New SCOTUS nominee

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD. *cough*



Yeah suuuuure. She's straight and Obama's not a super secret Kenyan Muslin from Connecticut. (All idiocy in the previous sentences is intentional. Yes including calling the president a type of cloth.)

That's Kente!!!!! Damn...you think you people would know better by now!!! HAHAHAHA.

There is an extra reason why I am laughing at the Zod reference right now!

So, she is straight...well next we have to dispel the myths of her selection because she is a white woman and over 50.

Sigh.


Oh noes....wait! WAIT....hold on a moment!!!!

She finished HLS around 1986....Obama went to Harvard in 1988.

Y'all don't think that she got the ....because he also went to...and because they are...and possibly Obama tapped dat a...

OOOhhhhh Noooooooo

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You've stated that you would be willing to explain if you had a mature conversation. I would like to know what exactly you find obvious about her sexuality. For the record, here's the information we have: She is single. She has short hair. She played softball. She is/has been a lawyer, a professor, the Dean of Harvard law, a SG. She went to an all girls school. Her friends/classmates state that she expressed an interest in men throughout high school/college/young adulthood.

That is information YOU have. I have never heard about her expressing interest in men in the early years and it is irrelevant. I know several women who used to like men, but now they are gay.

If you want a serious discussion, back up your claims rather than blaming everyone else.

Here we go again with this.

*SIGH*

The demanding tone never gets anywhere with me, especially when it is coupled with the argument that I'm "blaming everyone else."

Frustration at the lack of an appointment of a qualified black female candidate is one thing, opposing a candidate because she is not a black female is another. The more you use emoticons to punctuate your comments, the less seriously you're taken. I've noted you've stopped since then.

You have noted no such thing. I have continued to use them. Your comments will never stop that. The thing is that I use them when I wish. I was never using them to "punctuate" many of my comments in the first place. You saw one main post with them and translated that to punctuating my statements.

In addition, I believe that I also stated that I had issues with her lack of experience. So don't try to say that this is all about a Black candidate over a white one. Again, this is why I can't have mature discussion with people on here because they always reduce it to this simplified explanation which is beyond ignorant.

Unfortunately, it appears that what people really want is a person who agrees with them on the issues.

No, that is not unfortunate. That is reality. And I think it is ridiculous for you or anyone else to act as though that is problematic.

Ok so you brought back the emoticons. Unfortunate. However your credibility falls as you blame others for you lack of explanation. Wouldn't it be better to rise above those you mock and show us exactly how you came to your conclusion?

I always rise about the people you say I "mock." While they act like they are in the sandbox, I keep it moving when I see that they can't have a legitimate conversation without acting juvenile. Although people on here don't like to recognize it, the fact is that in the past, when someone has responded to me in a reasonable manner, I respond in kind. For instance when YOU originally asked why I opposed it, because you seemed to be asking in a genuinely interested and mature way, I responded. When the stupid insults start, that's when I don't provide further explanations.

And for the record, my credibility is not in your hands or the hands of anyone else on here. Your opinion about my thoughts and feelings on this or any other matter are of no concern to me.

Again, until you explain your line of reasoning, people are attempting to engage you by guessing at your thought process. Only you can clear this up, yet you refuse.

And this is a problem when they otherwise criticize someone when that person "guesses." That is called being hypocritical.

This is unfortunate. It appears that you weren't really expecting to participate in a discussion just impress people with your intellectual superiority. However I think you'll find you've not been successful. Also you should try to shake your head less. You start off as dismissive, you just end up rattling the brain.

No, it appears that YOU and others on here weren't expecting to participate in a discussion. Had I not intended to do so, I would not have responded to your original question.

Also I challenge you, it is stated that Leah Ward Sears was considered for appt. Is there a specific reason why she should have been chosen over Kagan that you are familiar with?

I thought I stated one good reason. But what is stopping you from doing your own research?

[DaemonSeid]

The only issues that I SEE with Sears that may work against her are

- money that she had to pay back for donations that she accepted

- Although she is an advocate about familiy issues especially the high rates of divorce, she still hasn't said much about abortion, nor has she issued any judgements relating to it.

- most right leaning conservatives will have an issue with her...as her being sympathetic to gay rights, Christensen v State ... being one case in particular.


BTW, if you want some more info on her, click here.


