C N S News Scroll

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Elena Kagan and the L - Word

It’s been absolutely amazing to watch and listen to the lazy media tap dance around the “L- Word” when it comes to President Obama’s latest Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

The White House went out of its way to deny Kagan was “the first openly gay” Supreme Court nominee, after a CBS blogger, “with ties to the Bush administration,” surfaced an online entry.

Shortly after the nomination was announced Michael Smerconish, the often painfully, moderate morning host on WPHT (Philadelphia) kept referring to “rumors” about the personal life of Ms. Kagan while interview legal eagle Allen Dershowitz. Claiming not to understand the question or not having heard the “rumors” Dershowitz repeated “I don’t know what you’re getting at,” while Smerconish hemmed and hawed, refusing to utter the "L-Word."

Thankfully, Dershowitz pushed the host to get to the point and Smerconish finally! asked if it should matter if Kagan was a Lesbian, as it’s been reported/rumored in some corners. Dershowitz, whose famed poker games apparently once included Kagan as a regular, said he’d never seen any evidence of it and no it shouldn’t matter.

I couldn’t agree more! Who cares, who Ms. Kagan chooses to bed down with?! The truly frightening "L- Word" when it comes to Kagan it LIBERAL! Despite all of the talking point “concerns” being touted by Liberals in the lazy media about whether or not Kagan is “liberal enough” the fact of the matter is based on the minimal paper trail this first time judge nominee brings to the table indicates some troubling thoughts on Kagan’s take on constitutional issues like the Second Amendment.

Kagan’s writing for the Chicago Law Review; also portray some troubling thoughts on the First Amendment, free speech protections. Kagan wrote that speech that promotes "racial or gender inequality" could be "disappeared." The protection of disagreeable speech is a hallmark of the first Amendment, just because we find something troubling or distasteful does not give us the right to ban it. The troubling part of this thought process is who would be charged with determining what speech gets, to use Kagan’s line, ‘disappeared.”

The striking similarities in their paths to power between Obama and Kagan are striking. It’s almost as if Obama has nominated a female version of himself to the bench, which should frighten us all!

No comments: