Elena Kagan

David Brooks sees a perfect student on the perfect stealth career path:

About a decade ago, one began to notice a profusion of Organization Kids at elite college campuses. These were bright students who had been formed by the meritocratic system placed in front of them. They had great grades, perfect teacher recommendations, broad extracurricular interests, admirable self-confidence and winning personalities.

If they had any flaw, it was that they often had a professional and strategic attitude toward life. They were not intellectual risk-takers. They regarded professors as bosses to be pleased rather than authorities to be challenged. As one admissions director told me at the time, they were prudential rather than poetic.

If you listen to people talk about Elena Kagan, it is striking how closely their descriptions hew to this personality type.

She keeps everything close to the chest:

One scans her public speeches looking for a strong opinion, and one comes up empty.

...

What we have is a person whose career has dovetailed with the incentives presented by the confirmation system, a system that punishes creativity and rewards caginess. Arguments are already being made for and against her nomination, but most of this is speculation because she has been too careful to let her actual positions leak out.

There’s about to be a backlash against the Ivy League lock on the court. I have to confess my first impression of Kagan is a lot like my first impression of many Organization Kids. She seems to be smart, impressive and honest — and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.

And speaking of her focus on image management, Andrew Sullivan defends his evolving view on closeted and de-closeted gays.  I have to take his side here - whatever Sullivan may have thought in 1991 has surely been overtaken by subsequent cultural shifts.

I also agree with him that the idea that she is entitled to simultaneously keep her sexuality a secret while pursuing a lifetime appointment to our highest court is daft.  Geez, who's Obama's next pick, Greta Garbo?  If Ms. Kagan wants to preserve her privacy, she shouldn't seek such public positions.

Let's wave in Joe Conason for the "Don't Ask" side:

According to Andrew Sullivan, "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," although precisely how the orientation will affect the judgment he cannot tell us. But even if Sullivan's reasoning is weak...

Uh huh.  Yet Obama has repeatedly emphasized the importance of biography and life experience, both in voting against Roberts and nominating Sotomayor.  Any number of libs (presumably including Conason) believe that, for example, a black brings a different perspective to the court. Yet now it is weak reasoning to suspect that a closeted gay judge would have distinctive views on one topic or another?  

Let's think out loud here - suppose Ms. Kagan is in fact gay (we've heard the rumors, but who knows?).  Why is she keeping quiet?  Well, maybe she thinks that outing herself will close various professional doors (I have heard the rumor that her orientation cost her the Harvard Presidency.)

So that suggests her thought process is what - 30% of Americans will never accept me as a judge, so I will just lie to them?  For the next forty years?  And neither the National Enquirer nor anyone else will out me?

Please - the Supreme Court won't need the sort of crisis of legitimacy that would ensue if she misrepresents her sexuality, is seated, and is then outed.  The message that sends is deplorable.  And by the way, if she really does believe that she will never be accepted by an important slice of the public, that reveals a great deal about her.  If she doesn't trust the American people, why should we trust her?  And did Thurgood Marshall figure that since there were bigots who would never accept a black judge it would be better if he did something else?

OK, let's re-think this: maybe she has no intention of lying (she hasn't yet), and is simply hoping no one will ask.  That might work - I assume the left is gearing up to denounce as a bitter homophobe anyone, including Andrew Sullivan, who does ask.  As Sully noted, the NY Times is not even going to admit that there is an issue.  As members of the liberal elite, the Times is quite comfortable keeping certain types of secrets from the Great Unwashed.

This ongoing secrecy creates its own problems, since a person with a something to hide is a person susceptible to pressure.  I suspect Ms.Kagan's "secret" is a somewhat well known in Harvard Law circles.  So wouldn't that that create an opportunity for aggressive attorneys (pardon my redundancy) to gain a bit of an inside track with business before the Supreme Court?

I assume it won't be anything as crude as "Vote our way now or you're outed" blackmail.  I picture something like this: "Hello, Elena, I just saw [ex-secret lover's name] last week and she says hello.  And I do hope you will take a long look at our very careful and well-reasoned brief requesting a Supreme Court review of our appeal.  I'm sure you'll find our arguments compelling..."  And she will get the hint.

That can't happen?  Or she would have reviewed their brief anyway?  Well, maybe the appearance of impropriety at the Supreme Court will never develop.  Maybe! 

So where this is headed, if Ms. Kagan is confirmed while closeted?  She will spend forty years handing down gay-friendly rulings most (or hopefully, all) of which are utterly unobjectionable to conventional liberals.  And we will have to spend forty years with the media studiously ignoring her orientation and pretending that her being gay has nothing to do with her decisions.  And that view will be eminently defensible, since plenty of straight liberals would have reached the same decisions. 

But it will still be forty years of BS and forty years of the liberal elites keeping secrets because the rest of us can't be trusted with the truth and forty years of people muttering that judges can crawl all over our lives but we can't talk about judges.  This is not a great way to run a democracy.

My guess - her hearing won't normally be for eight weeks, which is several forevers in media time.  The Administration will hope she gets outed before then, and may even give the process a nudge.  I don't see the Senators wanting to let this hearing turn into a circus, but I don't see them all agreeing to duck this, either.  So the bombshell will be defused before the hearings.

But my other guess is that Team Obama can't possibly want to ignite a culture war the summer before the election.  Their current position is a mix of "Trust us" and "You rubes can't handle the truth".  That strikes me as unsustainable.  But is "She's gay, get over it" the winning ticket for the Dems?  Especially when, if the revelation follows two or three weeks of tooth-pulling, it will come off as, "She's gay, get over it you bigoted homophobes!  We were only blowing smoke for your own good!"?

OK, I'm baffled but not undecided!  My Bold Prediction - Ms. Kagan is either outed or out before she gets to the hearings.  Her withdrawal announcement will be awkward, since she can't say she wants more time with her family.  But we won't start her hearings with this issue unresolved.

LEST I FORGET:  Eugene Volokh praises her scholarship, which is encouraging.

UNCONVINCING!  From Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones:

The weird thing about all of this was astutely pointed out by one of Sullivan's commenters, who noted that the ever cautious, drama-free Obama would be uncharacteristically stupid to lie about something so easily discoverable as whom Kagan has slept with.

Right, because Obama has never lied about anything that could easily be discovered by our watchdog press.  For another view, I'll open the bidding with his Bill Ayers entanglement.   The original story was that Ayers and Obama had kids in the same school; later Ayers was just a guy from the neighborhood, then a guy Obama had met when Ayers hosted Obama's first fund-raiser and political coming-out.  Eventually (and these were not state secrets) we learned that Obama and Ayers were working together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge prior to the fundraiser.  Obama had probably been hand-picked by Ayers based on a previous relationship, but the official story has not yet unraveled to that point yet.  And, not by coincidence, no one at the NY Times or Mother Jones has any interest in establishing the actual truth, as opposed to ObamaTruth.

I wouldn't be shocked if the White House vetters just never considered the question of Kagan's sexuality to be appropriate (although if Rahm was involved it's hard to see him being shy...). And I am sure Obama figures he can bully the press into silence on this one; so far, he has the NY Times so cowed they won't even mention the rumor, let alone the denials.

And speaking of those White House denials, here is the Kurtz column airing them.  Here we go - first, we hear from Anonymous Source:

An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

Compelling!  Then Anita Dunn, not officially with the White House:

CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

And Ben LaBolt, who is with the White House:

A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column "made false charges."

If the "No, she isn't" story changes the only White House official who might be poised for a ride under the bus is LaBolt, who can claim he was misinformed.  Or is there wiggle room there?  Maybe "Not a lesbian" means she has a bisexual history.  In any case, there is nothing here from Obama.

And how does Ms. Mencimer characterize these denials?  She calls them "unambiguous statements from the administration that Elena Kagan is most definitely straight."  Well, maybe she has different statement in mind; if she could provide a link that would be lovely.

This will be our media in action, saving the judge from the Great Unwashed.

TO WHICH I SHOULD ADD:  If Ms. Kagan is gay and out, good for her.  We appointed black judges with complete confidence that they would be asked to judge civil rights related cases, that they might bring a special perspective, and that their might be some bigots deeply opposed to their presence on the court.  Obviously, having a stealth black candidate who refused to address the question of his race is hard to imagine, but the principal of addressing real or imagined bigotry head on should apply.

I have lost the link but some silly right wing site claimed Ms. Kagan was unqualified because she was gay.  Wrong, and I dissociate myself from their remarks.  (Geez, I am like Johnny Profile in Courage, repudiating comments I can't even find or link to...  Developing!)

However, I am not interested in enduring forty years of a liberal media tap dance.

All that said, if she is not gay, I really don't know how she will prove it.  No videotape, please!  This is the sort of problem that could have been resolved back in the day when we had a trusted media or some trusted politicians who could look us in the eye and expect to be believed when they vouched for her.  Oh, well.

INSHALLAH:  From AllahPundit:

If identity’s that important to judicial philosophy in the liberal imagination, then by Obama’s own standards, Kagan’s identity should be fair game. Problem is, as fun as it’d be to watch him squirm over this, to press him on it would jeopardize a moment when most of the right and left seem prepared to ignore the ambiguity about Kagan’s orientation and judge her on her qualifications. That seems like a good place for society to have reached; it ain’t “she’s here, she’s queer, get used to it,” but “she’s here, she may be queer, and it’s no big deal” ain’t beanbag. Do gay-rights supporters want to endanger that sentiment with an identity politics passion play at the hearings, replete with a Category Five media clusterfark?

I agree that the Senators will push hard to avoid a clown show at the hearings (one Thomas/Hill debacle, complete with panels of character supporters and assassins, is enough for several lifetimes), but I don't think "She's closeted, we can't talk about it in polite society for fear of riling the rubes, move on" will fly.

STILL WAITING:  Has anyone yet said that Ms. Kagan is being "swift-boated"?  Just a matter of time!  And its fine by me, since for righties, "swift-boating" basically means "swamped by inconvenient truths the liberal media would rather ignore".

Comments

[Walter]

Souter managed to avoid the issue for quite some time.

So far as I know, he has never bothered to address the issue.

Of course, by your reasoning TM, we could finally put to rest the idea that Bush I was taken in by Souter. Souter would have voted his conscience had he not been blackmailed by liberals.

[bgates]

They regarded professors as bosses to be pleased rather than authorities to be challenged.

"Which is dismaying, unless the professor's subject is law, the professor's college is as elite as my own, and the professor's pant leg is so exquisitely creased the student can imagine it would slice a ribbon of fire into his trembling palm, if only he dared to reach out and caress the Great Man...."

[daddy]

Megan Kelly on FOX News just said that Gordon Brown is resigning tonite--not waiting till September. Reason for our P'UK to smile a bit.

[matt]

stealth candidates seem to be the choice of the shadow leadership of the Democratic Party these days.

[Jack is Back!]

daddy,

Brown is out. Cameron in. The deal is done with Clegg. Found out that my father-in-law knew Clegg's father. He ran an inn or resort in Portugal.

Regarding Kagan and for that matter Obami, don't we now have a pair of stealth-noids? Both have no experience, basic paper trails (except those that are questionable), gaps in their resume and life experience, marxist-socialist tendencies, ivy league arrogance and in Kagan's case, from her arguments before the Supremes, a not very bright lawyer (much like Obami himself - they both misunderstood and got Citizens United wrong).

Maybe they were separated at birth.

[Jack is Back!]

daddy,

My wife has just informed me I got the Clegg connection wrong. My father-in-law knew Clegg's dad from meeting him at an International Monetary Commission meeting in a resort in Portugal. He was the head of United Trust Bank in the UK.

[Kh]

SAINT-JUDE, Que.

[Danube of Thought]

I predict that she won't lie.

[Neo]

My wife, who tries her best to be apolitical, asked me today if I thought Kagan was gay.
Trust me .. if she is asking me this, this is most definitely being asked around thousands of watercoolers out there.

[bgates]

it will still be forty years of BS and forty years of the liberal elites keeping secrets

I don't think they can do that any more. Too many camera phones are out there.

[Thomas Collins]

Brooks's comments on Organization Kids reminds me of the LUNed song.

[Clarice]

How big was the pool of possible nominees? Not large says this wit who says in effect the admissions offices at Yale and Harvard law school are picking out Justices.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-obamas-inevitable-court-choice-shes-harvard/>1 in a 1,000

[daddy]

Obama last night praised Kagan as "brilliant, and a great leader", so I think we can all take that to the Bankruptcy.

[BJH]

Maybe he needs a wise lesbian to go with the wise latina? I hear they travel in pairs.

[Clarice]

Mother Jones notes there's not a scintilla of proof behind the charge and that it's regularly been made by against all unmarried powerful (and I'd add not terribly attractive or feminine) women.

[bgates]

Clarice, the oddsmaker at your link lost me with this:

According to Harvard Law School, 6 percent of current law students are foreign citizens. Assuming that proportion has been consistent over time at both Harvard and Yale, that would cut our Supreme-Court-eligible pool

Surely he's not suggesting it would be proper to check whether someone meets the Constitutional requirements for a high office.

[Bill Peschel]

Perhaps they can ask her instead about the ethics of shielding Harvard law professors caught plagiarising.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0510/kagan_blemish_gahr.php3

[Joe Blow]

There is some irony in a supreme court nominee willing to break the law to oppose "don't ask, don't tell," but then expecting the public to strictly observe the rule w/r/t herself.

For myself, I don't give a crap who she sleeps with and I think it's great that most conservatives and libertarians I know don't care either. It's her lefty take on legal interpretive methods that bothers me and most people of like mind in my circule of friends.

[Appalled]

If the gay question is asked, Kagan should answer it honestly, using one word of one syllable. And then she should refuse to discuss any follow up questions.

A person's sex life is usually not public's business. Even when said person insisists on making it the public's business. (It only becomes public business when we have marriages like the Edwards one -- where part of the sales pitch is the happy marriage with the perfect hair.)

[bgates]

I've read that Kagan's confirmation would mean a Protestant-free Supreme Court, but think about this - Pelosi is nominally Catholic, Reid is nominally Mormon, and of course Obama is a crypto-Muslim (kidding - he's an autolatriator).

I feel so disenfranchised.

[Janet]

Mother Jones notes there's not a scintilla of proof behind the charge and that it's regularly been made by against all unmarried powerful (and I'd add not terribly attractive or feminine) women.

This rings true. Maybe she just doesn't care about sex as the #1, shout it from the rooftops 24/7, most important thing in her life. If so, then it is a good thing. Although you could never tell from our culture, there are more important things than sex.

[Danube of Thought]

A pity if this stuff forces her out, and instead we get Diane Wood.

If you're hoping for Richard Posner or Alex Kozinski, get real.

[bgates]

there's not a scintilla of proof behind the charge

Can people be "charged" with something that's not a crime?

I guess given the existence of upcoming offenses like "having insufficiently broad health insurance" or "driving a car without an offset", the answer to my question is "si, se puede". But for homosexuality - "charge"?

[Clarice]

Claim then bgates, you wiseass.

[ignatz]

I suspect Sullivan's real interest in all this is determining whether Kagan was in fact Trig's surrogate mother.

[BB Key]

They will stonewall for eight weeks and she will out herself during her opening statement

The media and the left will swoon and then dare the senate to not confirm her....

[bgates]

Claim then bgates, you wiseass.

I would hope that a wiseass with the richness of his experiences would more often than not choose a better word than a Jewish lady who hasn't lived that life.

[Captain Hate]

But even if Sullivan's reasoning is weak...

I can't think of any sentence fragment that more effectively illustrates the complete lack of intelligence of Joe Conason.

[Old Lurker]

Jack: "My wife has just informed me I got the Clegg connection wrong..."

JiB, what's really scary about that is you let your spouse read JOM??? Say it ain't so!

[Mustang0302]

There is some irony in a supreme court nominee willing to break the law to oppose "don't ask, don't tell," but then expecting the public to strictly observe the rule w/r/t herself.

Bullseye.

[jimmyk]

I can't believe she'll b e asked point blank. On more substantive issues, I see no evidence that her "moderation" has ever been anything but political expedience, much like the man who nominated her.

[Francis W. Porretto]

Conservatives, having accepted that homosexuality ought not to be a crime, nevertheless prefer to keep talk of one's orientation private. We're as okay with homosexuality as we are with heterosexuality, as long as whatever you do is done in private where it won't frighten the horses. Having taken that position, the only consistent path to follow is to treat Elena Kagan's orientation as her business and no one else's.

Might Kagan's sexual preference affect her judgment? Who knows? Might yours? Don't we heterosexuals have a saying about "thinking with the little head?" But there's nothing to be done about it. At this time, there are no known jurists of any prominence who are completely asexual and willing to prove it under laboratory conditions. Besides, how could anyone predict what sort of biases would come from that orientation?

[Mustang0302]

I would hope that a wiseass with the richness of his experiences would more often than not choose a better word than a Jewish lady who hasn't lived that life.

Objection! Assumes fact not in evidence!

[Clarice]

Mustang, I'll have to think about that one..Hmm
bgates *THWACK*

[Mustang0302]

Ouch, clarice! I was referring to Kagan!!

[Jack is Back!]

OL,

Nah, I just told her that I noted "your Dad knowing Clegg's dad because he stayed at his inn in Portugal". She then rolled her eyes, laughed at me in her Flemish way and then then straightened me out.

Her Dad was a big time international banker (friend of Paul Volkers) and just shakes his head when you mention our debt, entitlements, dependency governments, etc. He thought Obama would be a great President since he had his old friend Volker as his advisor but know nows he was wall paper only.

[Jane]

HI GUYS,

I'm about to send Glenn Reynolds an email. Two busloads of us left Portugal this AM for Spain. One bus (the other one) was stopped by police and detained. The passengers were finally let off with police escort, but the bus has not been allowed to bring them back. We are hoping for sometime tonite.

[Walter]

DoT,

Has Easterbrook been on anyone's short list?