Now can we all get back on track and talk about Kagan and other possible selections?

Oh yeah, it would also be fair to note that Judge Sears was also considered for SCOTUS but was passed over for Sotomeyer.

ETA: More insight on her test of faith

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

That is information YOU have. I have never heard about her expressing interest in men in the early years and it is irrelevant. I know several women who used to like men, but now they are gay.

The information was posted in this thread, and is publicly available. I did not claim it was evidence of her sexual orientation, just that it was the information we knew about her. Yet thought you replied in depth to my whole post, you still did not answer the question. Therefore from this point forth I shall assume that you assume she's gay because of superficial reasons and not logical thought process. Should you desire to correct this impression I'll be happy to re-evaluate based on the evidence.

Here we go again with this.

*SIGH*

The demanding tone never gets anywhere with me, especially when it is coupled with the argument that I'm "blaming everyone else."

Demand: "DO THIS"
Advice: "If you want X, do Y"
Blaming everyone else: "I could tell you but I won't because you're being childish."

You have noted no such thing. I have continued to use them. Your comments will never stop that. The thing is that I use them when I wish. I was never using them to "punctuate" many of my comments in the first place. You saw one main post with them and translated that to punctuating my statements.

I did indeed note it. I don't expect to change your behavior, it was simply a recommendation.

In addition, I believe that I also stated that I had issues with her lack of experience. So don't try to say that this is all about a Black candidate over a white one. Again, this is why I can't have mature discussion with people on here because they always reduce it to this simplified explanation which is beyond ignorant.

I suggest you reread. I did not suggest it was "all about a black candidate over a white one." But you failed to provide any reason why the black female candidate on the 'shortlist' would have been a better choice. For example: She was Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and thus would have much greater experience. That is how you have a 'mature discussion.'

No, that is not unfortunate. That is reality. And I think it is ridiculous for you or anyone else to act as though that is problematic.

Reality and unfortunate are not contradictory by any means. I think it is problematic. It means that the Court is always about politics and not about qualifications. For example, Chief Justice Roberts. I don't like his views, but he is highly qualified to lead the court. Therefore I didn't oppose his nomination.

I always rise about the people you say I "mock." While they act like they are in the sandbox, I keep it moving when I see that they can't have a legitimate conversation without acting juvenile. Although people on here don't like to recognize it, the fact is that in the past, when someone has responded to me in a reasonable manner, I respond in kind. For instance when YOU originally asked why I opposed it, because you seemed to be asking in a genuinely interested and mature way, I responded. When the stupid insults start, that's when I don't provide further explanations.

Mock, degrade, whatever word you prefer. Quite frankly you stopped providing "further explanations" after you first, so I'm not truly surprised.

And for the record, my credibility is not in your hands or the hands of anyone else on here. Your opinion about my thoughts and feelings on this or any other matter are of no concern to me.

Your credibility is always in the hands of those you speak to. Certainly this does not affect your credibility or respect outside of this arena, it is a relatively contained environment. However, at least for here, you've lost a lot of credibility quickly. Perhaps you don't care, perhaps you do, that doesn't change the unfortunate reality.

And this is a problem when they otherwise criticize someone when that person "guesses." That is called being hypocritical.

No, it's called trying to figure out what you are basing your argument on when you refuse to provide it. It's also closer to a straw man fallacy than hypocrisy.

I thought I stated one good reason. But what is stopping you from doing your own research?

That she was black and female? I'm uncertain how that is a 'good reason.' For example, I think she is qualified but her extensive judicial record would make her a hard sell in an incredibly partisan confirmation hearing.

So whenever you're ready to have a real discussion, let us know.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

The only issues that I SEE with Sears that may work against her are

- money that she had to pay back for donations that she accepted

- Although she is an advocate about familiy issues especially the high rates of divorce, she still hasn't said much about abortion, nor has she issued any judgements relating to it.

- most right leaning conservatives will have an issue with her...as her being sympathetic to gay rights, Christensen v State ... being one case in particular.


BTW, if you want some more info on her, click here.

Aye I think that she wouldn't make it through confirmations, which is a shame quite frankly. And since she's on the shortlist already its not like she's going to get ignored for any future openings during this administration. Perhaps she'd be interested in the SG opening? Although all of her experience appears to be judicial.

