The point about her lack of trial experience just shows how out of touch she may be with the process. And it concerns me considerably. Next we will have people nominated who just graduated from law school. smh



But if the Black women are more qualified than the nominee, then it presents a problem. And whether Kagan is truly qualified is up in the air right now. There is no hard evidence showing that she is qualified. I suspect it has more to do with her Harvard credentials.


While we should not get caught up in assuming that EVERY move is made to gain votes, it isn't that farfetched to say that these women fit that bill.


Right because that particular smiley is never used by others on this board.


No, the comments weren't contradictory. I think that some people just want to twist things.

It IS wearisome, but that's how it works in politics. Moves like this are not just made in isolation. Considerations of how this will affect future elections are a part of the decision-making process. I think we would be fooling ourselves to think otherwise. It doesn't mean that we should think that EVERY move that is made is being done with that intention, but when it comes to a SCOTUS nominee? I think it is much more likely to be the case. :)

Which to me seems like a good thing for a Judge don't you think? One who doesn't preach their personal politics to the world.

Based on.....? I swear some of you need to get out the house more.

And let's pretend she is proven to be a lesbian and even transgendered, that automatically means her nomination is an appeal to the GLTB population?

This is as ridiculous as that Cosby Show episode where the esteemed attorney Claire Huxtable was on a panel with white males and told to "wait to speak on the Black topics...(or woman topics)...."

me<--------------------- --------------------------->you

I think most people in this country want to have an idea of where a person stands on these issues. I have yet to see otherwise. I don't think that is a good thing.

Welcome to "Otherwise," population "more than you think."

And this means what exactly?

Why? Because some people think she is gay? So what?


It does not mean that automatically, but considering the gay rights issues in this country right now, it doesn't exactly seem that far off. We can play devil's advocate all day, but for what? Obama has received some criticism for a few stances he has concerning gay marriage.

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.

What Dr. Phil said.

I still haven't seen otherwise. I see someone saying otherwise, but I suspect that has more to do with just being contrary than actually feeling that way.

Neither response is required. It just is what it is: an opinion.

We're talking about two different things.

"So what" is that you think it is "obvious." Get out the house more and you will find a lot of things that challenge your traditional and rather stereotypical way of thinking.


Exactly. The devil never needed an advocate, so I really wish people would stop trying to play one.

Give your message board paranoia a rest. Seriously.

As I always say, what you eat doesn't have to make everyone else defecate. If everyday citizens don't realize that, I at least want people in higher ranking decision making capacities to realize that.

This is the dilemma of all professional women who choose their careers (consciously or not) over marriage and children. I've seen it so many times in medicine. People always assume that the unmarried professional must be a lesbian. I'm sure the lesbian community would be proud to claim any of these smart, educated, accomplished women as their own, but it takes a little more than just a lack of a wedding ring and children to make someone a member of their group.

Not required perhaps, but certainly hard to suppress.