Elena Kagan
I've been quiet about Obama's supreme court pick, and overall I'm going to remain so. The big reason is I see Ms. Kagan, like Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as the best possible picks we'll ever get from this president. I would be pleased if it turns out she's gay. I've heard many sources that claim she is, The White House (which as it was under Bush is an anti-gay branch of the government) wants her not to be:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505658.html
It does appear that if she is gay, she is cosseted...and frankly if she's straight, its just the same. That's a little sad, as one's sexuality isn't just the act of bumping uglies, its something far greater and far-reaching. I don't talk about how I do the deed on this blog, or in public, but I do talk about my wife and our relationship as its a HUGE part of my life, and it defines my sexuality.
Still I know President Obama will not nominate somebody like Alan Gura, or Eugene Volokh, so I'm going to be realistic. I DO know that if they weren't dead President Obama would consider Leon Trotsky, or Pol Pot.
What we have is a woman with even less judicial experience of Justice Sotomayor, and one who has always been enveloped in Liberal Enclaves like Cambridge, New York, and Chicago, and steeped in the political monoculture that is the Ivy League. I see this as an advantage, as I speculate neither of the new Court picks may be very vocal on their opinions when confronted by educated dissent. This is something I see very commonly in Massachusetts liberals. Its more of a religion to them than an Ideology. They were raised liberal, all their friends are liberal, and when they talk politics at high-brow dinner parties every head in earshot nods.
You can see the range of this political isolationism with the bashing of the tea party. Now I'm not friend of the tea party myself. I think they come off as rank hypocrites for criticizing President Obama for simply continuing polices enacted by President Bush. Also this open ignorance of the Bush administration also taints the fact that they seem to be exclusively supporting Republicans. Sometimes they are supporting Republicans aligned with their views, but other times I think they appear blind.
But that's a rational, reasoned admonishment. That's NOT what we hear from the left. We hear "Racits!" "Red Necks!" "Terrorists!", "Dangerous!", and "Klansmen", among other smears. There is no support for this, nor is it rational...nor does it matter, if the only people you talk to are other Liberal Yuppies at high-brown dinner parties, and you avoid anybody openly conservative because they're a "Dangerous Red neck, Nazi Klansman!" or some such horseshit.
So while I don't think she's qualified, nor would I personally pick her, I also know that President Obama could pick a whole lot worse for the country, so I hope she gets seated.
Also I'll point out there have been more than a few surprises for justices appointed and ruling on cases in a manor that could be seen as in opposition to the administration that appointed them.
Thems are my thoughts.
Arrrrr
-Weer'd Beard
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505658.html
It does appear that if she is gay, she is cosseted...and frankly if she's straight, its just the same. That's a little sad, as one's sexuality isn't just the act of bumping uglies, its something far greater and far-reaching. I don't talk about how I do the deed on this blog, or in public, but I do talk about my wife and our relationship as its a HUGE part of my life, and it defines my sexuality.
Still I know President Obama will not nominate somebody like Alan Gura, or Eugene Volokh, so I'm going to be realistic. I DO know that if they weren't dead President Obama would consider Leon Trotsky, or Pol Pot.
What we have is a woman with even less judicial experience of Justice Sotomayor, and one who has always been enveloped in Liberal Enclaves like Cambridge, New York, and Chicago, and steeped in the political monoculture that is the Ivy League. I see this as an advantage, as I speculate neither of the new Court picks may be very vocal on their opinions when confronted by educated dissent. This is something I see very commonly in Massachusetts liberals. Its more of a religion to them than an Ideology. They were raised liberal, all their friends are liberal, and when they talk politics at high-brow dinner parties every head in earshot nods.
You can see the range of this political isolationism with the bashing of the tea party. Now I'm not friend of the tea party myself. I think they come off as rank hypocrites for criticizing President Obama for simply continuing polices enacted by President Bush. Also this open ignorance of the Bush administration also taints the fact that they seem to be exclusively supporting Republicans. Sometimes they are supporting Republicans aligned with their views, but other times I think they appear blind.
But that's a rational, reasoned admonishment. That's NOT what we hear from the left. We hear "Racits!" "Red Necks!" "Terrorists!", "Dangerous!", and "Klansmen", among other smears. There is no support for this, nor is it rational...nor does it matter, if the only people you talk to are other Liberal Yuppies at high-brown dinner parties, and you avoid anybody openly conservative because they're a "Dangerous Red neck, Nazi Klansman!" or some such horseshit.
So while I don't think she's qualified, nor would I personally pick her, I also know that President Obama could pick a whole lot worse for the country, so I hope she gets seated.
Also I'll point out there have been more than a few surprises for justices appointed and ruling on cases in a manor that could be seen as in opposition to the administration that appointed them.
Thems are my thoughts.
Arrrrr
-Weer'd Beard