme Court Nominee, CBS News Muzzled by White House

WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- As far back as 2006 and 2007, four different Harvard Law Students confirmed that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was a Lesbian. Why is the Obama Administration now suddenly ashamed of Kagan's homosexual orientation?

CBS News first reported that President Obama's new Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be the "first openly gay justice," pleasing much of Obama's liberal base. But after pressure from the White House they amended the report: "I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted -- odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles." CBS later pulled the report entirely, after The Washington Post criticized CBS policy, saying "most major news organizations have policies against 'outing' gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties."

Why the sudden media blackout, even among conservative news organizations?

Kagan's private sex life already has, and will directly impact her public Supreme Court decisions, especially on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and other issues.

In breaking news, Chaplain Klingenschmitt reveals that four different Harvard Law School students reported Kagan was Lesbian Homosexual as far back as 2006 and 2007.

The 4 Harvard law students' quotes are now online at www.prayinjesusname.org/kagan.

Will any news reporter dare to track down and interview these four students?

~~~

Well...there it is...you are now free to begin bashing Amicus for daring to pose the question.

 

[Liar]

Respecting an individuals rights to whatever sexual inclination one may have is one thing, a Supreme Court Justice that will face Military and Civilian cases concerning Gay Marriage and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', is quite another.

Why? I assume because of conflict of interest?

How specifically does that differ from the conflicts of interest that must inevitably occur from time to time due to Justices being Catholic or Male or Black or Minnesotans or Hunters or Conservative or Boxing Fans or ....

 

[manyeyedhydra]

And her private sexual life affects her ability to do her public job in what way...?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Why? I assume because of conflict of interest?

How specifically does that differ from the conflicts of interest that must inevitably occur from time to time due to Justices being Catholic or Male or Black or Minnesotans or Hunters or Conservative or Boxing Fans or ....

or Heterosexual? This is a point that Ami and I do not agree on. My feeling is ... who cares.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. How would her alleged sexuality make her any less qualified to rule on such an issue than any other Justice? Is impartiality the sole province of the straight community? Should women be disqualified to rule on abortion rights issues? Should blacks be disqualified to rule on civil rights issues? Should sports fans be disqualified to rule on cases involving professional sports teams? What is your point? I don't think you have any grasp whatsoever of the standards applicable to judicial disqualification.

 

[amicus]

Let's not get cute here, kiddies....Kagan is a social liberal in most aspects and United States Senators have already posed the question, asking if she can rise above her personal proclivities and render an objective decision.

Those questions were by Republicans who insist that a strict interpretation of Consitutional edicts is essential to a separate Justice Department.

Democrats, of course, believe otherwise, that the Constitution should be dynamic and used to further social progress in chosen ways.

With what seems like an endless stream of 5/4 decisions from SCOTUS; Conservative versus Liberal; to ignore the political foundation of an appointee is foolish.

It is and always has been a political process; like it or not.

With the already intense judicial and electoral conflict over gay marriage and homosexuality in general, to think that a Lesbian on the Court would not rule on her basic sexuality is naive at best.

The nine Justices thus far are so predictable, reflecting their polticial positions on issues, that the game has become tedious.

Let the conflict continue...


amicus

 

[Pure]

kagan

ami Supreme Court Nominee a Lesbian?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The accusation has been buzzing around DC just under the radar for some time now, but is not being discussed or even mentioned in the Media. Why?

Respecting an individuals rights to whatever sexual inclination one may have is one thing, a Supreme Court Justice that will face Military and Civilian cases concerning Gay Marriage and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', is quite another.


spoken like a true libertarian!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

She's a confirmed softball player; what more do you need to know?

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Let's not get cute here, kiddies....Kagan is a social liberal in most aspects and United States Senators have already posed the question, asking if she can rise above her personal proclivities and render an objective decision.

Those questions were by Republicans who insist that a strict interpretation of Consitutional edicts is essential to a separate Justice Department.

Democrats, of course, believe otherwise, that the Constitution should be dynamic and used to further social progress in chosen ways.

With what seems like an endless stream of 5/4 decisions from SCOTUS; Conservative versus Liberal; to ignore the political foundation of an appointee is foolish.

It is and always has been a political process; like it or not.

With the already intense judicial and electoral conflict over gay marriage and homosexuality in general, to think that a Lesbian on the Court would not rule on her basic sexuality is naive at best.

The nine Justices thus far are so predictable, reflecting their polticial positions on issues, that the game has become tedious.

Let the conflict continue...


amicus

You still have not articulated a single logical reason why her sexuality makes a legal difference. Pursuant to your argument, a heterosexual could not be confirmed because he/she would be likely to rule based upon his/her sexuality in precisely the circumstances you have identified. Everyone has a background, which includes ethnicity, race, religion, and sexuality, at a minimum. Under your standard, no one could ever be confirmed, because all decisions would be in conformance with that person's background.

Or are you suggesting that homosexuals are the only identifiable group that operates as a homogeneous block? Sounds like you are the one with the problem, not Kagan, the Supreme Court, or the Senate. This is perhaps the most ridiculous thread you have ever started. I don't even think you believe the BS that is oozing from your mouth.

 

[amicus]

Objective judgments require a perspective grounded in moral truths and absolutes.

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder a generation ago and abortion, premeditated murder. That was when a system of morality, the knowedge of right and wrong, good and bad, served as a foundation for objective decisions to be made.

Your, 'humanist', situational or relativistic ethics forbids any absolute knowledge of any moral or ethical issue.

You may not appreciate a binary concept conerning ethics and morals, but reality functions that way and it is to man's benefit to discover the laws of nature and the nature of man to gain an understanding of which actions are, right/good/moral and which are not.

Amicus

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Really?

That's your response?

Elena Kagan should not be confirmed because at one time homosexuality was considered a disorder? Is it a mental disorder or is it immoral? You can't have it both ways. Pick an argument and stand behind. Don't obfuscate the point with irrelevant verbiage. You are saying nothing of substance.

At one time women were not allowed to vote, and humans of the wrong color were considered property. It doesn't take a humanist to see that both of those constitutionally legal applications of American law were morally repulsive. So pleasen drop the moral superiority bullshit and present a fact based argument.

Otherwise, you lose by default.

 

[squarejohn]

Who cares if she's a lesbian? What scares me is that she is a leftist radical. What scares me is that she believes freedom of speech should be curtailed.
What scares me is that she is against the second amendment.

What ought to scare everybody is that she will be Obama's puppet, and will legislate from the bench.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Who cares if she's a lesbian? What scares me is that she is a leftist radical. What scares me is that she believes freedom of speech should be curtailed.
What scares me is that she is against the second amendment.

What ought to scare everybody is that she will be Obama's puppet, and will legislate from the bench.

Been watching Faux News, eh? They specialize in that sort of fear mongering. At least you got all the talking points down, except "she hates the military." Missed that one.

 

[jlss35]

The accusation has been buzzing around DC just under the radar for some time now, but is not being discussed or even mentioned in the Media. Why?

Respecting an individuals rights to whatever sexual inclination one may have is one thing, a Supreme Court Justice that will face Military and Civilian cases concerning Gay Marriage and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', is quite another.

I don't recall any Atheists on the Supreme Court, nor have I ever heard, before now, accusations of homosexuality addressed to a Nominee or a sitting Justice.

Senate confirmations hearings got underway this morning, those who keep up with things are no doubt aware of the event and the possible outcomes.



http://gawker.com/5535425/is-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-really-a-lesbian



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-by-Wall-Street-Journal-softball-picture.html



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37114.html




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37114.html#ixzz0sAZco4rn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-garry-/charge-elena-kagan-with-h_b_569730.html



http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8606913872.html

s Elena Kagan a Lesbian? Media Ignores Four Harvard Students Outting Supreme Court Nominee, CBS News Muzzled by White House






