Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size


They Are Watching You
Lapland’s Mystery Moths Puzzle Science




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
TunaFish

Thinking Tuna Fish, Talking Death

By Robert Scheer
Hardcover $13.16

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Supreme Court Justice in Comfortable Shoes?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 10, 2010
White House / Pete Souza

Famed gay blogger Andrew Sullivan wants to know why no one else is publicly asking whether husbandless Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan likes girls, even though “we have been told by many that she is gay.”

Andrew Sullivan / The Daily Dish:

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. 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. It’s especially true with respect to Obama. He has, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination. Well: does he view Kagan’s possible life-experience as a gay woman relevant to this? Did Obama even ask about it? Are we ever going to know one way or the other? Does she have a spouse? Is this spouse going to be forced into the background in a way no heterosexual spouse ever would be?

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By gerard, May 11, 2010 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

The question seems to me to be both irrelevant and intrusive.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 11, 2010 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

Mr. Freeze,  I have often, wondered the same thing!!!

Rfidler,  No,  I will never, ever understand conservativism,  Don’t believe I have ever seen or heard
of one,  sure don’t understand the concept.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, May 11, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

I understand it very well, thanks for your concern.

Report this

By Jason, May 11, 2010 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now now Reynolds.  Be cool!  I think the reason rfidler seems confused, and I sure as Hell am, is because Andrew Sullivan is someone who both actively joins organizations and has political leanings that are incompatible with who he is as a person.  Mr. Sullivan is a Evangelical Christian apologist and is a conservative.  Both types of people ACTIVELY do everything in their power to maintain that gays and lesbians are legally treated as sub-human in the USA.  Talk about the oppressed supporting the oppressor.  This dynamic is similar to a battered wife condoning her treatment by her husband.

Andrew Sullivan in no way speaks for the majority of GLBT people.  Neither does Perez Hilton.  In fact, most gay people I know do not understand why Mr. Sullivan would want to affiliate with people who ensure his oppression.

Also too, I disagree with knowing other people’s sexual oritentations.  Plus, this knowlege would be used as ammunition against her by the VERY people he supports (conservatives, the GOP, corporate America, the military and otehr discriminatory organizations).

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

mrfreeze:
Maybe you don’t understand conservatism.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

I think a more important question Sullivan needs to ask is how on this fucking bloody earth could he be a “conservative?” He’s yet another convert who, like so many foreigners-become-citizens (especially Brits) look upon the US as the greatest country in the universe. He is blinded by some notion that the U.S. is a wonderful place.

I have always asked this question:

How is it that anyone who is female, a minority, disabled, gay, middle/working class, educated or just plain different can be a conservative/republican? This is a total and utter mystery to me.

Report this

By reynolds, May 11, 2010 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

fuck you

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, May 11, 2010 at 7:02 am Link to this comment

reynolds:
What the hell are you talking about? Make your posts a little more coherent before you push the submit button.

Report this

By reynolds, May 11, 2010 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

“I’m surprised Mr. Sullivan would be such a jerk about
this, being a gay man himself.”
indeed, he’d better watch his step or they, those
people, will revoke his membership in the club where
otherwise all the members think, speak, act and walk as
one. because those people are all alike, acting only to
further their AGENDA. right?

Report this

By reynolds, May 11, 2010 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

“preferential treatment to gays” is code for equal
treatment according to law. yeah, the prospect of an
honest, impartial court is a huge threat, and
likely.
mindless slaughter, certain civil war in afghanistan
and iraq- which would have happened without we
rushed in to put our imprimatur on both-
institutional financial legerdemain laying ruin to
families everywhere, not so much. but bar the damn
door should someone be granted their certain,
inalienable rights.
candidates should be banned from campuses and almost
everywhere else, especially the offices they seek.
god forbid that social norms be violated. what next,
equality in public accommodations? black folk on tv?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, May 11, 2010 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

And her sexual orientation is important because…??

Does Sullivan hope that if she is gay, she’ll give preferential treatment to gays?

I worry more about her anti-military positions. The military, whether you like it or not, is a vital American institution, like the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court itself. Her position against military recruitment on campuses is akin to having a position against candidates giving campaign speeches on campuses.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 11, 2010 at 1:22 am Link to this comment

Well ,  she was on Goldman-Sachs payroll, what else
does anyone need to know?????

Report this

By chuckchuck, May 11, 2010 at 12:53 am Link to this comment

I’m more concerned about her position on other issues such as rights of corporations or civil rights. Frankly, I’m surprised Mr. Sullivan would be such a jerk about this, being a gay man himself.

Report this

By Lance, May 10, 2010 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m beginning to develop a deep loathing for this administration.  Anyone with half a brain could have anticipated that the Right Wing Mean Machine would come up with a campaign like this.  One would think that supposedly seasoned pros in the White House, with weeks to develop a response, would be ready.  And yet what they’ve said instead is “Oh…OK, sure.  Let’s talk about this for as long as you like, guys.”

Did they learn nothing from the health care “debate.”  Nothing from the Swift boaters?

Are they educable on ANY score?

Politically inept, and morally bankrupt.

Some alternative responses might have been:

“In the first place, sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether an individual is qualified to be a USSC justice.  In the second place…there is no second place.”

“Well.  You got us there.  In fact, our objective is to pack the USSC with justices who will see that bigotry in all its forms, including sexual bigotry, is erased from the face of this country.  If you don’t like that, go live with the Taliban.  You’ll fit right in.”

Or how about a straight forward “We invite all Americans to watch the spectacle of bigoted, fear-mongering Republican, conservative shit-slinging unfold again.”

But no - “She isn’t gay.”  Great.  We’ll watch the Republicans work this for a few weeks until she finally withdraws her own name.

Meanwhile, American Gays and Lesbians will watch as Republicans treat them like garbage, and this White House - AGAIN - won’t do a goddamned thing to stand up for them.

Barack Obama is hopelessly inept and spineless.

Report this

By Medicine Crown, May 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m not bothered that she might be gay. I’m only worried that she might be to being gay what Clarence Thomas is to being black.

Report this

By Beltwaylaid, May 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All I could find on-line is that she is 50 y.o., never
married and childless.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.