I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own – when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny – its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.
Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”
Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality – or a lack thereof – a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service – chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.
Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under “sexual immorality.” Indeed, the majority of folks around the world – billions, actually – count this a timeless truth.
But the controversial nature of homosexuality is but one point of concern. Another involves potential conflicts of interest, “real or perceived.” If we had a judicial nominee – widely believed a compulsive gambler – tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter? If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn’t such information be germane?
And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: “By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn’t rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he’s a black heterosexual male” – remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.
On the other hand, being “gay” is what someone does.
Read More: By J. Matt Barber, WND
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
I totally agree with this. It definitely matters as what they are and what they believe and how they live would influence their interpretation of the law. They would not rule on how the law IS, but how they believe it SHOULD be. Just as the other day I heard it quoted…"Kagans INTERPRETATION of the constitution".
I don't CARE how she INTERPRETS or perceives it. It is written. What part needs to be interpreted?
If I said…do not steal from me…I think it is pretty clear cut. Freedom of speech is clear cut and the right to keep bear arms is not to be infringed on is clear cut. There IS no interpretation…it is CLEAR CUT just as the rest of the constitution!
No, I`m not angry. I am fighting MAD!
its a sickness so stop with the fres shit,,its not american….total sickness preverted…
This is the best the Obama Administration can find to become a US Supreme Court Justice… this says volumes about the Obama Administrations ideological views taking precedent over sound judgment?
This woman's personal choice to live a homosexual life style is not the only deviant social pathology coming from her… She also supports late term abortion (infanticide). She is an extremist, feminist and socialist. She has no judicial experience… the only litigation experience she has resulted in her rebuff by the US Supreme Court. This woman is not qualified, her prejudice and personal bias are clearly evident in her personal life, writings, and limited judicial history (cases). She should be an embarrassment to Harvard.
The Republican's who support her by taking a liberal turn to allow her appointment… need to resign now. Save the public the agravation and expense of removing them from office. We will remember… Filibuster this woman's confirmation and deny her a life time seat on the US Supreme Court… Period.
Angel… I agree. I don't care how one personally interprets the Constitution…
The Constitution is written and has a precise and definable interpretation… It is not subject to revisionist or activist Judgments. We need to impeach Federal Judges who interpret the Constitution outside of it's clear meaning and original intent… especially supreme court justices… for bad behavior.
We also need to impeach judges who look to other's constitution when ruling in our own courts. This has got to stop! We have a constitution which is not open for discussion. It is clear, concise and simple and should be taken on its face, not by what people "think" it is. Ever!
Indeed, why ask questions, the entire purpose of which are to uncover the character of the prospect, if those questions which might be uncomfortable can be evaded? I would ask this question, Ms Kagan, having read your college thesis which you stated was to help you clarify your own political beliefs, what clarity was revealed to you about your beliefs considering the thesis was about the history of communism in NYC? Let me restate that simpler for the other listeners who might not have had the chance to investigate the history of communism in the US, are you satisfied that communist front groups which were at odds for a century, while being driven from open politics, have finally united under an umbrella cause of unions seeking social justice? Thank you comrade Kagan, you're really cunning aren't you? No need to answer that.
DAN I THOUGH THAT WAS A SHEMAN I WAS RITE……
Lesbians and queers like their own kind, which is a small minority of the population. They tend to protect each other to the detriment of normal people. Is that hate speech? I don't think so, I don't hate them, I just don't want them around me. Birds of a feather tend to hang to together. They are more comfortable in a gay bar, I'm more comfortable in a normal bar. The Supreme Court is not a gay club, if it were we would go the way Rome did as it collapsed. Besides that I don't think she is qualified, only going by the title of her college theses, History of Communism in NYC (Which I'm sure we will see the full text of soon) I think she is of the wrong state of mind.
I think Obama recommended her to push our buttons to see how much he can get away with. He's not unstoppable and she's not qualified.
However if she states she is not gay and can prove it, ok for that point. I still want to see her theses and know more about her life.
Just for the record, how does one prove they are not gay or lesbian? Even if they are married, it seems these days, they still could be!
Its all very annoying to me but as long as I don't have to "see" the affection. I never could understand why they would want to "parade" what they do in the bedroom because that is what it amounts to. Why do they care at all that we should know. I just don't get it. They should just keep their doors and mouths closed. I don't want to see or hear!
She is the perfect obama CZAR. An anti-American extremist !!!
judging from the reports of the rights frequent sexual improprieties, (including the homosexual variety). i'm wondering if many of you making comments and judgements don't have a bit of sugar in YOUR britches. not that there's anything wrong with that. or maybe you just prefer more of the "lipstick" variety. if they're hot it's cool…
Man oh Man she sure is not very attractive is she.
Ignorance like this is why I can never be called conservative or religious. Both groups promote bigotry and hatred of anyone who is even remotely different.
Yep, and you've found the perfect site for that!