Kozinski has removed himself from pretty much every list with his computer mishaps a few years ago. Gawker even dug up an alleged picture of his "cow porn"* last week to illustrate the HLS email controversy.
______________
*Seriously.

[Jack is Back!]

Jane,

Its 9:43 pm in Portugal. Who stopped the bus Portuguese or Spanish police? And was the bus - tourists only or locals?

OT:

Looking for something different in the exercise department?

[Jane]

It's 8;49 in portugal and 9;49 in Spain. Spanish police stopped the bus and it was full of Americans

[Thomas Collins]

Are you in contact with the US Embassy in Spain, Jane?

[Walter Sobchak]

If you are worried by Kagan being a rug muncher, why weren't you worried about Sotomayor? I don't care that she is gay, I am perturbed that she is a liberal and only 50.

[Ranger]

There is some irony in a supreme court nominee willing to break the law to oppose "don't ask, don't tell," but then expecting the public to strictly observe the rule w/r/t herself.

Posted by: Joe Blow | May 11, 2010 at 02:24 PM

Of course, but this is coming from the same crowed who still turn a blind eyt to the "acts of edcuation" committed by Bill Ayers.

Yet this same crowd sanctimoniously warn us about potential political violance from a true grass roots opposition to the corruption and blatant disregard for public will that is happening in plain sight.

[Maverick]

I'm not sure what I think of the relevance of Kagan's sexual orientation. However, if she were an "out" gay, we would be bombarded with messages that her homosexuality was an important life experience that gave her a different perspective, i.e., that it was highly relevant. Is it only relevant if it is perceived to work in her favor rather than against her? Well, that would be consistent with voting FOR someone because she was a Latina (whether or not a "wise" one), while everyone agrees that it would be the lowest form of conduct to vote AGAINST her for the same reason.

[Jim Ryan]

I think a wise lesbian will make a better judgment than a wise Latina. But a wise Latino will make a better judgment than the Latina, but not better than the wise lesbian. No, wait, the Latina will come in better than the lesbian, but - no wait, the -

[Jane]

We got the people back. They did not get their stuff. The official excuse is that there was one tire not inflated properly. (If they were in AZ this would not have been allowed). There stuff is still missing.

We are now at war with Spain.

[PDinDetroit]

Can people be "charged" with something that's not a crime?

Sure, ask any Open Carrier of a Firearm that question. The charges do not "stick", but the LEO/Prosecutors still may try...

[Janet]

OT...gas is up to $3 a gallon here. Where are the headlines?!..the interviews with locals at gas pumps?..the rending of garments?

Oh that's right...we have a Dem. President.

[centralcal]

Good grief, Jane. This has been quite the trip for you.

It sounds like their belongings were confiscated, rather than missing?

[Chester White]

Henceforth all Supreme Court nominees must be lesbians educated at Princeton.

[Pagar]

Janet, I think they are busy making sure Obamacare will pay for this --------------Expense.

[Cecil Turner]

No, wait, the Latina will come in better than the lesbian, but - no wait, the -

This is going downhill fast. (No wait, they're still packin' . . .[stop that!], er sorry.) Tasteless jokes aside, it's clearly relevant to judicial temperament (how, exactly, is probably in the eye of the beholder).

I don't find her particularly impressive. In that oral reargument in Citizens United, she missed points I found fairly straightforward, and the FAIR amicus brief was similarly weak. Her Harvard Law tenure makes a nice resume bullet, but her signature accomplishment appears to be fundraising. In any event, there's a lot of cachet in the Harvard brand, and it's not necessarily translating to good governance.

The one thing I know about her is that she'd kick military recruiters off campus if she could get away with it. I don't know why . . . could be she's a gay partisan, anti-military, or has a strange view of equal rights. Don't care. She's not the only one, but if I were a Senator, I wouldn't vote to confirm any of them. Luckily for her, I don't think most Senators share my view of this as a disqualifier.

[bgates]

there's a lot of cachet in the Harvard brand

It's the General Motors of higher education.

Actually, that's unfair to General Motors - they haven't cost us nearly as much.

[Janet]

Yeah Pagar... I don't even have the words. Sprinting towards Gomorrah.

[Pagar]

IMO, today would be a great day for the Tea Party groups to assure every Republican Senator that a vote to approve Kagan will earn them the same treatment Sen Bennett received from the Tea Partiers. Whether their next relection campaign is in 2010, 2012, or 2014.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

"OK, let's re-think this: maybe she has no intention of lying"

Or maybe she's just a straight spinster. Or maybe, as a Brooksian majority of "one" might suggest, her singleminded pursuit of high office left little time for romance. One of my own sisters was on the other side of 40 when she married.

