One aspect of the upcoming Presidential election that has received little attention is the subject of the Supreme Court.
And why shouldn't this topic be getting short shrift? After all, we'd apparently rather argue over who has released more tax returns, or at least that's what your Obamaniac American Press would have you believe really counts, notwithstanding the debate over whether this or that act of Muslim fundaMENTAList murder is terrorism or not, our government deciding to harass and censor a citizen to appease the Arab Street, or celebrating yet another successful Obamatard appearance on Letterman. We're kinda busy, you know, debating the important stuff, and the Supreme Court is about 10,546th on our list.
Or at least it's that low on the media's list.
Showing posts with label Kagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kagan. Show all posts
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Friday, May 14, 2010
Does it Really Matter if Elena Kagan is Gay?
Well, it apparently does to some people, and more to some than to others. The Bible Thumpers care if everyone is Gay because, well, the Rapture won't happen until all the sinners have been stoned to death. Gay folks care if she is because the more Gay People in High Places the better they feel about themselves. Democrats care because they practice Divide-and-Conquer politics, and it's an important symbol of their winning fight to destroy America from Within when one of their favored victim classes (finally!) gets the chance to stick it to the White Males.
I really couldn't care less. However, when I pointed out the other day that she was yet another in a seemingly-endless line of potentially-deadly lesbians wielding State Power, I was quickly taken to task by a reader who insisted that since Kagan hasn't "come out, if indeed she is Gay. She could, for all you know, be Straight", then I shouldn't make assumptions about her sexual preferences. She just might be that other rara avis; the potentially-deadly, but straight, Liberal woman wielding State Power. Think Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi -- only with a lifetime appointment.
I look at Elena Kagan and my Gaydar tingles (I'll bet that's the first and only time you ever see the words "tingle" and "Elena Kagan" ever used in the same sentence!). I'm not exactly a certified expert on Gayness, but I've been associated with enough homosexuals (of all persuasions), that I'm fairly confident that I can pick a bull dyke out of a crowded room with about 98% certainty. Even a closet one. It's a legacy of my time on Wall Street, where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting enough homosexuals to start a volleyball team.
Do I care if she likes women? No. Do I care if she's allergic to penis? No. Will it affect my life in any meaningful way? Probably not. Her gayness is not an issue to me -- it's only when that gayness is allied to politics that it begins to matter.
The concept of "Gay Rights" has, much like the earlier African-American-centered Civil Rights movement, has quickly morphed from being concerned with equal protection and opportunity, to attempting to make Gays a legally-protected species. Like bald eagles. It's not about Equal Rights for All -- it's about creating Additional Rights for Gays,, over-and-above those granted to all other citizens. In that regard, then Elena Kagan's sexuality does, indeed, matter, if only because one might assume that she's sympathetic to the cause of ensuring gay individuals have extra-Constitutional rights bestowed upon them.
Some gay folks would contend that it's not all about elevating Gay-over-Straight as much as it is a recognition, in law, of a homo's basic humanity. Fair enough. I can see your point. However, I've been associated with many a Gay for whom any activity at all, political or not, isn't about their Basic Humanity as much as it is in displaying their complete rejection of conventional society. That rejection, in many cases, serves as the basis for many people's choice to be Gay in the first place -- because sticking safety pins through their noses, dying their hair lime green, cross-dressing and self-mutilation usually didn't get them the attention they craved in the first place, so why not go all the way and become a dues-paying member of the Rump Ranger Club?
And when that still isn't shocking and rebellious and attention-getting enough, demand the right to be Cinderella for a Day and have a storybook wedding, right?
For some of the peripheral issues surrounding Gay Marriage, the legal system already provides many remedies; living wills, the Last Will and Testament, Power or Attorney, and in something I just learned about last week (which surprised me, I must admit), some gays go through the trouble of "adopting" one another just so that their lovers can be afforded the same legal rights as a blood relative (I wonder how you go about "un-adopting" someone quickly and inexpensively after the thrill is gone?). Yeah, that's complicated, and expensive, but guess what? That's the legal system, and it's the same one the rest of us have to contend with, so there -- you got your equality.
Otherwise, the arguments for Gay Marriage are mostly economic/palliative: taking advantage of the Marriage Benefit on tax returns, Domestic Partner Laws, extension of medical benefits to Domestic Partners, not to mention a host of other legal and economic benefits involving inheritance, the Spousal Privilege, Adoption and so forth.
