Re: Seems as if ELENA KAGAN will be our new Supreme Court justice.
brad herschel
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
>
> Her credentials are out of this world. The Party of No will find out
> some dirt on her and throw it at her and it willl not stick and she
> will, in the end, get the position.
> Stop and think about all the previous positions that she has held
> and you don't think her background was raked over the coals before we
> even heard about her.
We now have two Jews in the Court. She would add a lesbian Jewish
element!
Brad
GLOBALIST
The present Jewish female is very ill and I look for her to retire in
the next couple of years.
GLOBALIST
called one, but the truth is she is just another unmarried, woman who
has been so involved in her career that she was not interested in a
relationship of any kind.
======================
Ambinder described her as "a woman who has short hair, favors pant
suits, hasn't married, and doesn't seem to be in a relationship." Wow.
Anita Dunn, who is working with the White House on the vacancy, says
this is about "applying old stereotypes to single women with
successful careers." We have to agree. Name a 49-year-old women with
three kids and a hope in hell of making it to the court. There's a
reason there are few mommies on that short list. (Judge Diane Wood,
who has been divorced and has kids, is an exception)
=================
This present White House has many many openly gay cabinet members so
that would not be denied ,if it were true, but apparantely it is not
true. I can rattle off the names of many effeminate, swishy, married
men, who claim not to be gay, but you couldn't prove it by looking at
them. Many of them are conservative Republicans who are outspokenly
staunch christians, so if we forced to believe them, why not her?
Finis MacGuiness
<free....@gmail.com> wrote:
>=================
>This present White House has many many openly gay cabinet members so
>that would not be denied ,if it were true, but apparantely it is not
>true. I can rattle off the names of many effeminate, swishy, married
>men, who claim not to be gay, but you couldn't prove it by looking at
>them. Many of them are conservative Republicans who are outspokenly
>staunch christians, so if we forced to believe them, why not her?
Well I did a Google search for gay cabinet members and the only name
that came up was the Sec of Homeland Security who has denied she is a
lesbian.
GLOBALIST
> On Sat, 8 May 2010 13:24:32 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
>
Article below...If Bill Clinton was the 1st black president, then
Obama is considered the first gay president , for what he has done for
gays
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/barack_obama_americas_first_gay_president
GlennR
"brad herschel" <bradhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e1da10b-ccd4-4679...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Brad
maybe she'll get your ignorant, loud mouth, fat, hillbilly ass locked up,
sentenced,convicted, and hanged
that would make her confirmation worthwhile to me gomer
get the rest of you yellow,nascar watching retards too
LILhornie
hypocrites on this posting drop their doltish, childish attacks on the
physical Kagan and focused on the reasons why she might be a great SC
confirmee.
=============
"Elena Kagan: A smart woman with fewer choices?"
By Ruth Marcus
Friday, May 14, 2010; A15
She's not gay, okay?
Actually, the all-too-public discussion about the ought-to-be private
topic of Elena Kagan's sexuality would be easier if the Supreme Court
nominee were gay.
From my (straight, married mother) point of view, a gay justice would
be a benefit to the court and the country. To the country because it
would speed up the inevitable: acceptance of gay Americans in all
walks of life. To the court because -- as with any additional
perspective -- an openly gay justice would add to the richness of the
court's understanding of cases, particularly gay rights cases, that
come before it.
But Kagan isn't gay, for all the baseless chatter to the contrary.
When this chatter seeped into the mainstream media a few weeks ago, I
was reluctant to join in on a topic that seemed unnecessarily
intrusive, boiling down, as it does, to the question: So if she's not
gay, then why isn't she married? Now that she's the nominee, however,
it seems that the subject isn't going away anytime soon.
The charming picture of Kagan at the bat that the Wall Street Journal
ran on its front page the other day has been assailed by some gay
rights activists as Rupert Murdoch's coded warning about Kagan's
sexuality. I thought the picture, from a University of Chicago faculty
game, made her look like more of a real person and less of a brainiac.
Memo to conspiracy theorists: Straight women can play softball, too.
Sometimes a softball bat is only a softball bat.
Kagan's law school roommate (and my good friend) Sarah Walzer, went on
the record in an interview with Politico: "I've known her for most of
her adult life and I know she's straight," Walzer said. "She dated men
when we were in law school, we talked about men -- who in our class
was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She
definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was
in Chicago -- and she just didn't find the right person."
There are gender-based undertones to the Kagan discussion, but it is
more complicated than simple sexism: that we assume an unmarried woman
in her 40s or 50s "must be" a lesbian. Truth is, there is much the
same gossip about unmarried and never-married men in public life.
Imagine a David Souter nomination in the era of unrestrained blogging.
Speculation about the meaning of his bachelor status would have been
rampant -- and online.
The part where gender enters the discussion involves the underlying
reasons. I don't know any single men of a certain age who would have
preferred to have gotten married. I know many single women who would
have preferred that their lives had worked out differently.
The brutal fact is that if a never-married man in his 40s or 50s
decides, well, better late than never, he's got options -- some of
them in their 20s or 30s. A never-married woman tends not to have the
same array of choices.
And -- here's the tricky part -- what if the never-married woman is,
say, the dean of Harvard Law School? Or solicitor general of the
United States? Or a Supreme Court justice? Power is the ultimate
aphrodisiac, Henry Kissinger famously said, but its magical properties
seem to work best on the female sex.
Walzer touched on this in her comments to Politico, describing how, in
law school, she and Kagan would discuss ways to be smart and confident
without intimidating potential dates. "It's an ongoing challenge for
very smart women -- there are not very many men who would choose women
who are smarter than they are," Walzer said.
This may sound at first like an old-fashioned mind-set -- more
Wellesley in the mid-'50s than Harvard Law School in the mid-1980s. As
it happens, I was at Harvard Law School in the mid-1980s, and I don't
think the men there were put off by smart women.
But put off by women smarter than them? Very possibly, even if not
consciously. The smarter and more successful the woman, the more
complicated the dating dynamic: how to leaven that intellect and
competence to make the package a bit less threatening.
As I said, if Kagan were gay, this would be a much easier discussion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051304685.html