Come meet Elena Kagan

http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/elena-kagan.jpg

Ugh.

stay classy, Alfred

I'm talking about her paper trail, or lack thereof. I like the blouse.

i dunno, i think she's got a pretty big paper trail, if you know what i mean.

I am INCENSED by HOW LITTLE I KNOW about this woman! OBAMA must think we are FOOLS!

She was a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side — a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family’s rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge’s robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice, underneath.

She was the razor-sharp newspaper editor and history major at Princeton who examined American socialism, and the Supreme Court clerk for a legal giant, Thurgood Marshall, who nicknamed her “Shorty.” She was the reformed teenage smoker who confessed to the occasional cigar as she fought Big Tobacco for the Clinton administration, and the literature lover who reread Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” every year.

I have spent at least 20 minutes Googling this person. I also critically and skeptically read a couple of articles by people. Apparently she's friends with Martha Minow - ALSO the Dean of Harvard Law School! Does Kagan associate with no one besides hoity toity eggheads like herself??

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzwhogivesafuckwhatisherjurisprudencelike

xpost

Also - how can Harvard Law School have TWO deans?? Isn't that somewhat DECADENT????????

it was for a reality show, tracer. my two deans.

Yet as a young writer for The Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton, Ms. Kagan offered clear insight into her worldview. She had spent the summer of 1980 working to elect a liberal Democrat, Liz Holtzman, to the Senate. On Election Night, she drowned her sorrow in vodka and tonic as Ronald Reagan took the White House and Ms. Holtzman lost to “an ultraconservative machine politician,” she wrote, named Alfonse D’Amato.

“Where I grew up — on Manhattan’s Upper West Side — nobody ever admitted to voting for Republicans,” Ms. Kagan wrote, in a kind of Democrat’s lament. She described the Manhattan of her childhood, where those who won office were “real Democrats — not the closet Republicans that one sees so often these days but men and women committed to liberal principles and motivated by the ideal of an affirmative and compassionate government.”

It was perhaps the last time Ms. Kagan wrote so openly of her own political beliefs. Last year, at her confirmation hearing to become solicitor general, senators focused less on her politics, but on whether she was too much in the ivory tower, with too little lawyerly experience to argue cases before the nation’s highest court. That question will almost certainly come up again, given that Ms. Kagan has never been a judge.

and the literature lover who reread Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” every year.

denied, next

Frankly we need to hold these politicians' FEET to the FIRE! Not good enough to MEEKLY OBEY. Who is Kagan??? WHAT HAS SHE EVER DONE. How do we know she is not ROBOT sent to DESTROY?? Kagan should be required to OPEN UP her CLOSED and PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE.

Our favorite agitator is agitated.

The New York Times this morning reports that "Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center." That's consummate Barack Obama. The Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they're eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values. Beltway Democrats do the opposite: the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don't really believe those things, so the path that enables them to avoid confrontation of ideas is always the most attractive, even if it risks moving the Court to the Right.

Sotomayor was hardly middle of the road and nobody expects her to be anything but reliably liberal. The Left appointed Ginsburg in the same manner. Does anyone think that Kagan is going to be conservative at all?

I think Greenwald fears that she will be considerably to the right of Stevens on issues of exec power.

I can't get over the fact that she's never even been a judge before.

a lot of past supreme court justices weren't judges before they were appointed

guilty as charged ;_;

It's been forty years since that has happened, and law has changed considerably.

I need to start reading some reasons why this woman is qualified for a lifetime appointment.

viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center.
i read this as Judy Garland and started to like her a little more
oh well

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/where-we-go-from-here/

tbh i feel like that's the least of my problems with her, and a few people i'd be happy with are academics (e.g., kathleen sullivan)
dunno how law has changed so that it would be unreasonable to appoint a non-judge

It's not unreasonable to appoint a non judge. It just seems counter intuitive.

The thing with Kagan is that she is neither a judge nor are there any indications that she's much of a great legal thinker in an academic sense (disclosure: I was at HLS while she was teaching there but before her deanship, did not take any of her classes.) She was well-liked as a teacher -- in certain circles, being well-connected and reasonably likable passes for good networking and consensus-building. The Supreme Court is not one of these circles.

It's been forty years since that has happened, and law has changed considerably.

How has jurisprudence changed in forty years so that one should look more carefully at nominees without bench experience? I've opposed her nomination from the start, but Kagan's never being a judge is the least of my worries (in fact, it may be one of her pluses).

could be that appointing only judges is what "changed" things and made it look like that experience is necessary

obama's said that he would look for someone with "real-world experience." but the kind of real-world experience kagan has hardly matches the spirit of his statements (that's not necessarily a criticism of her, btw).

The thing with Kagan is that she is neither a judge nor are there any indications that she's much of a great legal thinker in an academic sense (disclosure: I was at HLS while she was teaching there but before her deanship, did not take any of her classes.) She was well-liked as a teacher -- in certain circles, being well-connected and reasonably likable passes for good networking and consensus-building. The Supreme Court is not one of these circles.

This interests me; a friend who did take her class and interacted with her a lot both in class and outside of class is super psyched about her appointment and has zero concerns about her academic heft.

Rumor has it that consensus-builder is like the last possible thing she is, unless by "consensus" you mean "her opinion".

ha!

From Paul Campos' TNR article:

Recently, I asked a law professor—a former student of Kagan's and a political conservative—what she thought of Kagan's prospective nomination. After expressing warm admiration for Kagan's teaching abilities (and gratitude for the letters of recommendation Kagan wrote for her) the professor opined that, as a justice, Kagan probably “wouldn’t be political.” When I pressed her on what she meant by that, she explained that she believed that, if put on the Supreme Court, Kagan "would be a centrist." (Given the professor's own political inclinations, she clearly meant this as praise). Yet, when I asked about how she had made that judgment, the professor acknowledged that it was based on just a "gut feeling."

On the flip side, liberal law professor Walter Dellinger recently claimed in Slate that Kagan’s views on presidential power are “fundamentally progressive.” Yet the sum total of Dellinger’s evidence consists of the “Presidential Administration” article and a 2007 commencement speech in which Kagan criticized John Yoo’s torture memos. Given the uncontroversial nature of the Harvard Law Review article and the fact that the torture memos have been repudiated by the Bush administration’s own lawyers, this is pretty thin evidence for Kagan’s supposedly “progressive” inclinations.

The contrasting assumptions about Kagan's views continue to bump up against each other in media coverage of her pending nomination because we lack definitive evidence of what she really believes. Perhaps her views will become clearer during her confirmation process in the Senate, and perhaps, if confirmed, she will make an excellent justice.

But, for a president to appoint someone to a lifetime position, wouldn’t it be preferable to know what she believes on the biggest issues of the day—and how she arrived at those conclusions? If Obama does nominate Kagan, as he likely will, he will be taking a very big risk.

been wondering what does it mean temperament-wise to have a SC nominee who has been a teacher for so long?

She made the school friendlier to students, with free coffee and a volleyball court

When the Washington Post has to point to this, you know you're talking about a person with a thin record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051001033_3.html?hpid=topnews

been wondering what does it mean temperament-wise to have a SC nominee who has been a teacher for so long?

In the case of Felix Frankfurter, it made conferences hell on earth; he was given to lecturing his colleagues like they were first-year law students.

here we go

and a volleyball court

And the White House is still denying she's gay?

we can't criticize our own? that's what we do.
being in a room full of teachers is absolutely unbearable.

Obama speaking now (I guess we'll spend the next two months getting reminded of Thurgood Marshall's nickname for her)

It's even less surprising that Obama would not want to choose someone like Diane Wood. If you were Barack Obama, would you want someone on the Supreme Court who has bravely insisted on the need for Constitutional limits on executive authority, resolutely condemned the use of Terrorism fear-mongering for greater government power, explicitly argued against military commissions and indefinite detention, repeatedly applied the progressive approach to interpreting the Constitution on a wide array of issues, insisted upon the need for robust transparency and checks and balances, and demonstrated a willingness to defy institutional orthodoxies even when doing so is unpopular? Of course you wouldn't. Why would you want someone on the Court who has expressed serious Constitutional and legal doubts about your core policies? Do you think that an administration that just yesterday announced it wants legislation to dilute Miranda rights in the name of Scary Terrorists -- and has seized the power to assassinate American citizens with no due process -- wants someone like Diane Wood on the Supreme Court?

Obama's people also leaked that Merrick Garland is probably their next nominee, cuz they predict that the waning of his political capital would make a safe-as-houses nominee the likeliest bet.

http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/242/578/67/vibes.jpg

She made the school friendlier to students, with free coffee and a volleyball court

hope kagan will bring these types of left-leaning progressive reforms to the supreme court.

lol

haha the guy on cnn right now - "she has a lot of conservative friends. i have no idea what she thinks about anything though, i guess we'll find that out later"

middle of the road blandness we can believe in

I confess that I know nothing about law. But, from a character standpoint, I find almost every anecdote about her obnoxious. The most offensive:

Ms. Kagan defended her experience during confirmation hearings as solicitor general last year. “I think I bring up some of the communications skills that has made me — I’m just going to say it — a famously excellent teacher.”

She was a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side — a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family’s rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge’s robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice, underneath.

OH GOD Mara Liasson crowing about what "a great thing politically" it is for Obama that "left wing groups" are "lukewarm" about the nomination.

I look forward to all the code words for 'jew' that will be hurled during this imbroglio

This might be a thing; first time ever, no WASP on the Court.

a few roaches though.

so, is she out or not? can't wait for the photoshops. supreme seasons is just the worst...

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/05/5a39c8af762855feb93fb4278b68d119/340x.png

I confess that I know nothing about law. But, from a character standpoint, I find almost every anecdote about her obnoxious.

^ this.

http://i537.photobucket.com/albums/ff334/UncleBillyLovesCR/ElenaSummers.jpg

Thanks for the bookmark.

Ok I lold @ mama lutz

the thing that bugs me the most about this nom is the centralization of decision making onto the president himself. all accounts on a bunch of different issues say obama doesn't really delegate anything, and that's kind of dangerous frankly. clearly obama thinks his judgment of her, from working with her closely for a year (solicitor general works directly for the president, right?), should be enough for everyone to go on.

haha gawker http://gawker.com/5534838/elena-kagan-is-obamas-supreme-court-nominee-should-you-like-her?skyline=true&s=i

What do you think of Elena Kagan, speaking as...

A MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD LIBERAL? You think she is pretty good! You trust Obama to make the right decision, and Kagan's stint in both the Clinton and Obama administrations endears her toward you. You are maybe a little troubled by her apparent views in support of strong executive authority, but she is pro-choice and progressive on gay rights. Larry Lessig likes her!

it's enough for iatee.

Send an email to Max Read, the author of this post, at m✧✧@gaw✧✧✧.c✧✧.

fuck that, i'll talk to him here

the thing that bugs me the most about this nom is the centralization of decision making onto the president himself. all accounts on a bunch of different issues say obama doesn't really delegate anything, and that's kind of dangerous frankly. clearly obama thinks his judgment of her, from working with her closely for a year (solicitor general works directly for the president, right?), should be enough for everyone to go on.

it's funny you say that, since obama uses lincoln's notion of a "team of rivals" to characterize the composition of his secretaries and upper-level staff. a "team of rivals" implies an openness in evaluation and decision-making that is sharply at odds with your comment about obama's centralized decision-making.

xp

more like 'lol obama doesn't have to care about what left-wing internet dudes think about his nominees'

ah didn't know max wrote that!

lol he basically cliffsnotes'd that last thread

a "team of rivals" implies an openness in evaluation and decision-making that is sharply at odds with your comment about obama's centralized decision-making.

yes, but the media constantly got this wrong in early '08. Lincoln may have had several warring factions in his cabinet, but HE was in charge.

It's a fine Gawker tradition! Carry on, Max, as you were.

xp you are an embarassment. he doesn't have to care about what his base thinks about anything, i guess, when he can just as easily find ground with the conservatives

Did not know that Gawker Max = ilx Max.

I have just realized that I have my dates screwed up, and even behind the luxury of a fake name must confess that that I now realize that she started at Harvard after I left and that my direct experiences of her and the stories of her reputation are based on her time at Chicago. But I'll stick with what I said: her students that I talked to adored her, her reputation for Liberalism came with the big asterisk "for the University of Chicago Law School, that is" attached (which, if you don't know, is a very big fucking asterisk indeed), but that most of her reputation for brilliance came, as far as I can tell, from not engaging in the Paper Chase/One L antics of presenting THE LAW to first year students as something unknowably difficult. I have a lot of sympathy for those methods, but I also am not Supreme Court material.

So, Mr. Dere, I mean that she had the reputation of a consensus builder in environments (the Clinton Administration, Harvard and Chicago Law Schools) where no great skills in consensus building were likely to be developed. Got me?

haha i didn't know max wrote for gawker til now actually xp

neither did I. Wow.

today is his first day, so

eh that lincoln stuff is self-serving bs. the only rival is hillary, and state has been left to run everything non-important on autopilot

xp: "for the University of Chicago Law School, that is" attached (which, if you don't know, is a very big fucking asterisk indeed)

lol like someone else we know

That "team of rivals" stuff was just talk from the campaign. On the economic side, Obama went with two folks, Geithner and Summers, with similar views and a chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel with a similar take to Geithner and Summers.

congratulations on the gawker job, max.

quibble with greenwald here:

The Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they're eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values.

these guys do have "long and clear records" but they weren't exactly eager to publicly defend anything. the "moderate" bs goes both ways (though it's pretty clear that moderate more or less = more conservative than not)

both of them were sold as middle-of-the-road dudes, just calling balls and strikes, roe v wade is "settled law" and all that. they are both example a-1 why the nominating process is so stupid and toxic -- a year or so after they're on the bench and you get jeffrey toobin articles in the new yorker saying "holy shit, these guys are super right wing!!" that would have been completely obvious if the hearing weren't conducted to hide it!

nominating these people w/o hearing would probably be better these days, since the senate business is effectively a pale echo of whatever the partisan press has dug up about the nominee anyway

So, Mr. Dere, I mean that she had the reputation of a consensus builder in environments (the Clinton Administration, Harvard and Chicago Law Schools) where no great skills in consensus building were likely to be developed. Got me?

Oh yeah, I got you. That makes sense and totally jibes with the stories I have heard.

that's right. roberts danced around his hard-line conservative leanings artfully during his confirmation Hr'g. he did it so well, in fact, that he made the examining senators look foolish.

xp

he isn't going to get up and say "people with power and influence ought to get the benefit of every doubt, and if someone is trying to upset people like that in any way, it's probably illegal". but that's basically his record.

YouTube once sported extended bits from Bork's failed confirmation hearings in '87, and, wow, what a difference: maybe the last time we'll ever see a SCOTUS nominee arguing constitutional principles with the Judiciary Committee. I disagreed with nine out of ten things Bork said, but at least he defended his record in an articulate manner.

he isn't going to get up and say "people with power and influence ought to get the benefit of every doubt, and if someone is trying to upset people like that in any way, it's probably illegal". but that's basically his record.

tbh I totally agree with that stance as long as I am the person with power and influence

if I'm not, then that stance totally sucks voles

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/conservatives_get_ready_for_ka.html

here we go guys. comments are, just, beyond

We're already seeing a line of criticism develop. If I can sum it up in the bluntest possible language, Kagan is a New York, Ivy League elitist, a critic of the military during wartime, who was picked because President Obama is all of those things. It will be less difficult for conservatives to drum up skepticism about her than it was the self-made Sonia Sotomayor, who tripped up conservatives when they went overboard in accusing her of benefiting from her race.

funny, in our new Beck-y atmosphere, that line of a attack seems kind of tired and played out. a liberal elitist, yeah, tell me another one...

woah she is tiny

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/POLITICS/05/10/scotus.kagan/t1main.obama.kagan.11.gi.jpg

also, and I hate saying this, she looks like one of my poker buddies, only with less hair

just before that photo was taken, kagen whispered to obama "just get me confirmed, then we'll make all those bastards pay."

http://aspecialthing.com/images/ASTnews/patton.jpg

she's a lesbian, right? looking forward to her conversations with Scalia

http://twi-ny.com/slapshot.jpg

A LESBIAN!!!!

she's a lesbian, right? looking forward to her conversations with Scalia

actually I read someplace last week that they have hung out.

they look kinda alike

that doesn't surprise me, he's a major jerk and i hate him but somehow he manages to be ginsburg's best friend so i don't think he should have a problem getting along with kagan

I see your poker buddy and I raise you a Britisher:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01290/David_Mitchell_1290635c.jpg

Hey, look, Ginsburg and Scalia in their very own Wes Anderson movie:

http://www.adamshoop.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/elephant440.jpg

according to the nyt, kagan and scalia get along well--she has a rocky relaysh with roberts

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15scotus.html

Ms. Graham is happy.

I have developed a real hatred for Roberts so this is one quality in Kagan's favor.

Ms.?

If you're feeling nasty.

ms. graham if you're nasty.

wow Graham looks like an old manly woman in that pic

bernie sanders on her resume:

“I understand there has been concern that she never has been a judge. I can only say that if the Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporate cash to dominate American elections, is what results from a court made up of people who wore robes most of their lives, then Elena Kagan’s experience outside courtrooms should not be held against her.

otm

Roland S. Martin goes there. Kind of surprised it didn't happen sooner.

i'm really nervous.jpg about her hidden? tacit? understood-but-you-know? lesbianism. it's kind of amazing and gross that this is not a clear-cut thing one way or another for a major public figure, but then again, lol lindsey graham is a big ol woman. charlie crist, how was your wedding ha ha ha etc

it has to come up, right? the right wing is nothing if not obvious these days, this won't be left alone. the only thing is the cheney crowd's weird radio silence about lesbianism (as distinct from the "gay agenda" generally, which is all about manonman fears)

Folks, I wasn't born yesterday.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/on-kagans-minority-hiring-record.html

the numbersmachine does his thing. (have not read.)

in 2010 I'm not sure the GOP has much to gain from attacking her for being gay

i doubt they'd do so openly. maybe via dog-whistle political messaging, tho.

I dunno how many people out there:

a. would be horrified by a lesbian in power (okay a lot, but also:)
+
b. care enough about to pay attention to this beyond the headlines
+
c. wouldn't already support her / not support her for another reason

about *this to

i feel like that 538 post ignores *how* law faculties come to be mostly white and male in order to show that this particular person is "fair." she might be a fair person but like, that doesn't matter. the point is that it seems like she didn't think this was a big enough problem to do something about it.

it's kind of amazing and gross that this is not a clear-cut thing one way or another for a major public figure, but then again, lol lindsey graham is a big ol woman. charlie crist, how was your wedding ha ha ha etc

Sullivan:

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.
In a word, this is preposterous - a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority - and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality - is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified. It's especially true with respect to Obama. He has, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination. Well: does he view Kagan's possible life-experience as a gay woman relevant to this? Did Obama even ask about it? Are we ever going to know one way or the other? Does she have a spouse? Is this spouse going to be forced into the background in a way no heterosexual spouse ever would be?

elame-a kkkagan

And our old friend Maggie Gallagher says a vote for Kagan is a vote for marriage equality.

just wondering: are men allowed to be nominated to the supreme court anymore? about 4 hours ago via web
kathrynlopez
Kathryn Jean Lopez

LOL

won't someone think of the men?

men can only work for harvard law now

am i the only one just now realizing that maggie gallagher looks just like k lo

ugh i want a twitter just so i can tweet at k-lo

http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/maggie-gallagher.jpg

i'm sensing a smash poll

noooooooooooooo

(i'm sorry, but you can) ONLY PICK ONE

http://schema-root.org/people/career/commentators/maggie_gallagher/maggie_gallagher.jpg

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l156/freshmucker/annyong.jpg

Annyong?

loool

Meanwhile start getting used to this, guys. Kagan has a personal interest in lesbianism.

i agree in general that she should disclose her sexuality

so do i, as it happens

xp

Yep.

I don't. I think if she want's to, that's fine, but if she doesn't want to, that's fine as well. I really don't care.

smmfh @ "conflict of interest" bullshit

(likewise, if there are people passing, let them pass)

I don't, since they wouldn't ever have asked a similar question of Souter, even in this climate. This is basically a form of misogyny dressed up as concern.

Normally I'm pretty eh-whatever about this sort of thing, but sexuality and jurisprudence do intersect; and the President himself started it by specifically crediting her "real world experiences" with making her a better intellectual.