Are we going to ask Kagan prove her heterosexual bona fides with a list of guys she's slept? You should probably ask them under oath to confirm that they actually had sex with her, because it might just be a smokescreen arranged in advance.

Any Justice on the Bench could have a deeper, darker secret. Extra-marital affairs? A fling with someone of the opposite sex? Maybe one of them is already being blackmailed for having cheated on exams. Maybe even law school exams! After all, Clarence Thomas is "rumored" to be an affirmative action pick, and cheating is something an ambitious man would obviously lie about. I'm surprised that didn't come up in his confirmation hearing. Oh wait, the Senate was too busy asking him about sex abuse, to what must have been the obvious approval of the folks speculating that there might be someone in the wings just waiting to suborn the latest SCOTUS nominee.

"I also agree with him that the idea that she is entitled to simultaneously keep her sexuality a secret while pursuing a lifetime appointment to our highest court is daft."

Why not just trek on over to Mike Savage's website website? He couldn't have said it better himself. He's not only been saying it longer and louder than Sullivan, he's been putting his money where his mouth is for years.

Maybe Kagan is lesbian. There are plenty of homosexuals who quietly go about their business every day and don't spend their time marching in gay pride parades. Maybe they just don't want to be turned into avatars for every conceivable gay activist agenda. Maybe they don't want to be expected to defend or repudiate every gay activist sentiment that comes up -- and still be suspected of lying for political purposes -- whether they're in line for influential office or not.

Are you now, or have you ever been, associated with any gay causes, Ms. Kagan? How do you explain this sympathetic essay you wrote in High School?

Where the hell is the decency here?

[Cecil Turner]

Where the hell is the decency here?

Not buying any. We're considering a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. If she's gay and it will affect her decisions (and I am not going to be convinced it won't), then it's pertinent. Besides, according to the experts at queerty, she's already out:

As we understand it, Kagan is out, but has not commented on her sexuality for reporters.

[susan]

She's Harvard Inbred; sex is the ONLY part of pluralism she is capable of understanding.

If groupthink is smart then all Harvard suck donk dick.

[JM Hanes]

"If she's gay and it will affect her decisions (and I am not going to be convinced it won't), then it's pertinent."

Prove the negative Ms. Kagan! It can't be done, can it, Ms. Kagan? Lose/lose. Check. Not suitable for SCOTUS. Check.

[George]

Two thoughts:

1. Don't ask don't tell is horrible for the military, but good for Supreme Court nominees? Alrighty then!

2. Does anyone remember all the murmuring about whether or not Condi Rice was/is gay? I wonder if any lefty sites were bandying about with those rumors for years...

[Furniture Quest]

Elena Kagan is another great example of there being something wrong with our system for her (er.. it) to be we she's at in the first place...

[Danube of Thought]

Walter, I believe Easterbrook was on the short lists that ended up with first Roberts and then Alito being selected.

George, I think the issues are quite different as between the armed forces and judicial nominees (this was discussed on another thread).

As for Kagan, I don't care at all if she's gay. If she's asked about it and lies, it's scandalous and might subsequently be grounds for impeachment if she's confirmed (but I doubt it). I assume she'll tell the truth one way or another, but my hope is that she will decline to answer.

[bgates]

There are plenty of homosexuals who quietly go about their business every day and don't spend their time marching in gay pride parades.

That's our Elena, all right. Quietly working in the White House, quietly urging the military to violate federal law, quietly signing on to amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. And here come these nasty right-wingers trying to drag her into politics.

Maybe they don't want to be expected to defend or repudiate every gay activist sentiment that comes up

Maybe somebody who doesn't want to be expected to affirm or deny various political activist sentiments shouldn't seek a lifetime appointment as a judge.

[Cecil Turner]

Prove the negative Ms. Kagan!

Huh? Seems to me the debate above is what she'll say when asked. Not sure I noticed any calls for proof . . . and she could say "no," right?

[JM Hanes]

If Condi Rice is gay and it affected her decisions (and I am not going to be convinced it didn't) we had a right to know that. She should never have been appointed National Security Advisor and confirmed as Secretary of State, wielding unequaled influence over the President and Commander-in-Chief, with that question mark hanging over her. She was a Soviet specialist to boot, and we can all guess what that means!

Right?

[JM Hanes]

Not attaching the Soviet specialist addendum to you, Cecil.

[JM Hanes]

Cecil:

"Seems to me the debate above is what she'll say when asked."

Since you are not going to be convinced that being a lesbian won't affect her decisions, one presumes materially, I don't see how any answer but no would be acceptable to you.