Those who say "It's about letting people who love one another be free to express it", well, I'm sorry, but you've lost me. You're already free to express it. You're free to pretty much do anything you please...except get married. Considering half of marriages today end in divorce, it appears that marriage may not be all it's cracked up to be. There's no official policy to oppress Gays in this country, and Political Correctness ensures that many go out of their way NOT to offend Gay Sensibilities (oxymoron, I know). If you want to see what real oppression of homosexuals looks like, take a quick trip to Riyadh, Tehran or Karachi. We just don't let you get married -- those people will kill you.
The choice, I think, is between Elena Kagan:Homosexual with an Agenda, and Elena Kagan: Dispassionate Dispenser of Justice. Nothing in her (very thin) record thus far would indicate she's a paragon of Justice, therefore, the assumption is made that she's yet another ultra-lib with a crusade to lead. If that's the case, then Elena Kagan's sexuality does, indeed,matter.
That's not to say that Gay People have no place in politics, or the highest echelons of American government. I simply mean that's it up to Elena Kagan to a) be honest and forthright, and b) to prove that her ideology and judicial philosophy is not conditioned by the possibility that she likey da vajayjay too much.
Considering the response when the Wall Street Journal posted an innocuous photo of Kagan playing softball, the refusal of the White House to answer the questions surrounding this subject, and Kagan's apparent reluctance to end the speculation, I'll bet a lung she's Gay and intends to elevate Gays to a state of privileged citizenship that will be denied the rest of us. The reason for her silence is that she's busy trying to figure out how NOT to answer direct Questions from conservatives in Congress, and yet still appear to be a reasonable and intelligent person. Those confirmation hearings will not be about a Supreme Court judge, they will be a symphony of random platitudes and evasive nonsense which the media will help try to spin into "Poor Elena Kagan is being savaged by Homophobic Republicans".
It'll be a better drama than Desperate Housewives.
So yeah, in the end (no pun intended) Elena Kagan's gayness DOES sorta matter.
I really couldn't care less. However, when I pointed out the other day that she was yet another in a seemingly-endless line of potentially-deadly lesbians wielding State Power, I was quickly taken to task by a reader who insisted that since Kagan hasn't "come out, if indeed she is Gay. She could, for all you know, be Straight", then I shouldn't make assumptions about her sexual preferences. She just might be that other rara avis; the potentially-deadly, but straight, Liberal woman wielding State Power. Think Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi -- only with a lifetime appointment.
I look at Elena Kagan and my Gaydar tingles (I'll bet that's the first and only time you ever see the words "tingle" and "Elena Kagan" ever used in the same sentence!). I'm not exactly a certified expert on Gayness, but I've been associated with enough homosexuals (of all persuasions), that I'm fairly confident that I can pick a bull dyke out of a crowded room with about 98% certainty. Even a closet one. It's a legacy of my time on Wall Street, where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting enough homosexuals to start a volleyball team.
Do I care if she likes women? No. Do I care if she's allergic to penis? No. Will it affect my life in any meaningful way? Probably not. Her gayness is not an issue to me -- it's only when that gayness is allied to politics that it begins to matter.
The concept of "Gay Rights" has, much like the earlier African-American-centered Civil Rights movement, has quickly morphed from being concerned with equal protection and opportunity, to attempting to make Gays a legally-protected species. Like bald eagles. It's not about Equal Rights for All -- it's about creating Additional Rights for Gays,, over-and-above those granted to all other citizens. In that regard, then Elena Kagan's sexuality does, indeed, matter, if only because one might assume that she's sympathetic to the cause of ensuring gay individuals have extra-Constitutional rights bestowed upon them.
Some gay folks would contend that it's not all about elevating Gay-over-Straight as much as it is a recognition, in law, of a homo's basic humanity. Fair enough. I can see your point. However, I've been associated with many a Gay for whom any activity at all, political or not, isn't about their Basic Humanity as much as it is in displaying their complete rejection of conventional society. That rejection, in many cases, serves as the basis for many people's choice to be Gay in the first place -- because sticking safety pins through their noses, dying their hair lime green, cross-dressing and self-mutilation usually didn't get them the attention they craved in the first place, so why not go all the way and become a dues-paying member of the Rump Ranger Club?
And when that still isn't shocking and rebellious and attention-getting enough, demand the right to be Cinderella for a Day and have a storybook wedding, right?
For some of the peripheral issues surrounding Gay Marriage, the legal system already provides many remedies; living wills, the Last Will and Testament, Power or Attorney, and in something I just learned about last week (which surprised me, I must admit), some gays go through the trouble of "adopting" one another just so that their lovers can be afforded the same legal rights as a blood relative (I wonder how you go about "un-adopting" someone quickly and inexpensively after the thrill is gone?). Yeah, that's complicated, and expensive, but guess what? That's the legal system, and it's the same one the rest of us have to contend with, so there -- you got your equality.