One qualification for public office is personal character, and nothing speaks to character more than the choices one makes when it comes to sexual conduct. Bill Clinton convinced an entire generation of America's youth that oral sex isn't really sex, and as a result we've seen an explosion among millenials in cancers of the throat and head caused by the HPV virus, which is spread through oral-genital contact.

It's time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans.

The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?

i think this is called "coming correct"

Sullivan posted this a little while ago:

The days are past when this could be brushed under the rug. Let's have an honest debate, can we? The way to counter prejudice is through truth - not avoidance. For the right to oppose Kagan merely because she is gay - if she is - would be one more step toward their self-destruction. By staying mum, the Obamites may be playing yet another rope-a-dope. I just cannot see how in 2010, ambiguity is an option. I mean: who would claim that John Roberts' heterosexuality is somehow private? It is a demonstrably reported fact that there would now be no Protestants on the court - just Catholics and Jews. Why is this not an invasion of privacy, if asking someone about their sexual orientation is

Announcing one's religion is not the same as proclaiming your sexuality, but point taken.

enh, if there were a male homosexual up for a nom, you can be sure he'd be under the same scrutiny.

as for whether i think she should out with it---she shouldn't have to, but i honestly think that if she v casually was like "yeah i am a lesbian, what of it" then it would defang the right a little bit? esp since the "conflict of interest" argument is so patently bullshit (...why isn't blackness/jewishness/catholicness a salient point of conflict for potential justices?). refusing to discuss her sexuality makes it appear (unfairly, mind!) to her critics that it is something ~worth hiding~. that it does in fact represent some freighted pet interest and not just some aspect of her life that can be noted (Scalia loves the Pope!) and ignored.

xps

i liked max's article

enh, if there were a male homosexual up for a nom, you can be sure he'd be under the same scrutiny.

as for whether i think she should out with it---she shouldn't have to, but i honestly think that if she v casually was like "yeah i am a lesbian, what of it" then it would defang the right a little bit? esp since the "conflict of interest" argument is so patently bullshit (...why isn't blackness/jewishness/catholicness a salient point of conflict for potential justices?). refusing to discuss her sexuality makes it appear (unfairly, mind!) to her critics that it is something ~worth hiding~. that it does in fact represent some freighted pet interest and not just some aspect of her life that can be noted (Scalia loves the Pope!) and ignored.

xps

― rapping about space and shit, floatin’ around in an orgy of screen savers (gbx),

otm

cngrtltn mx

One qualification for public office is personal character, and nothing speaks to character more than the choices one makes when it comes to sexual conduct. Bill Clinton convinced an entire generation of America's youth that oral sex isn't really sex, and as a result we've seen an explosion among millenials in cancers of the throat and head caused by the HPV virus, which is spread through oral-genital contact.

It's time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans.

The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?

omg who posted this nonsense?

apologies if it was linked upthread. i didn't see it.

I KNOW IT WASN'T YOU MAX

daniel:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-no-lesbian-qualified-sit-supreme-court

Hugh Hewitt, surprisingly, endorses her:

President Obama's nominee for the United States Supreme Court is one of the most qualified individuals in the country for the job simply because of her experience as Solicitor General and in the White House Counsel's office. There are very few places in the world where a lawyer actually practices constitutional law, and those are two of them. SG Kagan is undoubtedly very smart, very likeable, and will be supported by a broad cross-section of the Bar, including many senior members of the conservative judicial establishment.

The only thing that could derail her nomination would be an extremely unlikely series of mistakes at her hearings. The GOP members of the Judiciary Committee should strive to fully explore her judicial philosophy and, rather than eating up time with long winded speeches, should ask brief questions on key issues and give her the time to answer at length. Though stranger things have happened, it is hard to imagine the fall term beginning without Justice Kagan on the Court.

a wise lesbian

esp since the "conflict of interest" argument is so patently bullshit (...why isn't blackness/jewishness/catholicness a salient point of conflict for potential justices?)

You realize that for some people, blackness/jewishness/catholicness IS a point of conflict for potential judges, right? Have you already forgotten the uproar over the "wise Latina" comment?

But for these people sexuality is a "lifestyle choice" one must explain.

You realize that for some people, blackness/jewishness/catholicness IS a point of conflict for potential judges, right? Have you already forgotten the uproar over the "wise Latina" comment?

yes, i realize it IS, for some people. however, it ought not to be. i'm not saying that these "-ness"es aren't ~relevant~ to whatever processes underwrite a justice's legal reasoning, but to frame them as conflicts of interest is to necessarily put them into opposition to what they aren't. that is, the interest with which they are conflicting is that of white dudes.

sullivan is otm: if the left gets het up about the right having the audacity to force her lesbianism into the public square, then they are playing directly into their hands. will her experiences as a (maybe closeted) lesbian woman inform her jurisprudence? probably! will it do so in a way that is grossly disproportionate to any of the other aspects of her character (being a woman, being a jew, being a lol elite, etc)? maybe! but probably only if/when same-sex marriage comes up. will the right look pretty ugly if they try to make her sexuality a point of contention? i think so, and not just to gay-loving lefties, imo.

probably only if/when same-sex marriage comes up

Not necessarily. Sexuality infects/inflects lots of my positions in subtle and not so subtle ways.

lol I made a joek

will the right look pretty ugly if they try to make her sexuality a point of contention? i think so, and not just to gay-loving lefties, imo.

also arizona is going to continue to be front page news and GOP leadership is already gonna be busy trying to not look like they hate mexicans as much as they actually do.

I really do hope she's gay

i understand why a lot of people have to attempt to pass to protect their careers and families and stuff but it makes me sad to see someone with a lot of power & who isn't going to lose anything by being open about it (more like gain some freedom, i feel like, but i can't really say) still being secretive. i don't like when people are in my business either but knowing that all the other justices' wives/husbands/kids exist isn't considered an invasion of their privacy. (this is not to say it's ok to pry or say she has some "interest" we need to know about, obv.) i also wonder if there is someone who could have been there with her brothers watching the announcement but had to watch it on c-span to help protect the illusion. sucks.

Announcing one's religion is not the same as proclaiming your sexuality, but point taken.

― cool and remote like dancing girls (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, May 10, 2010 1:54 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

no, it isn't, i guess (xp to your last comment, too). but i think in this arena, it's not unreasonable to make them roughly equivalent: if a justice of the SCOTUS is supposed to be, first and foremost, an interpreter of the constitution and precedent and w/e, then his or her sexual orientation really ought to have as much bearing on his or her judicial opinion as ANYTHING ELSE that makes up his or her character. of course, these are easier concerns to sideline if the candidate has a judicial track record---if they don't, parsing their ethnic/sexual/whatever background for glimpses of future jurisprudence is the next step, i guess. if yr dumb.

i mean, to me, what's interesting here (and what probably frightens the right) is that you might have a member of a minority "group" getting into a position on the supreme court ~before~ the decisive judicial issue with which they (might) be concerned has really even come up for review. ppl would have been screaming about a thurgood marshall nom if it had happened in the 50s, because you know dude might judicially deactivate segregation or make white ppl illegal or w/e. or getting a woman on the court before roe v wade.

THIS is why it's a bit easier for ppl to (wrongly) frame this as a conflict of interest, imo; "not fair! lesbians are getting one of their own on the court ~before~ we (not lesbians) were given the opportunity to decide the issue for them!" it's only a conflict of interest if you assume that someone's character is inherently opposed to yours because of whatever it is about them you dislike. let the right try and make that argument with a straight face---give 'em enough rope imo

i feel like it's a conflict of interest for justice roberts to decide important civil rights cases because of his background and identity but no one will listen to me

lieberman is pumped

http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/5/lieberman-statement-on-kagan-nomination

Spend a few minutes researching what Freepers (admittedly an extreme of most conservative thought) think of Mary Cheney's lesbianism, even though they still LOVE her dad, and you'll get an idea why Kagan's sexuality, whether she's out with it or closeted, is going to be a minefield either way.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-19/elena-kagans-achilles-heel/

my basic stance is fuck peter bienart

sp

I disagree so strongly with that dude's opinion that I am actually repressing a visceral body shudder.

IOW goole OTM

He's always been a douche.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/05/i-like-his-positive-attitude.html

fuck anyone who uses Kagan's sexuality, either against her or for her

For as much as we have been making fun of Klo or Maggie Gallagher, that guy's picture was even more obnoxious.

I kind of agree with Beinart that banning ROTC and military recruitment from Ivy campuses was a self-defeating sort of ivory-tower liberal move, but I also think that making Kagan's nomination a referendum on this particular issue would be to apply a short-sighted, contrarian litmus test.

Beinart's best buddy is Jonah Goldberg.

Obama himself is on record as saying that banning ROTC at Ivy League schools is a mistake

"I recognize that there are students here who have differences in terms of military policy. But the notion that young people here at Columbia or anywhere, in any university, aren't offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203114.html

SCOTUS already ruled against this too.

Banning them because they are the military is a mistake. Banning them because of discriminatory hiring practices is a-okay by me.

I think Beinart is right - you can't treat the military like just any other recruiter. You can disagree with their hiring practices, but banning them outright is not going to solve anything.

On a lighter note, I hope Kagan gets together with her girl Sonia about changing the uniform for female justices so that a table doily is no longer required.

http://jonjost.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/supreme-court-portrait-2009.jpg

I fundamentally disagree. In fact, if anything I think that hiring practices for the military and federal agencies should be held to stricter equality standards than private companies, since these are entities engaged in activities that are fundamentally concerned with running and protecting the country; how can you say that it's okay for this country to demand you pay taxes but not allow you to volunteer for armed service?

Please note that I am not calling for strict representational quotas; what I am calling for is equal access and (reasonably) equal consideration to the hiring process. Let everyone apply/enroll and let the interview process/physical training/insert applicable process here do its thing.

^^^This, definitely: think of exactly whose money pays for all these people hiring other people.

I agree with you that military hiring discrimination is bad policy, unfair, unjust, etc. and it should be changed. But what I'm saying is, I don't think that universities barring military recruiters or ROTC programs from their campuses is the best way to foment change in this area. I think it contributes to a sense of distrust between the military and academic elites, which unfortunately have a fraught relationship going back many years.

I haven't studied the relevant SCOTUS case but the constitutionality of DADT has never been challenged.

Dan is OTM, mostly.

since these are entities engaged in activities that are fundamentally concerned with running and protecting the country

What gives these activities more philosophical or political priority over others?

I know you're not calling for representational quotas, but the government frequently attempts to redress discrimination via the hiring process.

wasn't her fairly narrow legal point that the DADT violated Harvard's non-discrimination policy? and, well, doesn't it?