That's Kente!!!!! Damn...you think you people would know better by now!!! HAHAHAHA.

There is an extra reason why I am laughing at the Zod reference right now!

So, she is straight...well next we have to dispel the myths of her selection because she is a white woman and over 50.

Sigh.


Oh noes....wait! WAIT....hold on a moment!!!!

She finished HLS around 1986....Obama went to Harvard in 1988.

Y'all don't think that she got the ....because he also went to...and because they are...and possibly Obama tapped dat a...

She slept with an illegal immigrant?! She'll never get a job now! *grin*

[RU OX Alum]

Plus that would be four New Yorkers, that's a bit much from one place. I don't really care though. The past couple of presidents have appointed quite a few justices. It's like a totally court now than 10 years ago.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

The only issues that I SEE with Sears that may work against her are

- money that she had to pay back for donations that she accepted

- Although she is an advocate about familiy issues especially the high rates of divorce, she still hasn't said much about abortion, nor has she issued any judgements relating to it.

- most right leaning conservatives will have an issue with her...as her being sympathetic to gay rights, Christensen v State ... being one case in particular.


BTW, if you want some more info on her, click here.


Now can we all get back on track and talk about Kagan and other possible selections?

Oh yeah, it would also be fair to note that Judge Sears was also considered for SCOTUS but was passed over for Sotomeyer.

ETA: More insight on her test of faith

The bolded is such B/S. Because truth be told we really don't know much about how Kagan feels about most major issues or how she is likely to vote. I actually have had a convo with former GAJustice Sears and it wasnt a qaulifications reason that she was passed over for Sotomayor.

And FYI to add another black woman to the list: Ann Claire Williams 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals. She lists herself as politically independent (one of the very few possible judges who actually do so).
A Quote from part of the Wiki (yeah I know) article:
"I've written on thousands of cases across the board, and I think it would be hard to type me," she said. "I don't think there is a type. I am not in Congress. We don't legislate in the courts."[3] However, she also stated that she won't forget her roots or let her judicial robe "get in the way of my humanity."
If I were making the choice with the previously mentioned black women and Williams it wouldnt be difficult to have a black woman nominee. I honestly believe that between the two I would MUCH rather have Williams than Kagan. I believe Williams is better suited for the position than Kagan for a great many reasons.

I agree with DeepImpact2 that I am more than displeased with Obama's choice (though I will vote for him again). And personally she looks gay! lol. If we were playing "Guess the sexual orientaion" then Im going for option Lesbo! lol.
And if this were Maury Povich I can see the rowdy crowd yelling "Thats a MAN Maury!" lol.

[RU OX Alum]

I agree about Williams but she doesn't fit with Obama's regime so she wasn't selected.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

The bolded is such B/S. Because truth be told we really don't know much about how Kagan feels about most major issues or how she is likely to vote. I actually have had a convo with former GAJustice Sears and it wasnt a qaulifications reason that she was passed over for Sotomayor.

And FYI to add another black woman to the list: Ann Claire Williams 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals. She lists herself as politically independent (one of the very few possible judges who actually do so).
A Quote from part of the Wiki (yeah I know) article:
"I've written on thousands of cases across the board, and I think it would be hard to type me," she said. "I don't think there is a type. I am not in Congress. We don't legislate in the courts."[3] However, she also stated that she won't forget her roots or let her judicial robe "get in the way of my humanity."
If I were making the choice with the previously mentioned black women and Williams it wouldnt be difficult to have a black woman nominee. I honestly believe that between the two I would MUCH rather have Williams than Kagan. I believe Williams is better suited for the position than Kagan for a great many reasons.

I agree with DeepImpact2 that I am more than displeased with Obama's choice (though I will vote for him again). And personally she looks gay! lol. If we were playing "Guess the sexual orientaion" then Im going for option Lesbo! lol.
And if this were Maury Povich I can see the rowdy crowd yelling "Thats a MAN Maury!" lol.

Though we don't know Kagan's opinions, Obama likely does since he taught with her and interacted with her, it appears, as friends and colleagues and later in her role as SG. Even if her pre-nomination interview didn't address any of these "litmus tests" it is a safe bet that Obama didn't go in blind.

I like the sound of Williams. However I'm fairly unfamiliar with her. If she is that prominent then odds are she's on a list for future consideration (whether for SC Justice or other higher level positions).

