|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
Supreme Court Justice in Comfortable Shoes?Posted on May 10, 2010
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.”
Advertisement Previous item: Iraq Election Victor Fears Sectarian War Next item: New Mideast Peace Talks Already on the Rocks New and Improved CommentsIf 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 thisBy 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
Report thisof one, sure don’t understand the concept.
By mrfreeze, May 11, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment
I understand it very well, thanks for your concern.
Report thisBy 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 thisBy rico, suave, May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am Link to this comment
mrfreeze:
Report thisMaybe you don’t understand conservatism.
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 thisBy reynolds, May 11, 2010 at 8:18 am Link to this comment
fuck you
Report thisBy rico, suave, May 11, 2010 at 7:02 am Link to this comment
reynolds:
Report thisWhat the hell are you talking about? Make your posts a little more coherent before you push the submit button.
By reynolds, May 11, 2010 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
“I’m surprised Mr. Sullivan would be such a jerk about
Report thisthis, 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?
By reynolds, May 11, 2010 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
“preferential treatment to gays” is code for equal
Report thistreatment 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?
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 thisBy ofersince72, May 11, 2010 at 1:22 am Link to this comment
Well , she was on Goldman-Sachs payroll, what else
Report thisdoes anyone need to know?????
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 thisBy 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 thisBy 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 thisBy 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
Report thismarried and childless.