We frequently ignore whatever discriminating hiring process exists if we happen to agree with it.

And the good news is that I am certain that Kagan will be asked about DADT and whatever narrow point she made at Harvard.

did she actually start that? people (in the news) are acting like she did but i dunno. i thought it was something most law schools did. after the ban on recruiters had to end my own still hung letters on every poster advertising when the JAG people were coming, saying like the military is discriminating here and we don't agree with it but we have to let them on campus blah blah blah.

wikipedia says it's an association of american law schools policy, she supported it but so did almost every law school dean

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2010/02/18/img-author-photo---peter-beinart-96_071700685296.jpg

he looks like that dude that killed that chick on spring break

hahahaha matt

back to her sexuality (sorry, i was at work), the administration can basically deal w/ the 'scrutiny' over her sexuality during the nomination process, or sweep it under the rug (assuming no GOP member has the balls to ask her directly -- i assume they wouldn't knowing how the senate protects the delinquency of their own, regardless of party -- altho i guess she might not be old boy enough) and deal with the constant speculation of whether or not she is gay whenever it may correlate to what's going on in the court -- practically speaking, if i was her, i would just choose to deal with it before/during nomination, since she's 100% going to get confirmed anyhow

No GOP member has yet commented on the essay she wrote in Sean Willentz' class, to which today's NYT story alluded: she made wistful, undergraduate noises about socialism. I expect that come up.

As the day's progressed and the subtext of much of the GOP commentary seems to be, "Well, she's going to get confirmed barring something extraordinary," I'm more pissed than ever that Obama didn't nominate a liberal ideologue like Diane Wood since he knows he'll never have this huge a majority in the Senate again.

no WASP on the court? what the fuck is roberts?

She made the school friendlier to students, with free coffee and a volleyball court

When the Washington Post has to point to this, you know you're talking about a person with a thin record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051001033_3.html?hpid=topnews

― curmudgeon, Monday, May 10, 2010 9:00 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark

amen. fuck obama for not nominating a strong progressive thinker. s/he would get nominated in the end and he knows it.

Sullivan makes the point I raised earlier: Obama's obsession with nominating a judge with "life experience" makes his and Kagan's hesitation about revealing her sexuality look silly:

Whatever we believe should be public knowledge is largely irrelevant now. Google reveals all. Blogs talk about things previously sealed from view. The Internet has made the MSM's role of what is "fit to print" more declarative than decisive. The NYT's bizarre profile of Kagan, which plumbs every minute aspect of her most intimate and private life while saying nothing whatever about her emotional relationships, home, dating, or indeed anything that might even touch upon her sexual orientation, gay or straight, is so contrived in its avoidance of the obvious it is almost comic. To put it bluntly: the NYT can produce 4,500 words on a person and barely address the three most common Google searches on her name. There is some kind of disconnect here, no?

So I stick to my guns. If Obama had not publicly declared someone's life experiences to be essential to his pick of a Supreme Court Justice, it would be one thing. If I were invading one iota of someone's privacy when the press has already ransacked it, it would be another. If there were no openly gay public figures or officials and a justice's sexual orientation would make it impossible for her to be confirmed, it would be another. But when every aspect of someone's life is for public view except for one, and when that one aspect is as pertinent to a person's life experience as ethnicity or gender or religion or family, then I am not required to uphold a double standard I do not share, and which, in fact, I find to be riddled with prejudice. So I feel it is completely defensible to ask the question and print the answer. That's all. No exposure of private matters; just honesty about public ones. No search and destroy mission into private affairs; just fair-minded clarity about public ones. And that matters.

That goes for liberals as well as conservatives. It is others who are being inconsistent on this, not me.

otm

no WASP on the court? what the fuck is roberts?

Catholic

I don't, since they wouldn't ever have asked a similar question of Souter, even in this climate. This is basically a form of misogyny dressed up as concern.

― sharia twain (suzy), Monday, May 10, 2010 6:49 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

oh come on, there's way more blips on the gaydar screen with Kagan.

is it possible she's... straight?

nah couldn't be

roberts is catholic?!?! i had no idea.

is it possible she's... straight?

― goole, Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:41 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Well, with Souter the entirety of speculation about him being gay was that he hadn't been married. But rumors about Kagan being seen with her girlfriend at Harvard were/are so common that she was initially reported to be openly gay.

I still say Obama should have nominated an openly gay person so the Republicans could spend 3 months looking like bigots, but oh well.

SHE LOOKS LIKE DAVID MITCHELL SHE LOOKS LIKKE DAVID MITCHELL SHE LOOKS LIKE DAVID MITCHELL

oops didn't noticed someone had posted his pic but REALLY she does

i've been watching c-span washington journal yesterday and today. so many callers complaining about "zionists" on the court!

I still say Obama should have nominated an openly gay person so the Republicans could spend 3 months looking like bigots

next supreme court justice:

http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/ricky_martin_singer.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/daily-pitch/2010/05/11/kaganbasex-large.jpg?loc=interstitialskip

What gives these activities more philosophical or political priority over others?

Because government activities are paid for by taxes collected from all of its citizens, regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. If the money is coming from everyone, the opportunity to participate in these activities should be open to everyone.

That didn't take long:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-no-longer-thinks-supreme-court-nominees-should-have-to-answer-direct-questions/

lol

Hah, if Sotomayor's "wise Latina" canard lead to all that wasted debate, I look forward to hearing wise Lesbian Kagan grilled about what being gay brings to the bench.

I'll save myself the trouble of posting "Kagan Flip Flops, Greenwald Shits in Bucket"

oh can't wait to read this one

I imagine him reading that and turning into a kind of malfunctioning C-3PO.

"turning into"

i get kind of a lovitz vibe off of elena kagan
http://images.dawgsports.com/images/admin/Jon_Lovitz_no_I_dont_know_why_hes_wearing_a_lei.jpg

http://swag-city.com/images/26312.jpg

you guys, we get it, she's ugly

Mandatory seersucker on the court and everyone would look nice.

http://mensstyleguide.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/seersucker2.jpg

nah, mandatory paisley:

http://www.costumehire.co.uk/images/costumes/main/display/534.jpg

why is norm coleman dressed like david byrne

elena kagan, the principled progressive great compromiser:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/10/politics/main6471259.shtml

this thing was kind of addressed in that huffpo article

i assume she'll be asked about late-term abortions in confirmation hearings & i'd put more stock in that than this

you're right, it's just one of the very few things we can find in her record and again it's not exactly inspiring

the problem with using that article as evidence of her being some sort of yellow-backed "compromiser" is that politics, believe it or not, is almost wholly about "compromise"! that's why we have, for instance, a nation. the supreme court on the other hand has almost no use or place for compromises amongst judges.

right but it's a record of something in a sphere of policy making that is tangential, but generally a very different beast

otm

the supreme court on the other hand has almost no use or place for compromises amongst judges.

SCOTUS compromises all the time! It's easier, of course, when the Court boasted lots of swing votes like O'Connor, Lewis Powell, and Blackmun's. Rather than strike legislation outright they preferred to modify it here and there, hoping to lure that all-important fifth vote.

But I'm with you in that this revelation doesn't bother me.

Something told me that Norm Coleman would be rocking the NuBuck.

ezra: Barack Obama picks himself for the Supreme Court

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/barack_obama_picks_himself_for.html

Obama is cool. He makes a show of processing the other side's viewpoint. He's more interested in the fruits of consensus than the clarification of conflict. In fact, just as Kagan is praised for giving conservative scholars a hearing at Harvard's Law School, Obama was praised for giving conservative scholars a hearing on the Harvard Law Review. "The things that frustrate people about Obama will frustrate people about Kagan," says one prominent Democrat who's worked with both of them.

maybe that's what k-lo's twitter meant

You're probably giving her too much credit.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/value-over-replacement-justice.html

borderline nutty, but a useful exercise: nate silver tries to put a value on kagan's youth, relative to diane wood. behold the VORJ

another sort-of silver lining in this whole thing. having diane wood remain on the 7th circuit court of appeals is not nothing. appeals courts are powerful!

obama's superstar cabinet, for instance, is not w/o its political consequences. i'd much rather janet napolitano was still governor of AZ, and ken salazar was still in the senate from CO. pulling someone from their job to serve on the supreme court is a different and more consequential thing, of course, but eh lipstick on a pig and all that.

yeah but if he had named her he could appoint someone else to the 7th circuit, it's not like losing someone in elected office

Obama could easily have appointed himself to the 7th Circuit. He's so cynical.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/value-over-replacement-justice.html

borderline nutty, but a useful exercise: nate silver tries to put a value on kagan's youth, relative to diane wood. behold the VORJ

another sort-of silver lining in this whole thing. having diane wood remain on the 7th circuit court of appeals is not nothing. appeals courts are powerful!

obama's superstar cabinet, for instance, is not w/o its political consequences. i'd much rather janet napolitano was still governor of AZ, and ken salazar was still in the senate from CO. pulling someone from their job to serve on the supreme court is a different and more consequential thing, of course, but eh lipstick on a pig and all that.

― goole, Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:42 PM (1 hour ago)

these are good points

that's a pretty cool article. not sure how much faith i put into that math, but i'm really tiring of this argument - "her service on behalf of two Democratic administrations" - this sorta assumes all or most of the potentially unconstitutional shit SCOTUS rules on happens under repub admins

or the things a liberal justice would rule against, i shd specify

not gay!

says eliot spitzer!

well, he would know

i dunno, only a lesbo would wear that blouse

I don't know, Spitzer has worn some pretty manly blouses.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100511&content_id=9967722&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Awesome headline.

"First of all," he continued, "I'll say that she's choked way too far up on the bat. It looks like the lower hand's kind of too much over, knuckles need alignment. You can tell she's gripping the bat way too hard. She's not going to be able to get it there.

"The stance is not very good. Her feet are kind of open here. That's not going to make for a real good, powerful stance. Smiling at the pitcher is probably not a great idea.

"I do like how the head is turned. Her shoulders are nice. She's balanced. But it's not a very strong stance and you can't smile at the pitcher or you're gonna get hit. You're gonna get hit."

When told that she is a Mets fan, Francoeur shifted his position. "Is she?" he asked. "Well, tell her I like her then. Tell her she's got a good stance."

hahaha I was going to post that

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

I wish that quote fit in my ILX signature. I think I will make it my new manifesto.

she does have a pretty nice stance tbh! francoeur has a lifetime OBP of .311 so take that with grain of salt

wide stance imo

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/asshole.png

Even if I had this woman's hands they still wouldn't be big enough for appropriate facepalming when following politics.
http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/big_hands.jpg

BOAK. Cheers.

Kagan is not a lesbian, her best friend tells POLITICO.

this whole thing is just... ugh

some of my best friends aren't lesbians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXp4j1agK7Q

Hmm, I'd forgotten about this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668186/

I can't imagine why. What a monumental event.

you'd forgotten about something that has absolutely no relation to this situation?

lol at tony snow

I'd forgotten that some people are fucking stupid enough to make an issue about women who are single and childless.

Then again, I always forget how fucking stupid Barbara Boxer is.

aren't there some GOP msg boards you can post on?

It was said in passing. Just after talking about her own lack of personal stake in the war. She wasn't making an 'issue' of it (Condi and the White House and Rush did that). She was talking about common ground they shared.

Reading an article like that you really have to wonder - what planet is this stuff beamed from? Are these people even human?

i agree there was a lot of shit-talk about condi rice back then. weren't there gabbnebby type insinuations that she was in love with W?

Well, she called W her husband once

also it's a totally not unreasonable question to ask of either a single man or woman

christina hoff sommers is something less than fully human imo

and fwiw this "personal price" stuff from anti-militarists never really works very well as a political charge. plenty of right wing hawks have personal connections to the military! more than the peeps in my neighborhood.

In a Senate committee hearing when Rice was being questioned is now "in passing"? "...You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

There was indeed a lot of shit talk back then. Just like there is a lot of shit talk now.

If someone says that about Kagan "in passing", I don't think Tracer comes to the rescue.

I would come to her rescue, though.

But only on this thread. Not on a GOP msg board.

what the hell kinda point are you trying to make

I'd forgotten that some people are fucking stupid enough to make an issue about women who are single and childless.

i agree with gloria steinem on this one, also what does this have to do with anything

xp yeah i don't think that was the issue at all

at least as it regards "women" -- i'm pretty sure a single male would've been asked the same q

the point is that GOP retards who bitched about Boxer making the single & childless comments against Rice are now part of the crew whispering about Kagan being single and childless.

j.f.c.

plenty of right wing hawks have personal connections to the military! more than the peeps in my neighborhood.

Also, if the war is justifiable to the people, the point is moot. Sure, scream all you want about $300 deferements in the Civil War or how many Senator's sons went to 'Nam compared to WWII, that doesn't change the fact that we supposedly all benefitted from the first and the last of those wars.

lol

this little spat is ILE political threads in microcosm, I think

"fuck you!"
"no, fuck YOU!"
"wait, we're agreeing"
"I DON'T CARE, FUCK YOU"

Either certain Senators should come out, as some of their backers have, and say that having a lesbian on the Court makes them nervous or they think it's inapprorpriate and then ask her point blank if she likes making sexy time with the ladies, or they should seriously stfu. It's worse than fucking high school to carry on this kind of whisper campaign and totally beneath the dignity of the U.S. Senate.

the what of the what now?

wait, the Senate has dignity?

I would rather be on the wrong side of the issue than agree w/ ddw

so from now on I think that kagan shouldn't be allowed on to the supreme court until she pops out a few kids

I think it's an appalling line of questioning because the questioner is trying obliquely to ask whether or not someone's straight. Women get enough shit about their choices as it is, and men don't get asked nearly as invasive questions by other men (some of whom may be closety Republicans). If she had two kids, it'd be 'why did you have kids if you believe in abortion?' Just any damned stupid thing. I know we expect greater scrutiny for public appointments but could we please conduct questions in a way that wouldn't make them look like people in a job interview violating every discrimination code going?

Fwiw, I'm not fighting w/Don. He and I may have differing political orientations, as it were, sometimes at least, but he's not talking nonsense here.

men don't get asked nearly as invasive questions by other men

if crist were in the same position, there's no doubt we wouldn't be having the exact same discussion

Um, what are you saying?

that this has nothing to do with 'invasive questions' and is basically just 'gossip is fun' which is a statement I know you can agree on

If she had two kids, it'd be 'why did you have kids if you believe in abortion?'

"Oh, I only believe in abortion for other people."

I'd love to ask these nebulous closety Republican types why, if they're against abortion so much, do they keep trying to spill their seed in airport bathrooms and into hired 'just to carry my luggage' help. Think of all the unborn, hell, unconceived miracles of life going to waste.

this has everything to do with political party and almost nothing to do with sex

if crist were in the same position, there's no doubt we wouldn't be having the exact same discussion

We have had the discussion!

OH COME THE FUCK ON

To a great extent, it seems to me, modern politics seems to consist of attempts, often in the worst possible faith, to trip up your opponent while giving 'keep the faith' signals to your base that aren't so blatant or crude as to trip yourself up while making them. I'm also partly convinced that one reason why the wingnuts are so convinced that the Democrats are secretly trying to set up a Socialist police state is 'cause they really do largely wish to turn this country back to 1866 or so, heck maybe even 1862.

lol sorry wrong thread

that was misplace alexa von trobel outrage

Ninth-gradish whispery gossip isn't fun for Elena Kagan or anyone else it happens to and I think to say this is just joeks is, on some level, asking the woman if she can't take a joke in that shitty way enjoyed by idiot men whether construction worker or United States Senator.

alexa von trobel 4 supreme court

I don't think saying that people like to gossip is the same thing as saying gossip is just joeks. People like to do all kinds of heinous, wretched shit to each other.

this has everything to do with political party and almost nothing to do with sex

― contl;drizer (J0rdan S.), Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:52 PM (8 minutes ago)

more like it's about political party *and* sexism

Dan, I think there's some elision there or a gossip/joeks continuum. Totally underpinned by a sexism that women, when they point it out, are often judged shrill by the men doing the sexism. TOTAL FEEDBACK LOOP.

I think the point being made isn't that the treatment isn't sexist, it's that some other shitty behavior describable by an "-ist" would be put in its place for someone else. It's a tough point to defend because it has the side-effect of making it seem like the "-ist" isn't important, which may actually be true in terms of attack strategy but is totally wrong and false in terms of impact on the person it's being used against; it also invites bickering over false equivalencies between "-ists" that help distract from the job of defending the target.

So yes, I think there's a strong component of sexism here, but I believe it is deliberate, cynical sexism intended to divide and disorganize those who would rebut it.

(And no, I don't really know how to acknowledge and confront the sexism without losing sight of the main goal, which is getting through the confirmation; if I did, I likely would be a political adviser rather than a software geek)

Make some political software and reprogram Jeff Sesssions.

"Self-distruct in nine seconds."

I have to add that I've become enormously sensitive to incidences of sexist bullying and/or its undertones in any given discourse. I don't wanna conflate my isms here but when I read TNC and commenters talking about situations where there are racial undertones that white people either don't get or complicate by being earnest, I just don't second-guess them in the way that men do the 'wait, waht?' thing when a female peer mentions some undercurrent she sees or has to deal with.

look its obvious that this chick will suck bc lesbos r tryna undermine democracy/family values

Ninth-gradish whispery gossip isn't fun for Elena Kagan or anyone else it happens to and I think to say this is just joeks is, on some level, asking the woman if she can't take a joke in that shitty way enjoyed by idiot men whether construction worker or United States Senator.

― tweedledee and tweedledem (suzy), Thursday, 13 May 2010 21:55 (1 hour ago)

If an effeminate, never married, childless man who was rumored to be seen around Harvard with his boyfriend was nominated to the Supreme Court, there would be all kinds of questions about his sexuality. Get real.

Don't tell people to get real on the internet, it's silly.

Questions might come up, but those would be rooted in homophobia alone, not sexism *and* homophobia (twice the hassle). My argument is about the way men behave in groups toward an unfeminine woman; they get away with a lot more than you could bullying an effeminate single man. plus there are those women who also attack on the inappropriate/unfeminine thing, but they would not be attacking your notional Harvard man because there's no reward for them as there is with dissing another woman. There are also out gay men in Congress, which has positive consequences for men before committees.

they get away with a lot more than you could bullying an effeminate single man.

really? gangs of men have been known to murder effeminate single men fyi

Don't tell people to get real on the internet, it's silly.

― tweedledee and tweedledem (suzy), Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:41 PM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark

lol

don't name drop on the internet, it's stupid

Sorry, Matt, but why do you feel that it's appropriate to bully me for something completely unrelated to the discussion at hand? My criticism of your opinion at least relates to an intellectual argument. You might well be proving a point I was trying to make about the devaluing of female experience (whether that experience is meeting cheesy celebrities for LOLs or feeling the sexism in a situation is more acute than a man would). Also, if you want to share any more of the character shortcomings of someone you only know as a screen name, go right ahead - I'll know your social skills need more work than mine ever will.

SMC - obviously both men and women are killed all over the world for homophobic reasons. But in relation to the job market/appointments, I'm focusing on questions and rhetoric and psychological bullying - the stuff that comes before, or is the substitute for, violence.

suzy, as much as I agree with your last several posts (a couple of which are first-rate!), I get uncomfortable discussing which group is "victimized" most often, as you hinted here:

Questions might come up, but those would be rooted in homophobia alone, not sexism *and* homophobia (twice the hassle).

Yeah, me too - a race to the bottom is no contest. But I've been in quite enough male/female arguments where the woman is talking about sexism in some way, only for the man to shell-game with another ism or phobia - I do not think many women steer conversations back to sexism when other prejudice categories come up, perhaps because (at least for me) I'm trying to find the impulse common to all of them and kind of dismantle it without being a fucking hippie.

haha my biggest fear wrt her gayness wasn't whether it would impede her confirmation (it won't) but that the potential shitstorm would cause everyone who wouldn't normally give a shit to rally around her

Sorry, Matt, but why do you feel that it's appropriate to bully me for something completely unrelated to the discussion at hand?
― tweedledee and tweedledem (suzy), Friday, May 14, 2010 12:20 AM (53 minutes ago)

you're being "silly."