Your last paragraph though, *sigh.* There is no "looks gay." It's weird how you felt like you had to punctuate every sentence with lol. Because it isn't funny. It's stereotyping, and depending on where it comes from it is prejudicial. To say that a woman should look a certain way, generally in a way that is attractive to men, or she'll be called 'lesbo' or 'that's a man' is both buying into the sexist view of women existing for men's pleasure and treating sexual orientation/gender identity as a punishment.

Also, lesbian =/= transgender.

[AGDee]

I find it interesting that many of the same people who will say that someone "looks" gay also believe that being gay is a choice. If there was a "look" to gay, then wouldn't that point to a genetic reason for homosexuality? And, just what is a person who "looks gay" supposed to do? Plastic surgery? And, since when is attractiveness a qualification for SCOTUS?


Tell me which among them is attractive. Quite honestly, I don't think any of them are.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Though we don't know Kagan's opinions, Obama likely does since he taught with her and interacted with her, it appears, as friends and colleagues and later in her role as SG. Even if her pre-nomination interview didn't address any of these "litmus tests" it is a safe bet that Obama didn't go in blind.

I like the sound of Williams. However I'm fairly unfamiliar with her. If she is that prominent then odds are she's on a list for future consideration (whether for SC Justice or other higher level positions).

Your last paragraph though, *sigh.* There is no "looks gay." It's weird how you felt like you had to punctuate every sentence with lol. Because it isn't funny. It's stereotyping, and depending on where it comes from it is prejudicial. To say that a woman should look a certain way, generally in a way that is attractive to men, or she'll be called 'lesbo' or 'that's a man' is both buying into the sexist view of women existing for men's pleasure and treating sexual orientation/gender identity as a punishment.

Also, lesbian =/= transgender.

To the point in red...what does that have to do with my post? I never equated the two. I said if I was guessing her sexuality Id say shes gay. I also said I could see the people on the Maury show (when deciding if a man or woman) could mistake her for a man (because she does look like at least one man in particular). These statements in no way attempt to equate sexuality with being transgener.

The orange point....Some people do look like they could be homosexual. Very effiminate males look like they could be homosexuals as do very masculine women. It isnt funny to you. I was actually lol as I was typing because the concept of "looks gay" is rather funny to me and because seeing a SCOUS nominee on Maury is a funny thought. Could you imagine what she'd wear during the swimsuit portion?

To the green point....That'd probably make some sense if I said that or if I was a man. Since Im a woman that kind of falls little flat as I pick attractiveness based on what I think and not on what I think men think is attractive. And its not her being ugly that makes me think she's gay. See below for that info. Gabby (who played Precious) is not incredibly attractive to me, but she doesnt look gay either. Hell Sotomayor isnt cute either but I dont think she's gay. Its not a bad thing to be homosexual or to be mistaken for being homosexual. I think some of y'all have your diapers in a wad because YOURE the ones with the issue. Gay is not a slur.


To the blue point....Kagan doesnt even sound good. And you're probably as familiar with Kagan as you are with Williams if you read the Wiki article (thats how little we know about Kagan). Realistically she has no judicial eperience (beyond academia and studying something and applying it in the real world are two very different things) and we have no idea where she stands on most issues and what kind of choices she would make as a justice. While I love Obama there aint that much Kool-Aid in the world that I'd just go along with his pick for a lifetime position on the supreme court because he knows her and he likes her. That is NOT qualified. If you make a choice you have to justify that choice and there is no supporting evidence for Kagan at all. To say that we shouldnt oppose her because Obama probably knows her beliefs well is total Bull. If this were a Bush nominee (liberals and Dems)people would be giving way more push back on this choice. I know Id be questioning her selection more if it came from Bush b/c he's not the brightest person ever. As a independent voter I question every president's decisions that arent supported by evidence. She does not have the necessary qualifications and experience and we do not know nearly enough about her to appoint her to the highest court in the land for the rest of her life!

Originally Posted by AGDee

I find it interesting that many of the same people who will say that someone "looks" gay also believe that being gay is a choice. If there was a "look" to gay, then wouldn't that point to a genetic reason for homosexuality? And, just what is a person who "looks gay" supposed to do? Plastic surgery? And, since when is attractiveness a qualification for SCOTUS?


