Bill O'Reilly | Elena Kagan | News

Watch: Bill O'Reilly on Elena Kagan's Sexuality

Oreilly_kagan

Bill O'Reilly covered the discussion of Elena Kagan's sexuality and whether it matters or not.

Said O'Reilly: "Americans has a right to know if their Supreme Court justice has an orientation that may or may not dictate which way she votes on a vital issue."

Well, then perhaps we should have all the Justices release statements regarding their sexual orientation, just to keep things on the up and up.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "Americans has a right to know if their Supreme Court justice has an orientation that may or may not dictate which way she votes on a vital issue."

    There is so much double speak in just that one sentence I don't even know where to begin.

    So if you're gay it may dictate how you vote. If you're straight it may dictate how you vote.

    But then again, it may not.

    So what does it matter if she's gay or not if that orientation MAY OR MAY NOT dictate how she votes on a vital issue?

    Great. Now I have a headache. Thanks, Bill.

    Posted by: Stephen | May 13, 2010 11:44:08 AM


  2. Following O'Reilly's logic, then, every heterosexual in America opposes gay marriage, and the only people who support gay marriage are straight.

    Which means that when nearly 50% of the people in California and Maine are gay.

    You're a *genius,* Bill. A freaking genius.

    Posted by: DN | May 13, 2010 11:46:10 AM


  3. you still don't get it. We DO know the sexual orientation of every supreme court justice, because they are straight and enjoy the privilege of their state sanctioned marriages. If our community continues to reinforce the closet as in the case with Kagan, we will never get anywhere as an oppressed minority. visibility is everything. Bill's reasoning is twisted and wrong, but he's right, we deserve to know. If she is not a lesbian, all she has to do is say so.

    Posted by: gaylib | May 13, 2010 11:49:28 AM


  4. @gaylib totally disagree. IT'S NOBODY'S FUCKING BUSINESS! She's been nominated for the Supreme Court for christ's sake. So what's next, should she be on Leno telling the world boxer, briefs, panties or au naturel?

    As for O'Reilly, I caught this last night. His argument is so flawed, I don't even know where to begin. But, if he is to be believed, then straight justices shouldn't be making judgments or handing down decisions that affect straight people. After all, that would be a conflict of interest.

    Have a little decorum.

    Posted by: Keith | May 13, 2010 11:57:37 AM


  5. this whole vetting process for Supreme Court judges (and many other public positions) is completely ridiculous. All that should really matter is if she, by training and education, is qualified for the job. It shouldn't even matter if she has served as a judge or not. But, of course, that Senate Committee (and the media) likes nothing better than grandstanding her with minutia from 20-year old cases and what that may mean for her approach about marginally related cases today or in the future. Groan.

    Posted by: hugo | May 13, 2010 12:21:03 PM


  6. So the possibility that Kagan might vote a certain way just because she might be gay is something Americans deserve to know. If that is true, then it must also be true that Americans deserve to know the sexual orientation of each member of Congress and the president's cabinet - those individuals have to enact and enforce laws before anything can get to the Supreme Court. So, does O'Reilly support having each member of Congress complete a deposition confirming their sexual orientation under oath after each election? Might shake a few skeletons out of the closet...

    Posted by: Blake | May 13, 2010 12:32:44 PM


  7. Because none of the 100's of prior male judges had sex with another guy. Ever.

    I believe sexually orientation is a protect class under federal job hiring standards.

    She can not be disqualified for being gay.
    Sorry Bill-O it is 2010. Not 1987 when you were hosting syndicated slime-fest "Current Affair".

    Posted by: Walter | May 13, 2010 12:36:03 PM


  8. B.O. sucks. Why does it matter? If Kagan is gay and that supposedly disqualifies her ruling on issues like DADT, ENDA or Gay Marriage....then doesn't it disqualify the heterosexuals too? Don't they have a stake?

    Posted by: Geoff M | May 13, 2010 12:42:15 PM


  9. Americans have a right to know with Bill O does with his Loufa.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 13, 2010 12:43:32 PM


  10. I don't agree with everything O'Reilly says, however, it's interesting to me the "outrage" the gay community is having over this. There are multiple gay blogs/sites that are demanding that we know one way or another. The slimeball sites that out celebrities before they are ready in the name of "the community."

    I agree, sexual orientation should make no difference in interpreting the Constitution (which is the one and ONLY job of the SCOTUS) - but its the gay community "leaders" that have started this argument. It's the gay loudmouths who belive that sexuality is NOT a private issue and it needs to be screamed from the mountains that started the rumors.

    Posted by: BC | May 13, 2010 12:46:48 PM


  11. If I follow Bill O's logic, Kagan's affectional preferences is relevant to her confirmation because she has an insurmountable vested interest in the outcome of any SCT decision involving sexuality?

    So, from that, am I to also understand that SCT decision involving race, for example, is also a foregone conclusion because the majority of justices are white and, therefore, have an insurmountable vested in white supremacy?

    That explains a lot. Thanks Bill.

    Posted by: Carlie | May 13, 2010 12:55:06 PM


  12. GAYLIB is right. Elena Kagan can put the rumors to rest, as Janet Reno did before her, simply by saying "yes" or "no". Sexual orientation isn't a private matter for Straight people, and it shouldn't be for Gay people, either. It's something that folks on the Left and the Right are concerned about, for whatever reason, and there's nothing wrong with talking about it. Our society, including some of the shame-afflicted Gay people in it, needs to grow up and deal with its entrenched homophobia. Here's an excellent opportunity to begin that process.