Questions might come up, but those would be rooted in homophobia alone, not sexism *and* homophobia (twice the hassle).
― tweedledee and tweedledem (suzy), Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:41 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

But you're whole point is that the questions are being raised more because she's a woman. If the same situation would apply to a man with similar features, you're whole sexism argument falls apart.

your, fuck

i p much agree with k3vin k. in that i don't much care for this nominee. but suzy is right. that the same thing would happen to a single, childless man doesn't make it not sexist, because it doesn't work the same way at all. i know it's easier to say any possible justification/excuse/denial than just like ~thinking about it~, but it makes you look like a jerk

well, here comes the next big talking point

people never change after college, it's true

BREAKING

LOL @ RedStaters - never have so many dumbshits formed half-baked arguments from so little (also '30s communism/socialism uptick in cities like NYC was one of many responses to an undemocratic situ in Europe). For those who can't bear to look, they're also going all apeshit about finding an Obama essay from a Columbia mag about non-proliferation, as if this 'proves' anything about him.

Thanks, harbl. One of my favourite ("favourite") aspects of challenging sexism in 'normal' guys is the emergence of random haters with nothing to add to the discussion at hand, turning up to call female critics of sexism bitches or lightweights. But it is depressing to see a pattern of sexist denial emerge in a series of ad-hominem attacks that really have nothing to do with the discussion apart from providing a realtime example of stunted male privilege just dropping by, trying to assert itself against female experience or opinion.

i think its kindof obvious that men are more privileged when it comes to separation between private and personal lives. like i think this speculation would def. be seen as more distasteful wrt a male potential appointee than wrt a woman, (cf. the number of closeted politicians w/ wives tho i guess that brings up different issues)

HOORAY. Yes, this exactly. For example, innuendo about Charlie Crist doesn't make it to broadcast or publication in the same way or at the same volume as the bullying that's been dished out to Kagan in this process. An official's private life is only an issue (or worthy of mockery) if they bang on about nuclear family values while practicing something else in their own lives, or legislate against equality issues. For example, I find it egregious that Republicans with gay family members do everything to protect the privacy of those people and/or to enable the most equal life possible for them while denying the same courtesies/rights to some random, notional same-sex couple, as if these people are not part of a larger familiar network of their own - nothing 'pretend' about it..

The privileged class always has an inherent advantage. The privileged class bullies subordinate classes because it can. Barbara Boxer, who was questioning Rice in a committee, bullied Condi Rice because she could. The GOP bullies gays because it can. Republicans with gay family members bully the privacy of others because they can.

I really don't see why anyone is even bothering to argue with Suzy over this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSyOEnerVQc

photo of her playing softball is a really sweet photo btw

Wow, that's gross. Lol at Buchanan, tho.

evidently kagan wrote the amicus brief that got 2 Live Crew off the hook on obscenity charges

The privileged class always has an inherent advantage. The privileged class bullies subordinate classes because it can. Barbara Boxer, who was questioning Rice in a committee, bullied Condi Rice because she could. The GOP bullies gays because it can. Republicans with gay family members bully the privacy of others because they can.

I really don't see why anyone is even bothering to argue with Suzy over this.

― Aren't there some GOP msg boards I can post on? (Dandy Don Weiner), Friday, 14 May 2010 10:58 (1 hour ago)

Because this isn't Suzy's argument at all. She's arguing that lesbians face more scrutiny and bias than gay men especially w/r/t Supreme Court appointments.

Suzy, what you continue to refuse to admit is that Kagan is that she's a fucking gaydar explosion. If Charlie Crist wore pet shop boys t-shirts, was unmarried, and had never had serious relationships with women, his supposed gayness would be the story of his (surely unsuccessful) political career.

Kagan looks REALLY gay, has never been married, is rumored to have a girlfriend at Harvard. At least Rick Perry looks the part of a straight man in public. Maybe she's straight, I dunno. But she's pushing the envelope of not seeming straight way more than any politician would, hence the speculation.

as for Kagan dating guys in college, I guess that means Ellen Degeneres is straight.

If Charlie Crist wore pet shop boys t-shirts

When he looks back upon his life, it's always with a sense of shame.

Because this isn't Suzy's argument at all. She's arguing that lesbians face more scrutiny and bias than gay men especially w/r/t Supreme Court appointments.

I might be crazy but I don't think this is Suzy's argument at all, and the only way Suzy's statements could boil down to that argument is if you willfully ignore the entire context of western civilization.

So basically yeah, you are being a bullying dick for no reason and pretty much supporting her thesis.

My argument is about the way men behave in groups toward an unfeminine woman; they get away with a lot more than you could bullying an effeminate single man.

men don't get asked nearly as invasive questions by other men

anyone believe this?

Sort of?

There is an element of "the group I belong to has it worse" to the argument which I am not really qualified to argue against, considering that if you changed "an unfeminine woman" to "a black man" you will likely find similar arguments made by me in the past. I think what this points towards is the idea that everyone gets singled out for their "otherness" and that that experience is the worst fucking thing in the world, to the point where it isn't helpful or productive to be told "well, other people have it just as bad" when you are experiencing it because you aren't those other people.

There was a point where I would have agreed with the last sentence unequivocally but then that conservative dude published that editorial begging Charlie Crist to come out of the closet so that liberals couldn't use his sexuality against him.

So basically yeah, you are...bullying...for no reason and pretty much supporting her thesis.

trying to decrease my ad-hom on this thread but otm'ing this - the way suzy's (uncontroversial & clear, to my mind) claims are being greeted makes her case for her quite neatly

yuppppp

What, are you afraid of using up your ad-hom allotment for the day on this thread or something? Do I need to brace myself over on the M&M friend for unleashed Bit O Honey fury?

Suggest that a gay white man among straight white men is only "othered" in one way. Sure there's pressure, snide comments, but still a sense that you and your brother will be against your cousin, if you get me.

i'm not sure that anyone was even hinting at 'this line of questioning/investigation is ok' before the parallels were drawn, and given that the parallels are pretty questionable (well imo admittedly) it seemed like a fairly strange diversion to take, is all.

speculation about gay men in the public sphere is almost always a more invasive/negative angle than speculation about gay women this side of the pond, fwiw. i would be surprised to learn that it's different over there, but there you go.

i don't think of it as a question of "more" or "worse," i just think it sucks. add to that if she had been some other way she might not be where she is.

i just think it sucks

the important thing is that everyone p much agrees with this part, it's true.

well, i also think it's sexist, not everyone agrees with that

add to that if she had been some other way she might not be where she is.

This is very OTM and one of the big things my wife brings up when she expresses her irritation with the discourse surrounding Kagan.

Kagan looks REALLY gay,

Is this basically the same as "isn't pretty enough"?

OK, let's change the subject.

Let's talk about this cool chart.

What, are you afraid of using up your ad-hom allotment for the day on this thread or something? Do I need to brace myself over on the M&M friend for unleashed Bit O Honey fury?

no I have been trying to be less rancorous in general unless the target is scrappy doo, in which case I don't think I need to restrain my true feelings

KILL SCRAPPY DOO

chart makes clinton's picks look pretty decent

According to this, Thomas is the most conservative justice of the last seventy years.

...which is no surprise, but gives the lie to the contention that Scalia tells him what to do.

Thomas is tied with Rhenquist.

hmmmmm

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20133ed8c7616970b-popup

hmmmmmm

interstinggggggggg

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Gaydar. Such a useful word. I wonder, who was the person to coin the term? Hint: female, posts on ILX.

I'm sure I was addressing a larger problem than Supreme Court appointments specifically, because this is something endemic in upper-level professional settings. There's another aspect of Kagan's treatment that applies to straight women like Nancy Pelosi, in that men interrogating her competence are allowed space in the media to wonder aloud whether the sexuality of a powerful woman is somehow aberrant. This is different to the way powerful men's sexuality is interrogated in the media, in that the questions are asked while the woman is on her way up, but only asked of a man when he gets caught. Privilege also manifests when male groups are seen to be 'bonding' while female groups are seen to be 'plotting'.

Having been in the situation where people have insinuated things about my sexuality based on either my appearance, my defense of queer issues, or (and this is the most important) my refusal to brook sexism - it's amazing how some men will call you cracker, frigid, lesbian, princess and whore in one breath when fighting their corner - I really can't stand idly by when people do it to someone else, whatever her orientation. My feeling is that her appearance or substance did not thwart her in getting to this point, so why start now on the former? I would imagine it's a form of impotence management, like Don suggests - because you need to prove you still can.

in that

omg you know the person who invented gaydar?????

another thing is like idk where kagan is from, but when I moved to the midwest & was working in hospitals, the hair & dress style of 75% of my fellow nurses would have coded as lesbian on either coast. gay style is a lot more complex than "the women have short hair" imo

she's from manhattan...

all right fine destroy my fantasy of the downstate illinois lawyer woman who got all the smarty-pantses thinking she was gay

Well, everyone from Manhattan is gay, so therefore Kagan is gay. QED.

Someone on my FB (who is from the Garbo wing of dykedom) has just written of Kagan, 'it's not THAT you play softball, it's HOW.'

It's not how you play softball, it's how you answer softball questions.

ha

Really need a Saturday Night Live sketch of this now, a stern committee chairman fixes her with a steely stare and says "Ms Kagan, how do you react... to..... THIS??" and holds up an unfolded Playboy centerfold.

Gaydar. Such a useful word. I wonder, who was the person to coin the term? Hint: female, posts on ILX.

Citation needed.

m-w.com says it originated around 1982

so it couldn't have been me

"Ms Kagan, I am about to remove an article of my clothing. I want you to register your arousal by saying a number between 1 and 5, with 1 being not aroused at all and 5 extremely aroused."

I'd like to see the proof for 1982 citation before I say aaaaaaanyyyyyything more.

lexisnexis has nothing around that time except russian dudes suffering from unfortunate transliteration

Linguist Arnold Zwicky says that 1982 "seems late" to him.

Can't imagine who this female ILXor is who coined "gaydar" 30+ years ago. Beth Parker?

luna

Earliest I can find myself is a Usenet post from 1989.

why are you guys questioning the power of suzy knowing someone

those poor people had no idea their conversations could be googled 20 years later :(

OK, also Sassy magazine, 1988.

iatee, why do you bother? I mean, someone could be using that perfectly good oxygen you insist on stealing from the rest of us.

Beth went to Sarah Lawrence before '82 so I'm sure if that word was in evidence anywhere, it would be used there. I know it was used a lot there by the time I left.

Gaydar. Such a useful word. I wonder, who was the person to coin the term? Hint: female, posts on ILX.

how come we're the ones who have to give proof? can't you just tell us?

just tell us
who coined gaydar

DON'T TELL US

suspense >>>>>>>>>>>> reveal

desire vs. gratification

Obviously with dictionary shit it has to be the first incidence in written communication, not spoken. I'm interested in hearing about the '82 citation because AFAIK the term took off a few years later (84/85).