Tell me which among them is attractive. Quite honestly, I don't think any of them are.

I dont think that looking gay points to a genetic reason for homosexuals. It points to someone's mannerisms, looks, and general image being similar to that of homosexuals that the person making the comment has encountered. A person who looks gay shouldnt worry about looking gay its not a crime. They should expect that people are going to ask the question. Again Im not against her as nominee because she looks gay. Im against her because of her lack of experience and a better choice (who is a black woman) being available.

I didnt mention that she's unattractive (though she is to me) as the reason she shouldnt be nominee. Also, there are some very attractive gay people. Being gay doesnt mean youre automatically unattractive. I said she isnt well qualified, we've got NO idea how she'd actually vote (that she is a liberal doesnt say much or enough), and there is a better qualified black woman who I'd rather see/have seen selected.

Now, personally I beileve that being gay isn't a choice but that leading a gay lifestyle is. You can hide being gay or you can choose to deny your sexual orientation and lead a "hetero" lifestyle if you wish. None of that changes that youre gay.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

...that the person making the comment has encountered.

Excellent after-the-fact qualifier. People shouldn't make such comments.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

To the point in red...what does that have to do with my post? I never equated the two. I said if I was guessing her sexuality Id say shes gay. I also said I could see the people on the Maury show (when deciding if a man or woman) could mistake her for a man (because she does look like at least one man in particular). These statements in no way attempt to equate sexuality with being transgener.

Your combination of the "lesbo" comment and the "she's a man" one implied that you might have difficulty with the concept.

The orange point....Some people do look like they could be homosexual. Very effiminate males look like they could be homosexuals as do very masculine women. It isnt funny to you. I was actually lol as I was typing because the concept of "looks gay" is rather funny to me and because seeing a SCOUS nominee on Maury is a funny thought. Could you imagine what she'd wear during the swimsuit portion?

The concept of looking gay is funny to you but you believe it? You laugh at your own jokes a lot?

So masculine gay males and feminine lesbian women don't exist? Or they're just not fitting the "funny" sterotype in your head? It's not funny to me because it's outright wrong.

To the green point....That'd probably make some sense if I said that or if I was a man. Since Im a woman that kind of falls little flat as I pick attractiveness based on what I think and not on what I think men think is attractive. And its not her being ugly that makes me think she's gay. See below for that info. Gabby (who played Precious) is not incredibly attractive to me, but she doesnt look gay either. Hell Sotomayor isnt cute either but I dont think she's gay. Its not a bad thing to be homosexual or to be mistaken for being homosexual. I think some of y'all have your diapers in a wad because YOURE the ones with the issue. Gay is not a slur.

Your argument is the sexist equivalent of "You have a problem because you see the racism in what I'm saying, not because I'm saying something racist."

I'm complaining about the use of "gay" or go help us "Lesbo" (SERIOUSLY?) because it is being used AS a slur. That is wrong. So is assuming you know someone's sexual orientation based on their looks.
Also, women can buy into sexism, gay people can buy into heterosexism, and so on. Either you're doing it intentionally or you're unaware, either way it's still coming from your fingers.

To the blue point....Kagan doesnt even sound good. And you're probably as familiar with Kagan as you are with Williams if you read the Wiki article (thats how little we know about Kagan). Realistically she has no judicial eperience (beyond academia and studying something and applying it in the real world are two very different things) and we have no idea where she stands on most issues and what kind of choices she would make as a justice. While I love Obama there aint that much Kool-Aid in the world that I'd just go along with his pick for a lifetime position on the supreme court because he knows her and he likes her. That is NOT qualified. If you make a choice you have to justify that choice and there is no supporting evidence for Kagan at all. To say that we shouldnt oppose her because Obama probably knows her beliefs well is total Bull. If this were a Bush nominee (liberals and Dems)people would be giving way more push back on this choice. I know Id be questioning her selection more if it came from Bush b/c he's not the brightest person ever. As a independent voter I question every president's decisions that arent supported by evidence. She does not have the necessary qualifications and experience and we do not know nearly enough about her to appoint her to the highest court in the land for the rest of her life!

I never said that you should support her or not, I just said that Obama probably knows her views even though we don't. It's ok to have legit complaints. I know more about Kagan now because there's been so much discussion about her. I think she's qualified based on her experience, even though she hasn't been a judge.