    Posted by: stuffed animal | May 13, 2010 1:12:04 PM


  13. So then Mr. Reilly can was also investigate a person's religion in order to decipher how it could play into a judges decision as well? Then why stop there. Let's consider race, age and sex as well.

    Posted by: jakeinlove | May 13, 2010 1:17:30 PM


  14. Thankfully, she has the sense (given her notoriously uninteresting career) to completely ignore these homophobic outbursts on fox news and from conservatives. Do not reveal or LIE. This is the u.s...honesty is a fool's virtue.

    Posted by: TANK | May 13, 2010 1:18:13 PM


  15. Bill Reilly-- Just another lying christian satanic FOX mouthpiece.

    Let's consider his sex, who did he F last night, how did he do it? Does he diddle his kids? His neighbor's husband? The dog next door? PROVE he doesn't. That sort of thing is sure on HIS mind a lot.

    Posted by: Art | May 13, 2010 1:25:07 PM


  16. I feel really bad for Kagan having to explain to the world that, statistically, professionally successful straight women of a certain age never get married. "I'm not gay, just undesirable to a lot of men. Thank you for making it an issue."

    Posted by: NoSleep4Sam | May 13, 2010 1:35:52 PM


  17. Who cares if Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. wanted gay marriage. That doesn't matter. Times change. We know that they were in favor of slavery too, so I guess that means we should bring back the slaves according to O'Reilly. Let's not even get into the idea of women voting.
    Secondly, it doesn't matter if she's gay, she still will follow her interpretation of the law. By O'Reilly's argument, Justice Thomas should recuse himself everytime a racial issue is brought before the court just because he's black. The absurdity of O'Reilly's arguments are baffling

    Posted by: Brian | May 13, 2010 1:38:13 PM


  18. @Jakeinlove - we do consider religion and sex. There has never been a female president due to sexism. People attack any political leader on the right who has strong religious beliefs (it's ok on the left) - there has only been one Catholic president and even then there was fear that he would be controlled by the Pope. So, in political matters, we take all of that into consideration whether we want to or not. In this case, if she IS gay, anyone who doesn't like her opinions will be considered a homophobe. That's just not right.

    @TANK - you often post about how bad this country is, if you hate the US so much, why do you stay here?

    Posted by: BC | May 13, 2010 1:43:21 PM


  19. I don't think I do post how bad this country is, BC. I think you're an ignorant person who doesn't understand what it means to be an american. So, the cliche goes, if you don't like the u.s.'s policies or practices or any aspect of its culture, leave. Criticism of this country and how it's run is one of its bedrock principles enshrined in the constitution and encouraged by its founders. So that previously mentioned cliche is unamerican, and yet you endorse it...why do you hate this country, bc? Are you not a real american?

    Posted by: TANK | May 13, 2010 1:48:19 PM


  20. I also want to know what brand of gas she buys as an oil company case will probably come before her. I also need to know who she voted for in any presidential election in case the Supreme Court decides the presidency again. How about what TV shows and networks she watches? What about the types of cars she has driven? Has she ever had hot coffee from McDonald's?

    Posted by: Paul | May 13, 2010 2:29:52 PM


  21. One's sexual orientation is nobodies business, end of story.

    The laws of the land has no business making rulings of a religious nature, according to our own laws, end of story.

    Every one has an 'agenda' when it comes to voting...

    e-n-d of s-t-o-r-y.

    Yeesh... it's so simple.

    Posted by: aleabeth | May 13, 2010 2:45:33 PM


  22. What's next, every Supreme Court justice nominee should have to discuss the detail about their sexual preferences, fetishes, desires, etc. because we have a right to know how it will affect their voting?

    Where does privacy end? If Kagen is gay, who cares? If she isn't, who cares? We've had so much internal debate this week after a Newsweek contributor stated he couldn't buy a gay actor playing straight, thus implying it's better if we didn't know he was gay. But we need to know this now about our Supreme Court justice nominees?

    This is just a ploy at devisiveness and I think O'Reilly should hang his head in shame that he even brought it up. It's bullshit and a smart man like O'Reilly should know it.

    Posted by: BART | May 13, 2010 3:03:21 PM


  23. The way I see it, Bill O'Reilly is a fake-non-bigot who thinks he's a noble non-homophobe because I doesn't mind that we exist. And if you read what Thomas Jefferson had to say in the past, I'm pretty sure that he could be persuaded that there is no rational way to argue against gay marriage today. But I'll let Mr. Jefferson do the talking for me:

    "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

    Posted by: Kari | May 13, 2010 3:26:07 PM


  24. in his line of thinking then, when the first church abuse case comes to the Court, and it will, ALL six catholic justices better recuse themselves because their religious orientation will dictate on that vital issue...

    idiot!

    Posted by: mike/ | May 13, 2010 3:33:43 PM


  25. He wants a haterosexual on the supreme court to follow the heterosexual supremacist ideology. Gay people who accept their sexuality distrupt the haterosexual supremacist ideology and he knows it. He wants haterosexual-only marriage, haterosexual-only education, haterosexual-only television etc.

    Posted by: Bill | May 13, 2010 5:44:39 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Ryan Phillippe Sad Nobody Got to See his Gay Kiss« «