[Danube of Thought]

I take it that if she says in her opening statement, "I'm gay and I will recuse myself in matters involving gay issues," that would satisfy all except those who are holding out for Bork.

[jimmyk]

I don't see why she'd have to recuse herself on matters involving gay issues, any more than a black would have to recuse himself or herself on civil rights issues. I suggested she might have to recuse herself over DADT because she publicly wrote that it was discriminatory.

[NK]

Dude,

She's a dude!

[nathan hale]

All right this conversation, 'has become tiresome,' back at the ranch, in the LUN

[Dave (in MA)]

Back off!

[Mustang0302]

nathan hale,

Breitbart, Jawa, and counting...

[Threadkiller]

She seems comfortable with a bat in her hands.

[Danube of Thought]

I don't think she'd have to either, Jimmyk. I posed a hypothetical question in an effort to sort out the various grounds for objecting to her appointment.

[Ranger]

The problem of course is that Obama want's credit for making history (nominating the first openly gay SC justice) without having to publicly take credit for doing it. The dirty little secret here is why. Obama's most solid political base is African Americans. African Americans are also very strongly opposed to much of the gay right's movement's goals (as the large percentage that voted against gay marrage in CA evidences). Hense why Obama has to be publicly on record as opposing gay marrage. If he wasn't, he would lose a lot of the 'passion' in his African American supporters.

Obama wants to keep the money flowing into the Dems from the gay rights crowd while not alaenating the African American voting block. Nice trick if he can pull it off. If not, the whole thing blows up in his face and he loses support with both.

[anduril]

God, was it really necessary for TM to do all that writing? Why not just link to Steve Sailer's IQ & Harvard Law School:

The Dean of the Harvard Law School who condemned law student Stephanie Grace's private email displaying openmindedness on the heritability of IQ differences is not the same person as the HLS Dean nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court yesterday -- Martha Minow was Elena Kagan's replacement as Dean when Kagan became Obama's Solicitor General.

It's hard to imagine, though, Dean Kagan acting less weaselly about IQgate than Dean Minow did. A Senator should ask Kagan what she thought of her successor's actions (although I doubt that will happen, since the growing tradition is to make Supreme Court nomination hearings as soporific for the public as possible).

But, where do such people as Elena Kagan come from?

Why, in her case, from a public grade school and high school!

Of course, it's a rather different kind of public school, one that you have to pass an I.Q. test to get into when you are in nursery school. From the NYT:

Tenth graders at Hunter College High School in Manhattan had a substitute teacher in their American history class on Monday for an unusual reason: Their regular teacher, Irving Kagan, was in Washington, watching his sister, Elena, accept President Obama’s nomination for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Both siblings attended Hunter, and Mr. Kagan returned to be a social studies teacher there. Their mother, Gloria, taught for years at the affiliated elementary school. So it was with a special sense of pride that students and teachers in the schools on East 94th Street welcomed the news that Ms. Kagan, the nation’s solicitor general, had risen even higher on the school’s long list of notable alumni.

Hunter College High School is highly unusual among public schools in New York City. Affiliated with Hunter College, part of the City University of New York, the high school is publicly financed and managed, but not run by the city’s Department of Education.

To attend the elementary school, children must excel on an I.Q. test and in a class observation to win one of its coveted 50 kindergarten seats. The high school starts in the seventh grade, and attracts some of the brightest students from around the city. Cram schools have popped up to help students prepare for the combined math, reading and essay test required for admission.

For those who get in, the competition does not let up. Juniors and seniors fret over a phenomenon common to high-achieving schools: Among so many outstanding students, it is hard to distinguish oneself.

Dozens of seniors this year were National Merit Scholarship Program semifinalists. “It’s like embarrassing if you aren’t a National Merit winner,” said Joseph Pearl, 16. About a third of graduates go to Ivy League schools.

Do you ever get the impression that there is a certain conflict between what elites, such as Harvard Law School deans, say about IQ and what they really believe deep down? Perhaps the witch-burning fervor they display against heretics stems from their desire to cover up their own Doubts?

[MarkO]

Kagan:

Bat at wrong angle. It should point toward the pitcher. Bat likely to be under the ball and not able to strick the ball with any force. Basically, pushing the ball if she can hit it at all. Hands to far from body. This makes for a poor swing path. Back elbow too high. This fits in perfectly with a swing that goes low to high with no power. Front elbow prevents hitting anything inside with any force. Hips already open (don't go there). Face of watch, under. A secret sign, no doubt.

Clearly a long time and many failed workouts ago.

[Clarice]

Well, I'll be discussing this in a few minutes on Rick Moran's radio show and damned if I know what I'll say.

[Danube of Thought]

Pop quiz: does anything Anduril just posted bear on the nominee's fitness for the position?

Please explain your answer...

[daddy]

Shoot, and Biden no longer available on the Confirmation Panel to mistakenly and stupidly get the Strike Zone wrong as in questioning Roberts.

And Caro and Jane been in Portugal/Spain only 4 days and almost already been in Jail twice? Man, I want to hear the real skinny on that trip!

[nathan hale]

Meanwhile, here we go again, in the LUN

[daddy]

I don't know DoT,

I quit reading at the point where he accused TM of doing too much writing in a post here at JOM.

[Pagar]

IMO, the thing to say is that anyone who has actively worked to keep military recruiters from college campuses does not deserve to be a sitting judge, at any level. No other issue matters.

[Cecil Turner]

Since you are not going to be convinced that being a lesbian won't affect her decisions, one presumes materially, I don't see how any answer but no would be acceptable to you.

Double huh? You suck at mindreading JMH. (No offense, most folks do.) The truthful answer would be perfectly acceptable.

You're correct I'm not sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for the answer. I wouldn't support her no matter what, based on her elevating DADT opposition over military recruiting. But that's a separate issue.

[hit and run]

God, was it really necessary for TM to do all that writing?

anduril,have you considered copying and pasting TM's entire post,bolding the parts that you think are most important?

[Melinda Romanoff]

heh.

[Mustang0302]

You're correct I'm not sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for the answer. I wouldn't support her no matter what, based on her elevating DADT opposition over military recruiting. But that's a separate issue.

Ditto, Cecil.

[Melinda Romanoff]

clarice-

If you just go over her CV and writings from the University of Chicago, you will come to the dame conclusion, as everyone else did, on Adjunct Instructor Obama.

Oh, wait...

[Clarice]

Mustang, Cecil--this might be interesting to you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703880304575236502953055276.html>Elena

[boris]

I wouldn't speak for Cecil because like most people I suck at mind reading ... but ISTM the issue is not that she stayed inside the same box as her peers ... but that the box is so obviously FUBAR (to use a technical military term) to anyone who has a particular view of the role of the military.

That particualr view IMO is sorta the necessary view.

[JM Hanes]

"You suck at mindreading JMH."

Willingly conceded. My last comment really was aimed at sorting out what you meant in your original reply to me. As I understand it now, you're saying (as opposed to thinking) that she ought to be asked whether or not she's gay and ought to answer ("it's pertinent"), but that neither yes nor no would make her acceptable to you -- in light of the position she took on DADT and recruiting at Harvard, a stipulation which you didn't include till your 8:11 post. Unless I just missed it.

[Mustang0302]

Second to last paragraph:

"...Timothy Noah also points out that the schools were punishing the military for a congressional statute. Why not tell recruiters for the Department of Justice and other departments of the federal government that they had to abide by the same rules as the military? Fair enough. But it's also a criticism devoid of context. Kagan was not alone in conceiving of the fight in the terms that she did. And in the end, what she did as dean is as indicative, or more, as what she said as dean."

It's OK...everybody was doing it.

[Clarice]

For the reasons set for the WSJ article I cited, I think the recruitment issue is not going to be very damaging.

[Manuel Transmission]

OT for daddy,

Just met a guy at our marina who adopted a 3-1/2 yr old girl from your adoption village in China. Because he spends a lot of time in China, he was able to find the particulars of where she came from. She was abandoned at 9 mo. in an orange grove and he found the guy that discovered her there. So he now has a story to tell when she is older. She is now 5-1/2 and he is totally blown away by how smart she is.

What a nice change from all the carp we are dealing with.

[Bill Clinton]

It's OK...everybody was doing it.

Yes!!!

See, that's exactly what I told Hillary.

Wait. Are you talking about Kagan?

::shudder::

I'm not.

But maybe Hillary was?

[Mustang0302]

You're right about that, Clarice. Doesn't change my opinion of her or of DADT.

Elections have consequences.

[Pagar]

Doug Ross gives More reasons why Elena Kagan should not be confirmed.

[centralcal]

Wonderful, Hit!!!!

Quickly checking in while my dinner finishes and you give me the best laught out loud guffaw of the day!

As Clarice would say - *smooches*.

[JM Hanes]

Via Legal Insurrection, here is the written questionnaire with Kagan's responses during the process of her confirmation as Solicitor General.

This time around, I want to see/hear her queried on the inexorable mission creep of Commerce Clause precedent, and the corresponding irrelevance of the 10th amendment.