New SCOTUS nominee

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This. And I don't know whether its accurate about her trying cases -- she has spent most of her career in in academia and government, but she was in private practice for a few years, and professors sometimes take cases. It is true that she never argued in front of the Supreme Court (and perhaps had not argued in any appellate court) until she became Solicitor General. (She wouldn't have tried a case as Solicitor General; the SG deals with appellate work, not trial work.)

I don't think there's any real pandering to the gay vote going on here -- see what DrPhil says. I think a major consideration is that Kagan has a history of support from both liberals and conservatives, so she is someone whose confirmation in the polarized Senate may be smoother than some other nominees. And her age means she'll be on the Court for a long time.

Kagan may not have CONFIRMED her homosexuality, but it seems kind of obvious. And from what I have learned, she is big on not really confirming too much stuff anyway. No one really knows her views on too mnay hot button issues because she has carefully kept them under wraps.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Kagan may not have CONFIRMED her homosexuality, but it seems kind of obvious. And from what I have learned, she is big on not really confirming too much stuff anyway. No one really knows her views on too mnay hot button issues because she has carefully kept them under wraps.

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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."

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Well I rather somebody who keep their personal views close to the vest. Somebody preaching their beliefs won't be impartial. Somebody who won't even let you know what those beliefs are can better afford to be impartial without being exclaimed a hypocrite.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Well I rather somebody who keep their personal views close to the vest. Somebody preaching their beliefs won't be impartial. Somebody who won't even let you know what those beliefs are can better afford to be impartial without being exclaimed a hypocrite.

There is a difference between preaching views and just being clear about where you stand on an issue. And yes, there are people who can have or even preach their views and still be impartial Some people are just evolved like that.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

There is a difference between preaching views and just being clear about where you stand on an issue. And yes, there are people who can have or even preach their views and still be impartial Some people are just evolved like that.

Well that's the thing. The only stand that the Justices are supposed to have is what ever the law states. And everybody has their own views, but you are much less likely to ignore them if you are such a zealot you preach them to the street. Honestly if one of the Justices has established known political leanings before being nominated, they shouldn't have been nominated.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Kagan may not have CONFIRMED her homosexuality, but it seems kind of obvious.

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)...."

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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)...."

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

I hope you realize that just made an assumption yourself. smh

But for the record, everyone doesn't think a woman is a lesbian because she dedicates herself to her career and doesn't get married or have children. I am also unmarried, have no interest in children, and I am more focused on a career than getting married. That doesn't equate to lesbianism.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

But for the record, everyone doesn't think a woman is a lesbian because she dedicates herself to her career and doesn't get married or have children. I am also unmarried, have no interest in children, and I am more focused on a career than getting married. That doesn't equate to lesbianism.

So what is it that makes it "kind of obvious" to you that Kagan is a lesbian?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

So what is it that makes it "kind of obvious" to you that Kagan is a lesbian?

It isn't something I can explain to someone like you. You would not "get it."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It isn't something I can explain to someone like you. You would not "get it."

FAIL.