~~~

Well...there it is...you are now free to begin bashing Amicus for daring to pose the question.

Query: Respecting an individuals rights to whatever sexual inclination one may have is one thing, a Supreme Court Justice that will face Military and Civilian cases concerning Gay Marriage and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', is quite another. So that said, shouldn't we be concerned that as of today there are, presumably, EIGHT HETEROSEXUAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?!?!?! ZOMG

 

[TxRad]

Lawyers become politicians to make more laws to make more lawyers.

How is that not conflict of interest?

Everyone alive that would go into politics has some sort of conflict of interest.

Mute point.

 

[squarejohn]

Been watching Faux News, eh? They specialize in that sort of fear mongering. At least you got all the talking points down, except "she hates the military." Missed that one.

Go drink a cup of Kool-Aid. It will calm you and lower your blood pressure

 

[amicus]

That's your response?

Elena Kagan should not be confirmed because at one time homosexuality was considered a disorder? Is it a mental disorder or is it immoral? You can't have it both ways. Pick an argument and stand behind. Don't obfuscate the point with irrelevant verbiage. You are saying nothing of substance.

At one time women were not allowed to vote, and humans of the wrong color were considered property. It doesn't take a humanist to see that both of those constitutionally legal applications of American law were morally repulsive. So pleasen drop the moral superiority bullshit and present a fact based argument.

Otherwise, you lose by default.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Ahhh, a slippery slimey one you are at that. You apparently fail to understand something and I suspect you will remain in that state of ignorance even after I spell it out for you...but, hopefully, some will comprehend.

The equality of men, and their inalienable right to liberty, including women and all races was not granted by God, or by the Creator, or even by Congress, the Declaration, Consittution, Bill of Rights or the Amendments...nope...not granted by any of the above.

Those rights of man are innate, they come along at the same time that spark of life begins.

The laws of man only act to protect those rights and liberties; that is if government does its job.

Homosexuality isn't just 'considered' a mental disorder, by definition, it is a mental disorder, and it is immoral, again by definition.

