1. Caleb says

    I’m confused as to why people think that Kagan will anger Republicans? Other than Merrick Garland, she was by far the most “conservative” on the list of possible candidates. Liberals are who should be outraged by this. To replace Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court, with this should anger any intelligent liberal.

    Then again, Obama is no liberal. And liberals trust him and he trusts Kagan so somehow they will be okay with this.

    The Republicans will not be blocking this nomination, nor would they want to. Any stink they make is for show to try to scare Americans over Obama as President. They should be thanking their stars he picked her instead of a real liberal.

  2. Evan says

    It really doesn’t matter if she is a lesbian … at least not during the confirmation process. All that matters is she is the best possible person that Obama could pick so that she ensures that the balance in Court remains as it is. I do not know a lot about Kagan and her opinions on different issues — which I intend to change today now that she’s been nominated.

    And if she is, so what? That’s another feather in the cap for Obama. He’s named two women to the bench, and both are minorities in their own special way. That, as Patrick NYC said, should make conservatives squirm like crazy — and what a wonderful sight that would be right? *giggle-giggle*

  3. Bill Perdue says

    Those who held out some hope that Obama wouldn’t nominate a rightist for the Court were simply clueless. The Democrat Party as a whole is right centrist and so are their nominees, without exception.

    All the nominees to the court for well over a century have been pro-business, anti-worker and union and they’ve upheld reactionary values as long they could.

    Here’s the key to looking at the impact of nominations. On occasion, if they’re pressured hard enough the Supremes will rule to validate the role of mass movements for social change. Those are the exceptions. The rule is that the Supremes are there to the protect property rights of the looter class as well as the rigged electoral system that keeps them in power.

    All this point conjecture about Kagan’s effect on the Supremes and their byzantine inner working is moot. The only way to change the law and the governments more harmful and obnoxious policies is via building massive movements for social change with a won’t take no for an answer agenda.

    The three big court rulings on desegregation (1954), abortion and choice (1973) and striking down sodomy laws (1992) we not bolts out of the blue.

    The NAACP had been active in the courts for decades trying to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 racist decision upholding “separate but equal”. In their decision the Supremes noted that segregation was an ’embarrassment’ that created propaganda openings for the Soviets. But the critical factor was the slow but steady growth of the militant African American movement that exploded during the 1960’s and won voting rights and widespread desegregation.

    Those three victories, like all the great advances to extend democracy have been won, not granted.

    The Supremes are never progressive unless they’re responding to pressure of some kind. Forget about the nominees, build a militant GLBT movement committed to mass actions

  4. Jeff In Boston says

    ” Forget about the nominees, build a militant GLBT movement committed to mass actions”

    right! because all the “mass actions” we’ve had since 1993 have done us so much good! such magical thinking!

  5. says

    Elena Kagan has stated in previous confirmation hearings that there is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. I doubt Towleroad would have left that out if she had been nominated by a Republican.

  6. Gridlock says

    Bush apologist, corporate ass sucker, proponent of Bush era (now Obama era) indefinite detention without charge or counsel, torture, and god knows what else… a resume with almost no opinions on it.. she’s a blank slate except for the aforementioned horror endorsement.

    As usual, Obama picks someone as “present” as he is. FAIL.

  7. Bill Perdue says

    @ Jeff in Boston – Actually they did help organize and politicize our movement and gained us lots of public support. They always do.

    What’s slowed us down is the sheer weight of bigotry expressed in the rancid legacy of Bill Clinton – DADT and DOMA, George Bush – some 40 or so state DOMA’s and Obama – ‘gawd’s in the mix’.

    If you weren’t historically and politically illiterate you could have figured that our by yourself.

  8. So Left I'm Right says

    This is 11ty dimensional chess, people! Why don’t you get on board?

    Scenario 1) A lesbian on the SCOTUS! This is huge! Oh wait, she’s not out? She may or may not be a lesbian? She may be (or may not be, we don’t really have any idea) against gay marriage? I guess I don’t know what to do with that mess. The world comes to realize gay does not equal radical leftist? Things that make you go hmmm.

    2) Conservatives simply suspect she might be a lesbian, and therefore a far left gay agenda advocate, even though she has never represented any such thing. This, along with her lack of experience as a judge, makes her a Harriet Miers figure, which gets her quashed before she even gets a fair hearing, yet leaves an opening for Obama to play his trump card and Diane Wood, an amazingly qualified, true progressive, sails through her nomination, a la Roberts/Alito. All that talk about Kagan being the one who can negoitate with terrorists, oh wait, I mean conservative strict constructionists…they really meant Wood, so the best pick takes the seat.


    3) a closeted or, quite possibly, straight Kagan endures a bunch of tired, discredited blowhard Senators (from both parties) and takes her seat on the SCOTUS after a 60-something to 30-something vote, and pulls the court to the right on issues of corporate rights and executive power, which Obama campaigned against but stands firmly for as President. The only nuance is that she might, MIGHT, retain the general Stevens 5-4 vote for most civil rights matters, and might even serve the “gay agenda” when it comes down to the too-early federal case over marriage rights, but then again, maybe not.

    Glad I don’t play chess, poker, checkers or Go Fish with President Obama.

  9. hephaestion says

    Elena Kagan looks exactly like Julie Goldman of “The Big Gay Sketch Show.”

    And Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who opposes Kagan, looks like a big ol’ Closet Queen to me.

Leave A Reply