Otherwise, the arguments for Gay Marriage are mostly economic/palliative: taking advantage of the Marriage Benefit on tax returns, Domestic Partner Laws, extension of medical benefits to Domestic Partners, not to mention a host of other legal and economic benefits involving inheritance, the Spousal Privilege, Adoption and so forth.
Those who say "It's about letting people who love one another be free to express it", well, I'm sorry, but you've lost me. You're already free to express it. You're free to pretty much do anything you please...except get married. Considering half of marriages today end in divorce, it appears that marriage may not be all it's cracked up to be. There's no official policy to oppress Gays in this country, and Political Correctness ensures that many go out of their way NOT to offend Gay Sensibilities (oxymoron, I know). If you want to see what real oppression of homosexuals looks like, take a quick trip to Riyadh, Tehran or Karachi. We just don't let you get married -- those people will kill you.
The choice, I think, is between Elena Kagan:Homosexual with an Agenda, and Elena Kagan: Dispassionate Dispenser of Justice. Nothing in her (very thin) record thus far would indicate she's a paragon of Justice, therefore, the assumption is made that she's yet another ultra-lib with a crusade to lead. If that's the case, then Elena Kagan's sexuality does, indeed,matter.
That's not to say that Gay People have no place in politics, or the highest echelons of American government. I simply mean that's it up to Elena Kagan to a) be honest and forthright, and b) to prove that her ideology and judicial philosophy is not conditioned by the possibility that she likey da vajayjay too much.
Considering the response when the Wall Street Journal posted an innocuous photo of Kagan playing softball, the refusal of the White House to answer the questions surrounding this subject, and Kagan's apparent reluctance to end the speculation, I'll bet a lung she's Gay and intends to elevate Gays to a state of privileged citizenship that will be denied the rest of us. The reason for her silence is that she's busy trying to figure out how NOT to answer direct Questions from conservatives in Congress, and yet still appear to be a reasonable and intelligent person. Those confirmation hearings will not be about a Supreme Court judge, they will be a symphony of random platitudes and evasive nonsense which the media will help try to spin into "Poor Elena Kagan is being savaged by Homophobic Republicans".
It'll be a better drama than Desperate Housewives.
So yeah, in the end (no pun intended) Elena Kagan's gayness DOES sorta matter.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Reasons To Vote Against Elena Kagan...
1. Law professors seem to love her. Anything the legal profession likes, is probably bad for the rest of us. And besides; those who can, do, those that can't, teach, and those that can't even do that, work for the government.
Academics do NOT live int he real world, often. Barack Obama was a law professor (Constitutional law, wasn't it?) and he couldn't find the Constitution with both hands and a flashlight. And if he has, he obviously hasn't read it. After all, here's the man who boldly implied over the weekend that we Americans have too many options, and have too much information for him to govern in the same way that Stalin did, and to cry about it. Goddamn that First Amendment!
I rest my case.
2. Kagan has no record, to speak of. And what there is, is extremely thin gruel. Barack Obama has succeeded in finding someone even less-qualified than he is for one of the most powerful positions in the United States Government, and worse, a position where she will be ensconced -- even becoming an institution, perhaps -- before her career is over. Obama will be gone, eventually, but his "legacy" of Sotomayor, and now potentially, Kagan, will continue to haunt and torture us for a very long time.
3. Obama really had to sell her at the Presser yesterday. He was pulling out all the stops, and his Teleprompter almost overloaded on adjectives of praise. If you have to try that hard, then she's probably not all that good to begin with. You're trying to shine a turd, As soon as Obama had to mention that Kagan represented a certain "diversity" on the court, I gagged. If anything, Kagan seems to represent more of the Ginsburg/Sotomayor school of using the court to advance liberal and identity politics that cannot be carried by electoral processes, although I have to admit this is more about a feeling than actual fact. I can't actually prove that she would be just another pro-Libtard/Anti-America vote.
Going back to the praise thing, Obama alluded to the fact that Kagan was friendly with Thurgood Marshall, burnishing her Extra-Legal-Rights-And-Reparations-For-Blacks...ooops...I mean, Civil Rights cred. He gave us the usual Americana story of the child of immigrants -- wasn't Sotomayor the child of immigrants, too? -- making good against apparently insurmountable odds(we love that shit). Because, you know, in today's America where immigrants are in danger of being put into Concentration Camps, it's amazing that the chld of an immigrant achieves anything at all. And then he praised her for making the "commitment" to choose "service above money" in her legal career.
Like "Dean of Harvard Law School" pays minimum wage? And besides; considering what the Best and Brightest that The Ivy can produce have done to us in the last 12-20 years, that's perhaps not the vaunted position it probably once was. The inference that Kagan was "superior" for having chosen government over profit, is almost a fetish with Obama. He's deeply delusional in this way, and it's always used to take another swipe at Wall Street and Evil Capitalism; she could have been a corporate attorney and made a shitload of money, but she chose government "service" and teaching, instead. She's better then Them, and by Association, so am I, Obama. Actually, it's probably more like government service and teaching chose her; the reason she didn't make all that Wall Street money is that she probably wasn't a very talented lawyer. Again, those who can, do...
Oh, and then Obama mentioned Campaign Finance Reform and Corporate contributions, the very thing he lost out on in the Court a few months ago. The hint was that Kagan would probably reverse the decision that would have cost Obama millions in contributions (and probably the presidency) had the Court made the same decision earlier. Of course, Obama got the most money from Goldman-Sachs and British Petroleum, so people in glass houses and all that. When Obama is getting their money -- and can keep it a secret -- then Capitalists are mighty fine people, indeed.
When you have to slather it on that thickly, hoping, praying that some of it sticks, you're probably trying to sell lemons.
That press conference yesterday was enough to make me vomit. That alone would cause me to vote "No!" on Elena Kagan if I were in a position to do so.
Academics do NOT live int he real world, often. Barack Obama was a law professor (Constitutional law, wasn't it?) and he couldn't find the Constitution with both hands and a flashlight. And if he has, he obviously hasn't read it. After all, here's the man who boldly implied over the weekend that we Americans have too many options, and have too much information for him to govern in the same way that Stalin did, and to cry about it. Goddamn that First Amendment!
I rest my case.
2. Kagan has no record, to speak of. And what there is, is extremely thin gruel. Barack Obama has succeeded in finding someone even less-qualified than he is for one of the most powerful positions in the United States Government, and worse, a position where she will be ensconced -- even becoming an institution, perhaps -- before her career is over. Obama will be gone, eventually, but his "legacy" of Sotomayor, and now potentially, Kagan, will continue to haunt and torture us for a very long time.
3. Obama really had to sell her at the Presser yesterday. He was pulling out all the stops, and his Teleprompter almost overloaded on adjectives of praise. If you have to try that hard, then she's probably not all that good to begin with. You're trying to shine a turd, As soon as Obama had to mention that Kagan represented a certain "diversity" on the court, I gagged. If anything, Kagan seems to represent more of the Ginsburg/Sotomayor school of using the court to advance liberal and identity politics that cannot be carried by electoral processes, although I have to admit this is more about a feeling than actual fact. I can't actually prove that she would be just another pro-Libtard/Anti-America vote.
Going back to the praise thing, Obama alluded to the fact that Kagan was friendly with Thurgood Marshall, burnishing her Extra-Legal-Rights-And-Reparations-For-Blacks...ooops...I mean, Civil Rights cred. He gave us the usual Americana story of the child of immigrants -- wasn't Sotomayor the child of immigrants, too? -- making good against apparently insurmountable odds(we love that shit). Because, you know, in today's America where immigrants are in danger of being put into Concentration Camps, it's amazing that the chld of an immigrant achieves anything at all. And then he praised her for making the "commitment" to choose "service above money" in her legal career.
Like "Dean of Harvard Law School" pays minimum wage? And besides; considering what the Best and Brightest that The Ivy can produce have done to us in the last 12-20 years, that's perhaps not the vaunted position it probably once was. The inference that Kagan was "superior" for having chosen government over profit, is almost a fetish with Obama. He's deeply delusional in this way, and it's always used to take another swipe at Wall Street and Evil Capitalism; she could have been a corporate attorney and made a shitload of money, but she chose government "service" and teaching, instead. She's better then Them, and by Association, so am I, Obama. Actually, it's probably more like government service and teaching chose her; the reason she didn't make all that Wall Street money is that she probably wasn't a very talented lawyer. Again, those who can, do...
Oh, and then Obama mentioned Campaign Finance Reform and Corporate contributions, the very thing he lost out on in the Court a few months ago. The hint was that Kagan would probably reverse the decision that would have cost Obama millions in contributions (and probably the presidency) had the Court made the same decision earlier. Of course, Obama got the most money from Goldman-Sachs and British Petroleum, so people in glass houses and all that. When Obama is getting their money -- and can keep it a secret -- then Capitalists are mighty fine people, indeed.
When you have to slather it on that thickly, hoping, praying that some of it sticks, you're probably trying to sell lemons.
That press conference yesterday was enough to make me vomit. That alone would cause me to vote "No!" on Elena Kagan if I were in a position to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)