There are many accounts that suggest Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, is a lesbian and has a partner at the Harvard Law School. Do you care? Does it matter?
It looks like no one knows and the speculation is stirred only because she is middle aged and single. She certainly could not be accused of being an activist if she is.
I don't understand this statement.
Why would being lesbian mean she could be accused of being an activist?
If she has spent all these years in public positions of influence and not been involved in "activist-type" activities, I think that would make her a decided "non-activist", whether she is homosexual or not.
I don't know if she's a homosexual or not.
I don't think we should speculate on it.
I'd prefer to have facts rather than speculation or rumors.
However, if she is a homosexual then, yes, I do care because I don't think we should put known homosexuals into leadership positions in our government.
Right now I'm more concerned about her political views and how those would sway her opinions on cases.
It seems that we have allowed a judicial legislative branch to evolve in the Supreme Court and now we must worry about the politics of its members because, one in place, they are no longer accountable to the people.
I don't want her in the Supreme Court.
I want a strong male non-lawyer conservative that will honor the division of power intended in the Constitution and rule on cases from the proper perspective.
No, let's don't leave it at that!
Let's work to get the Supreme Court back to where it needs to be.
Let's end legislation by court ruling.
Let's get a Congress and President that can stand up to them where the Constitution provides and get them re-focused on hearing cases the way it was intended - not as some kind of superior and arbitrary judge of what America needs to be like or not be like.
There's great danger in inserting activists into our court because they don't have a problem using their new found power to push things in the way they think it should be verses what the Congress concludes, on our behalf, we want them to be.
Again, I don't know if she's a homosexual or not but, if she is, she has no business serving as a Supreme Court Justice or, for that matter, any other office in our civil government.
All we have to do is look at the likes of Barney Frank to see what kind of baloney that leads to.
We need to view that gross corruption of character from what it is.
No, it's not the only vice to disqualify a person but it ought to be one of the more serious ones in our minds.
We ought to be concerned about it and not make excuses for it.
And, no, the Republicans have not provided what we needed because they caved in to compromise with the Democrats.
They've had chances to make a difference and they've blown it trying to be "team players".
We need a tremendous change in direction towards true conservative government in size, scope, and policy.
She probably is a lesbian and she certainly is an activist for homosexual causes.
As dean of Harvard Law School, she would not allow military recruiters on campus because of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
If she is confirmed you can count on her vote to strike down the state laws that declare a marriage to be between one man and one woman.
I'm with you here, except I don't see how a non-lawyer could function very well on the Court.
I think the non-lawyer's perspective would be helpful on the constitutional issues that come before the Court but those are a minority of their cases.
Most cases deal with interpretation of complex bodies of federal law such as the Internal Revenue Code, the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A non-lawyer would be behind the curve for several years on those issues.
Incidentally, have you thought about the fact that if Kagan is confirmed, we will have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Court?
I actually think legalism among lawyers is self-serving - it creates the perception that the law is above the reach of ordinary folks - and it would be good to have someone who isn't so caught up in it but rather more interested in the underlying principles and especially how they relate to the intent of the Constitution.
After all the law is suppose to be written by the people through their representatives and shouldn't be so complex to not be understood by them.
If it is then perhaps it should all be thrown out and re-written.
Imagine a court decision that said: "This law is just too damn complicated and so we're throwing it all out because the people can't understand it so they can't be expected to follow it!"