Women's right to vote and freedom for the African Slaves, all slaves, was understood and debated in the Colonies before there ever was a Constitution. Again, equality, gender or racial, is not 'granted' by government it is only protected and defended. Even a peripheral reading of the history of the time will inform you that the Framer's knew damn well what equality meant, but they did not have the ability to codify it into law at the time the Constitution was written.

So...two issues, innate and inalienable rights; and moral absolutes defining good and evil. Tasty stuff to sample along with your whine & cheese, eh, tootsie?

Amicus

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Go drink a cup of Kool-Aid. It will calm you and lower your blood pressure

You can put down the kool aid. The ABA unanimously rated her "well qualified." I suppose you have a problem with the ABA now?

 

[Songcatcher]

Washington is full of back-stabbing black-mailing pedephile gays and lesbians.


You know this, if you study what they do.

















Seriously.

 

[DesertPirate]

A Supreme Court Justice can only interpret the law, not make it or change it. That is the job of Congress (to propose an ammendment, or the State Legislatures to force one down Congress throats).
Her skimpy record says she thinks an activist judge making or changing law is OK. That is 100% wrong.

 

[Songcatcher]

A Supreme Court Justice can only interpret the law, not make it or change it. That is the job of Congress (to propose an ammendment, or the State Legislatures to force one down Congress throats).
Her skimpy record says she thinks an activist judge making or changing law is OK. That is 100% wrong.

Yeah, well . . . According to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights . . .

 

[soflabbwlvr]

That's your response?

Elena Kagan should not be confirmed because at one time homosexuality was considered a disorder? Is it a mental disorder or is it immoral? You can't have it both ways. Pick an argument and stand behind. Don't obfuscate the point with irrelevant verbiage. You are saying nothing of substance.

At one time women were not allowed to vote, and humans of the wrong color were considered property. It doesn't take a humanist to see that both of those constitutionally legal applications of American law were morally repulsive. So pleasen drop the moral superiority bullshit and present a fact based argument.

Otherwise, you lose by default.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Ahhh, a slippery slimey one you are at that. You apparently fail to understand something and I suspect you will remain in that state of ignorance even after I spell it out for you...but, hopefully, some will comprehend.

The equality of men, and their inalienable right to liberty, including women and all races was not granted by God, or by the Creator, or even by Congress, the Declaration, Consittution, Bill of Rights or the Amendments...nope...not granted by any of the above.

Those rights of man are innate, they come along at the same time that spark of life begins.

The laws of man only act to protect those rights and liberties; that is if government does its job.

Homosexuality isn't just 'considered' a mental disorder, by definition, it is a mental disorder, and it is immoral, again by definition.

Women's right to vote and freedom for the African Slaves, all slaves, was understood and debated in the Colonies before there ever was a Constitution. Again, equality, gender or racial, is not 'granted' by government it is only protected and defended. Even a peripheral reading of the history of the time will inform you that the Framer's knew damn well what equality meant, but they did not have the ability to codify it into law at the time the Constitution was written.

So...two issues, innate and inalienable rights; and moral absolutes defining good and evil. Tasty stuff to sample along with your whine & cheese, eh, tootsie?

Amicus

Your haughty demeanor belies the paucity of substance supporting your arguments. They fail utterly due to a complete and total absence of empirical support.

Homosexuality has been declassified as a disorder since 1973. Why? Because there was no empirical evidence to support the classification. Do you know more about the human mind than the American Psychological Association? If so, then please publish your research.

As for the rest of your argument, that homosexuality is immoral, where do you get this idea? You freely admit that rights are not betsowed by the creator, by man, or by any legal document. So who determined that homosexuality is immoral? You? Yy aren't the libertarian you claim to be. You are a tyrant. It's that simple.

Finally, the concession that the framers were too weak to protect women and slaves blows your original argument out of the water. According to you, the constitution is a deeply flawed document that was defective from its inception. Jurists with the courage to protect citizens from those who would prey upon them as a result of the framers' errors and lack of foresight are necessary in this legal system.

 

[amicus]

I prefaced my remarls with the statement that you would not understand; see what happens when you trust Emperical data only?

What is love? Show me the data!

It be called metaphysics, sweet cheeks, and you are apparently not equipped to go there.

By the way, I never did figure out if the bottom two thirds or the top of the Indian got to vote, did you?

It is to the honor and integrity of America that Emancipation and Equality finally took place; and, oh, Lincoln was a Republicant, war'nt he?

Amicus..(who likes to cuddle)

 

[Miss_Pixie]

Personally, I can't see what difference it makes. So She may or may not be a lesbian, if she's qualified, and she can do the job. Let her.

 

[jomar]

Objective judgments require a perspective grounded in moral truths and absolutes.

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder a generation ago and abortion, premeditated murder. That was when a system of morality, the knowedge of right and wrong, good and bad, served as a foundation for objective decisions to be made.

...
Amicus

Homosexuality equated with abortion which is murder. The chum's in the water.

She's a confirmed softball player; what more do you need to know?

She a pitcher or a catcher? Old joke.