Color me concerned, but not outraged, about the nomination of Elana Kagan for SCOTUS.
I'd love to see some SCOTUS nominees who didn't go to Harvard or Yale. My personal preference is that appellate judges have experience as trial court judges, or at least as trial court litigators, so that they have some reasonable grasp of how things actually work at the trial court level. More substantively, I'm concerned about her approach to the Constitution, and particularly toward the First Amendment, and particularly her views about hate speech and pornography restrictions expressed in this article. I am, however, somewhat mollified that the vastly-smarter-than-I-am First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh is not particularly concerned.
What a wonderful opportunity this could be to explore what kinds of experience we think people should have before sitting on SCOTUS, and to engage in examinations of First Amendment doctrine.
Or, we could just engage in fatuous bigoted homo-bashing.
That's your cue, American Family Association:
The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?
Run with that ball, Americans for Truth and commenters on Free Republic!
Kagan is a sex pervert…morally unfit for the SCOTUS.
Whether that she/he is a lesbian or not isn’t the issue. This isn’t about her sexual proclivities, other than what that might reveal as degeneracy in her rotten soul. Just realize that the wicked man soiling the people’s Oval Office wouldn’t nominate someone he believed would not be controversial. The current affirmative action sonofabitch-in-chief is all about deepening divides in America so his commie overloards can exploit our weakening society. The woman is to be used for a weapon of division and she probably knows it and relishes the experience … such is the mindset of degenerates in America as shown with their ‘in your face’ homosexuality.
That, I suspect, will be at least a substantial element of the narrative about Kagan, if not the loudest element. You can thank the media in part for that — they love sex, love simplistic controversy (the stupider the better), love to cover mud-slinging lavishly, and hate sober discussions of complicated issues.
I don't know if she's gay. I frankly don't give a shit. I think the notion that she's unsuitable if she's gay is revolting and un-American, and invite the holders of that view to go DIAF. The concept that a gay person can't be relied upon to be fair in cases involving gay rights exists on the same plane as the argument that you shouldn't let women adjudicate cases involving "women's issues", or let minorities decide civil rights cases, or let religious people decide cases about freedom of religion. If her approach to Constitutional interpretation is flawed, then let's discuss it vigorously and attack it mercilessly. But attacking her based on her personal attributes? We ought to be better than that.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Hate Speech Debate on More Perfect Live - September 5th, 2017
- Popehat Goes To The Opera: Un ballo in maschera - August 19th, 2017
- Department of Justice Uses Search Warrant To Get Data On Visitors to Anti-Trump Site - August 14th, 2017
- America At The End of All Hypotheticals - August 14th, 2017
- Lawsplainer: Why John Oliver Is Anti-Diversity Now - August 11th, 2017