I dont think that looking gay points to a genetic reason for homosexuals. It points to someone's mannerisms, looks, and general image being similar to that of homosexuals that the person making the comment has encountered. A person who looks gay shouldnt worry about looking gay its not a crime. They should expect that people are going to ask the question. Again Im not against her as nominee because she looks gay. Im against her because of her lack of experience and a better choice (who is a black woman) being available.

No one 'looks gay' unless they're making out with someone of the same sex right in front of you. That's looking gay.

Now, personally I beileve that being gay isn't a choice but that leading a gay lifestyle is. You can hide being gay or you can choose to deny your sexual orientation and lead a "hetero" lifestyle if you wish. None of that changes that youre gay.

the only thing "gay" about a "gay lifestyle" is the "loving/engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same sex." Everything else is "a lifestyle." So, you believe that people who are gay can choose to be celibate, not "choose not to live a gay lifestyle." I don't think that should be forced or expected of anyone who doesn't freely choose it.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

These statements in no way attempt to equate sexuality with being transgender.

Have you read all the posts in this thread? Many did.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

The orange point....Some people do look like they could be homosexual. Very effiminate males look like they could be homosexuals as do very masculine women.

Nobody yet has been able to explain what a "gay" woman looks like. She looks masculine? Again I ask the question.. what is she supposed to do about that? Plastic surgery? Go for the Michael Jackson nose and jawline?

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Gay is not a slur.

Tell that to the millions who clearly think that gays are sub-human (and, therefore shouldn't be allowed to be married and have children) and sinners who will burn in hell.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

She does not have the necessary qualifications and experience and we do not know nearly enough about her to appoint her to the highest court in the land for the rest of her life!

You don't know enough about her. It seems to me that people who actually follow the legal world do know quite a bit about her. Which Justice had most of us heard of before they were nominated to the Supreme Court?

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I dont think that looking gay points to a genetic reason for homosexuals. It points to someone's mannerisms, looks, and general image being similar to that of homosexuals that the person making the comment has encountered. A person who looks gay shouldnt worry about looking gay its not a crime. They should expect that people are going to ask the question. Again Im not against her as nominee because she looks gay. Im against her because of her lack of experience and a better choice (who is a black woman) being available.

Any Christian Conservative is going to raise a ruckus if a gay is nominated to the Supreme Court because they will fear that homosexuals might actually gain the right to make a lifelong legal commitment to their significant others.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I didnt mention that she's unattractive (though she is to me) as the reason she shouldnt be nominee. Also, there are some very attractive gay people. Being gay doesnt mean youre automatically unattractive. I said she isnt well qualified, we've got NO idea how she'd actually vote (that she is a liberal doesnt say much or enough), and there is a better qualified black woman who I'd rather see/have seen selected.

In my opinion, a justice on the Supreme Court should only be voting as to the Constitutionality of something, not their personal opinion. Sticking with the gay marriage topic, it shouldn't matter whether someone personally believes in gay marriage when they are deciding whether it is Constitutional or not. Something can be Constitutional and against a person's belief system. The ideal SCOTUS is one who can differentiate that and NOT vote based on personal beliefs. The fact that we don't know how someone stands on some of these issues is a plus because it means they aren't just into spouting off their personal agenda.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Now, personally I beileve that being gay isn't a choice but that leading a gay lifestyle is. You can hide being gay or you can choose to deny your sexual orientation and lead a "hetero" lifestyle if you wish. None of that changes that you're gay.

Seriously? So, you could also choose to have sexual relations with a woman and enjoy it if you were heterosexual? Really? I can't even pretend to be attracted to a man who I don't have chemistry with. I'm not that good of an actor and I think most other people aren't either.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I never said that you should support her or not, I just said that Obama probably knows her views even though we don't. It's ok to have legit complaints. I know more about Kagan now because there's been so much discussion about her. I think she's qualified based on her experience, even though she hasn't been a judge.

You don't need judicial experience to know if something is against the Constitution or not. And I honestly think the SG is a better choice then a lower court judge for SCOTUS anyway. And people consider this. Obama probably based his decision for her for both SG and SCOTUS on his first hand knowledge of her. So are you telling me that the opinion of a legitimate Constitutional scholar isn't good enough for you? Not aimed at you Drolefille BTW.