I love when news organizations use the softball pic to accompany articles about kagan's sexuality

you brought it up -- is this classified info or something?

someone coined it verbally later than the dictionary says it appeared in writing?

here's the word on the '82 citation:

Well, gaydar is the only one of these that has made it into the OED (March 2005 draft, with a first cite from 1982, though that seems late to me).

love for you suz but the OED doesn't really fuck around with their first-use citations

also, it is completely possible for multiple ppl to coin a word and not have any knowledge of each other

like two ships passing in the night, gaydar turned off

and the winner is, the village voice:

1982 Village Voice (N.Y.) 11 Feb. 42 But the fear of gay men is not to be discounted. My gaydar tells me that up to 30 per cent of the men at the Santa Fe and New York weekends are gay, bisexual, or undeclared.

still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

suzy is almost as amazing as tuomas

ok I actually went downstairs & took down my OED with the magnifying glass, but mine's an '02 edition so I can't provide the actual cite

however, I did learn that a now-obscure term for "jailer" is "gayhole," so all is not lost

multiple people could be the "first" to use a word but they aren't all the person

Okay - the first time I ever used it was in 1984, when I made it up on the spot to ask my cruisey record store friend whether the guy we were both leching on was his team player or mine. Then I went to one of the queerest colleges on the planet (in NY) and nobody had used/heard it in a cohort that ought have, so the suburban myth that I'd invented it has had plenty of time to bed in. But props to Village Voice. Musto?

still sad "homo-ing device" never took off :(

there's still time

guys my homo-ing device was going off about this new supreme court nominee but I guess as it turned out shit is a lot more complex than "she looks gay," whaddaya know about that

i invented the word 'radar'

i homo-ed in on max with my homo-ing device

you guys! =D

just fyi i am DEFINITELY not gay due to i am from new jersey and have never even SEEN a softball

just hard, hard cock

never even given one blowjob, that i can remember

what do you call your blanket defenses of the Democratic party

I KID, I KID

I love how suzy's gone through her whole life secretly proud of the fact that she invented the word 'gaydar'

and then this thread happened and it was all gone

some things just fall off the radar

when I was a kid I thought I invented clapping under your leg at the end of the hokey pokey dance

im willing to continue saying that suzy invented gaydar

love how everybody's wrongdar went into action (btw I am laying claim to inventing wrongdar after hitting the submit post button)

I really did invent ilm "rolling" threads so everybody bow down to my unstoppable innovative power

m-w says 'wrongdar' was invented in 1878 actually

it was a boastful claim, we needed proof
i have extremely strong factdar fyi

xp that's impossible cause m-w wasn't invented until 1908

in fact if you type in 'merriam-webster' into the search box at m-w.com you don't even get a valid entry

that old daily show episode where colbert interviewed a dude who built a gaydar is pretty great

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-11-2001/come-out--come-out--wherever-you-are

my gaydar isn't the strongest but I have a large gaymc.xls

it was a boastful claim, we needed proof
i have extremely strong factdar fyi

was hoping on the evidence of the 1st line here that a leonard cohen send-up was immanent

your wrongdar is set on stun, dyao

wouldn't a homo-ing device make people gay?

also, wouldn't it need wings in order to take off?

not if you attach it to a cruise missle

you know, because gay people like to...ah forget it

hahaha

I cordially invite you guys to post here:

The Sun Is Shining For The First Time In Forever; We're Gay! Fagz Club Spring 2010

and the winner is, the village voice:

1982 Village Voice (N.Y.) 11 Feb. 42 But the fear of gay men is not to be discounted. My gaydar tells me that up to 30 per cent of the men at the Santa Fe and New York weekends are gay, bisexual, or undeclared.

Hmmm. I googled this sentence and found that it's from a Voice cover story about the "men's movement" (Robert Bly, etc.) written by Don Shewey in 1992, not 1982.

Is this the OED's 1982 citation? Or is there another one?

Btw, [Suzy's real name] + ["gaydar"] is turning up nothing.

well in fairness I think suz's claim is that she was the first to use it in conversation

let there be infrared

xp Oh I know, just wanted to point that out.

infared=ablity to spot red diaper babies

jaymc, my post was the oed's citation, yeah. if they've got it wrong it's their latest blunder after screwing up the definition of "siphon". suzy still in the race, unless it's a typo on the author's website.

I'm sure I was addressing a larger problem than Supreme Court appointments specifically, because this is something endemic in upper-level professional settings. There's another aspect of Kagan's treatment that applies to straight women like Nancy Pelosi, in that men interrogating her competence are allowed space in the media to wonder aloud whether the sexuality of a powerful woman is somehow aberrant. This is different to the way powerful men's sexuality is interrogated in the media, in that the questions are asked while the woman is on her way up, but only asked of a man when he gets caught. Privilege also manifests when male groups are seen to be 'bonding' while female groups are seen to be 'plotting'.

Itd be a shame if in the search 4 the etymologic origins of gaydar this point got lost, which is pretty interesting.

What is worrying to me is not really the issue of sexuality but the kind of cues used in how it is interrogated in the public sphere which kind of reveal specific prejudices wrt how women are allowed to behave and what constitutes threatening sexuality, that is, it is being in a position of power that means that Kagan's sexuality must be revealed as a pathological root to her malfunctioning social role.

we tend to be more interested in the sexuality in men when it seems to present a kind of contradiction b/w image and truth, that is, we enjoy unmasking "fake straight people" which is kinda why the marriage protectors/Ricky Martin (except yeah ok lol) types are more interesting to us.

ok this is gonna sound kind of gross, but bear with me...

there is something at work here about the out presence of lesbianism in our culture that marks some kind of... improvement? or change, anyway, from the past. maybe my sense of culture signifiers from days of yore are a little off, but wouldn't it me more likely that in previous decades, people would just be saying she was a "spinster" (or a "ballbreaker" in more overtly misogynist terms)? not too attractive, chip on her shoulder, too into her books and such, nerdy, not the kind men really want to spend any time with, you know the type...

but now, it's all about her purported attraction to other women, which is a little bit more, uh, specific, you know?

not every weedy little male nerd who got tortured in gym turned out to be queer, do you get me?

unless it's a typo on the author's website.

Can't be, because the article discusses Robert Bly's Iron John, published in 1990.

of course, all those things could have been code for "dyke" all along, and I'M the one who's naive

xp

"Spinster" and "ballbreaker" are just as gross as "she's a lesbian" whispered by Orrin Hatch.

xpost

i'm not arguing for those terms' non-grossness, i'm arguing that there's a distinction between that and lesbianism specifically!

I am thinking you are the naive one, goole

Thank you, plax. I was struggling to put that in words with an earlier post about female homosexuality being less threatening than male sexuality to certain mutually held assumptions/agreed roles, but deleted it cos I couldn't quite get there.

of course, all those things could have been code for "dyke" all along, and I'M the one who's naive

xp

― taylory dayne (goole), Friday, May 14, 2010 8:28 PM (1 minute ago

yeah i mean i think this is it. maybe not quite as clear cut, lesbian in this case is being used to denigrate, and those terms were really getting at something similar ie, a worryingly unconventional sexuality that needs to be rejected and spurned

I don't know if "spinster" was ever code for lesbian. Not in the time period I'm thinking of, which is vaguely Victorian and after, and a time when social mores required EVERY woman to marry & bear children -- those who didn't for ANY reason would have been considered aberrant, even if that reason was rejection of the whole damn system simply because it sucked to be you if you didn't conform in every operative way.

xp to plax again!

I don't know if that's quite true, Laurel. I can't speak for other countries, but Spanish, English, and American traditions have always tolerated -- and respected -- unmarried aunts.

right, i guess what i'm trying to articulate is that change -- even though the right still disapproves in the extreme, now there's another box they can put "people like that" into.

olden days: she's not a wife or mother? i disapprove!

now: she's not a wife or mother? she must be a lesbian!

Right, Alred -- maybe I wasn't specific enough but that's exactly what I meant. I don't think spinsterism connoted lesbianism...but it still wasn't considered "normal" or a desirable outcome for most women.

simply because it sucked to be you if you didn't conform in every operative way.

pretty sure it probably also sucked if you DID conform in every operative way, maybe moreso.

now: she's not a wife or mother? she must be a lesbian!

My Cuban parents and grandparents were whispering this stuff in front of the children thirty years ago!

I mean for the position of Unmarried Aunt to even be notable or A Thing, there have to be one or more siblings of that aunt who have married and borne offspring and who can afford to support said aunt if she contributes to the household somehow.

Laurel I was tryna say the same thing

ha i guess i am naive! that's that then.

Lots of the unmarried aunts (mostly great aunts since my parents have no siblings) had actual jobs, so having a lot more discretionary income to give to nephews and nieces actually gave them more power.

And, hey, I'm going to be an unmarried uncle.

gay uncles are a whole different thing

They have penises.

The later version worked, yes! Going 2-3 generations back, UAs had actual jobs which they would have had to give up if they ever married or got preggers -- my grandmother was the assistant to the secretary of the head of one of the Detroit newspapers and might have succeeded the older lady, but she only worked there til my grandfather married her. (Uh details to be substantiated later, I can't remember and my mom isn't answering her phone.)

There's a Boston marriage joke in here somewhere.

I was JUST going to mention that alternate term...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgl6zuHBrHw

^^^ badass song btw

E-mail to OED sent.

thank you for existing jaymc

You're welcome? I dunno, I feel kind of dumb for obsessing over picayune stuff like this when the rest of the thread has moved on and is having a much more substantive conversation.

Don't worry, etymology and neologisms are VERY worthwhile things to be obsessed by. Howevs I don't think I put 'gaydar' in writing (not even to discuss members of The Smiths in angsty teen notes to friend crushing out on Michael Stipe).

jaymc did you email them your earlier citations as well? they do genuinely appreciate that: we have a tv programme where the oed appeals to the public to try and find early citations of particular words. anyway, back to the lesbians...

Yeah, I mentioned the Sassy article.

I have spent at least 20 minutes Googling this person. I also critically and skeptically read a couple of articles by people. Apparently she's friends with Martha Minow - ALSO the Dean of Harvard Law School! Does Kagan associate with no one besides hoity toity eggheads like herself??

― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Monday, May 10, 2010 7:26 AM (4 days ago)

Buried in there is a point of substance. Can anyone spot it?

Here's a link. See it yet?

No, because what you are driving at is not a point of substance.

All I saw was an article about a magnet school. I have no idea what the new poster is driving at, but magnet schools rock.

so the point is elena kagan has attended selective institutions all her life?

i think its that she'll never be cynthia nixon

this is a good post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/15/AR2010051500090.html?hpid=topnews

for anyone interested, Glenn Greenwald makes his first appearance on "This Week" this morning.

she is not justice marshall http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/us/politics/13marshall.html

no fucking shit?

geez, rev

I read the article last week and didn't think it was a big deal. But then I have enormous respect for Marshall before he joined the Court and am glad he was part of the liberal majority yet don't think he was a great justice.

he's my favorite justice ever. i didn't post it because it's a big deal i just thought it was funny.

what was your beef with marshall, soto?

sorry, harbls, that was uncalled for

*hugs*

i am getting more assholish again on ilx and i need to ciu

also someone recommend me a good thurgood marshall book please

apology accepted :)

i've been meaning to read one too but i don't do well with biographies. i bet my local library has tons of stuff, it is the home of thurgood marshall after all.

Most of the accounts I've read suggest he was very bored on the Court, and unable to channel his outrage for the increasingly conservative jurisprudence of the late Burger and Rehnquist courts into interesting dissents. Plus, he was very sick his last few years.

We've seen a similar development on the Roberts Court, on which Stevens has written these increasingly passionate dissents which in thirty years may bear fruit as the base for a rewriting of legislative history; but Marshall (and I could be wrong) was too weary or coasted too long on his awesome reputation as perhaps the outstanding litigator (after Brandeis) of the 20th century to rage against the dying of the light.l

i've found most of his opinions i've read plenty interesting, i dunno

i mean i don't blame him for not being that influential

Thank you for your comment on the OED entry for gaydar. I shall pass it to the principal editor for new words, who will ensure that the date is checked; being the first citation it is of course a particularly important part of the entry.

We are always glad to be alerted to dating problems, and are grateful to you for writing about this one.

Margot Charlton
Oxford English Dictionary

what a great name

Very English.

Her title is "Oxford English Dictionary"?

with a name like that it doesn't matter what her title is does it? as it's likely to be undeserved...

I have dating problems, too.

I think it's worth taking a moment to reflect that not only has suzy been proven correct about her invention of the word "gaydar" (to the best of this thread's knowledge) but that jaymc has managed to correct the OED on a citation. Fuck the haters!

I thought about taking my case to Balderdash and Piffle (BBC show on neologisms) but I don't know if high school notes *count* as proof, provided it's in my mum's attic with all the Smiths paraphernalia. One of the people involved in early gaydar discussions is the writer R0d $mith so I've asked him to check his archives.

think kagan reminds me most of

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100519/capt.571fc037e0bf4fc9be450c8c45272f47-571fc037e0bf4fc9be450c8c45272f47-0.jpg?x=260&y=345&q=85&sig=UIQSz8kAJ3YWKjd_k9HZPQ--

http://www1.assumption.edu/users/lknoles/final99/bloom.jpg

UNUSUAL:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-12.png

it can be tough with testicles

what the fuck

troubled newspapers turn to "trolling" strategy

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts10194208.aspx

Ha! I thought plentyoffish existed only in Lada Gaga video.

what in the hell

Explosive exposé.

How discombobulated would folks be if a male nominee walked the Hill wearing a Thom Browne suit with trousers that ended at the ankles or if a woman strode purposefully down the marble corridors in a pair of platform Christian Louboutin heels and a Marni sack dress? There'd be nothing profoundly inappropriate with any of that other than the images wouldn't square with the preconceived notion that sobriety equals intellect. Bland equals responsible. Matronly equals trustworthy.

Gaaaaaaaaahd. Trust a DCer commenting on FASHION to get it so wrong, Marni and Louboutin are cited as part of the same notional outfit.

lol @ u

the apocalypse is upon us xpost

alfred who wrote that (it's asking me to sign in to view first page)

IMO tulip shape of most Marni would be great on Michelle Obama, and daria-g should open a business consulting clueless DC women on wardrobe issues.

suddenly I want to pitch a new take on a cop show

Get in the queue behind me and "Schmucks vs. Cakeaters", a trip down memory lane featuring teenaged Jewish nerd overlords taking dowwwwwwwn their preppy, uppity Lutheran rivals.

Their reservations have introduced the first substantive division among liberals in what has otherwise been a low-key partisan debate over Kagan's merits to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. The uncertainty among some on the left is particularly striking, given that she was nominated by the nation's first black president.

uh, u sure? and lol dan perry to thread, respectively

whoops that's from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/26/AR2010062603649.html?hpid=moreheadlines

I can't wait for more articles this week as clueless and intellectually vacant as this.

that marvelous recent "immaterial discouragement=material support" supreme court decision was argued by kagan. you recall that's the one that makes it criminal to tell groups tied to terrorism how to pursue legal means. even the majority decision said her argument was "too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake".

Bring'em on.

that marvelous recent "immaterial discouragement=material support" supreme court decision was argued by kagan. you recall that's the one that makes it criminal to tell groups tied to terrorism how to pursue legal means. even the majority decision said her argument was "too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake".

― iSleighBellsTellem (zvookster), Sunday, June 27, 2010 6:43 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im not a kagan fan, but come on, shes a lawyer. this is like when people wanted to go after holder for representing chiquita or whatever.

i thought it was worth noting.

Solicitor General's Office are not just lawyers, and you know it, max.

this is this only reason it should be an issue -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_judgment

and im still not convinced. how do you know shes the one deciding what cases to argue? judging a lawyer, no matter what her position, by her clients or cases, is stupid. in this case in particular given the dozens of other reasons to be critical of the kagan nomination.

u seem to be ignoring that she put forward the position that free speech was not an issue there, which the entire supreme court found rong. if she chose that tack purely for its efficacy & it has no bearing on her ideological predilections, then she was incompetent. i think it's interesting.

Maybe they can ask her about gun rights, given this:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/live-blog-orders-and-opinions-6-28-10/#more-22194

the entire court disagreeing ≠ ur incompetent. not that i think she's competent but oh please

incompetent on that point, no?

maybe competence isn't the right framing, but it was a hell of a position to put forward and worth being in a thread abt kagan rather than just unmentioned imo

hahaha, this was written by a dude I sang with in college:

http://nationalinquisition.blogspot.com/2010/06/kagan-criticized-for-not-revealing.html

I dunno if anyone's watched the hearings (Iol I listened to three hours or so yesterday), but I surprisingly agree with Dahlia Lithwick: Kagan's been the most charming, relaxed nominee in years.

That matches pretty much everything I've heard about her.

The comments on that article are disgusting (surprise)

also Dahlia went to college with one of my best friends in Boston

Unless SCOTUS moves to televise its hearings, this is the last time most people outside a commencement address or speech to a legal society will hear Kagan, which is a shame: she's a natural.

so bummed Luke Skyyywalker wasn't called to testify at her confirmation hearing

Unless SCOTUS moves to televise its hearings, this is the last time most people outside a commencement address or speech to a legal society will hear Kagan, which is a shame: she's a natural.

― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 30 June 2010 13:53 (1 week ago)

They could always use oyez.org!

The next year, Kagan, who was working at a Washington, D.C. law firm, wrote a brief that argued the album "does not physically excite anyone who hears it, much less arouse a shameful and morbid sexual response."

nice to see an artist be so pleasant abt a bad review for once

So Kagan got through the panel etc.

NYT just has the banner head. What Repubs voted against her?

All of 'em except Graham.

okay lol at Graham's nonsensical retroactive quid pro quo appeal

also: let's remember who Robert Bork was/is.

i.e. a man who turns into an ogre when a waiter doesn't mix a martini to his liking.

Bork is a careerist who accidentally stumbled into being Nixon's hatchet man during the Saturday Night massacre. This so endeared him to the neocons that he got nominated to the SC, just to stick a thumb in the eye of the liberals. When he got Borked and had to withdraw his position as a conservative icon was secured for all time. Now he thinks he is some tin god. What a jerk.

alfred otm. being a dick to staff excludes you from respectability.

That's not quite correct, aimless – being Nixon's hatchet man has never been cited as a reason to support him in all the literature I've read. It's his "originalism," law review articles, and opinions on the DC circuit court that endeared him. Now he's the right's most aggrieved martyr.

Whatever the literature says or doesn't say, firing Leon Jaworski is the foundation stone of Bork's status. It showed beyond a doubt that he was a team player, and whose team he was on. He was rewarded for it.

You're not wrong, but being a team player by itself didn't endear him to conservatives (he's also pissed them off by saying owning a firearm isn't a fundamental sky, but that's another story).

*fundamental right

I like that Lindsay Graham's attitude toward nominating supremes is like 'fuck it you won the election. u win'

And I hate that the GOP has reduced me to a point where I like anything about Lindsay Graham.

C-SPAN has confirmed that at least 61 Senators intend to vote for cloture, moving forward the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Of these, only Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) says he then intends to oppose Ms. Kagan in the final confirmation vote, which only requires 50 Senators to approve the nomination.

haven't been following, why is nelson opposing?

She's a Communist.

[url=http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/kagan-now-recused-from-21-pending-supreme-court-cases/?mod=e2tw]Not exactly a shock, but this is what you get when you nominate a solicitor general[/ur]:

When President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in May, we and many others reported out that she’d likely have to recuse herself from a handful of cases for the upcoming term.

The reason: she was the Solicitor General for the U.S. So she’d be conflicted on a number of cases, having already served as an advocate on many of them.

But we never dreamed that Kagan would recuse herself from half the cases for the upcoming term. But it seems that’s where we are, at least for now. Kagan this week, in the words of National Law Journal reporter Tony Mauro, “quietly” recused herself from 10 more cases to be argued in the upcoming term. That brings the number of cases from which she’s recused herself to 21. As Mauro points out, that’s more than half of the 40 cases the court has so far agreed to hear.

Whoops. I mean:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/kagan-now-recused-from-21-pending-supreme-court-cases/?mod=e2tw

:(

this year will be a massacre

Kagan should have sought the advice of Scalia on recusals, then she'd be able to cast tainted votes without conscience or remorse. Heck, she'd even be encouraged to assume a position of moral superiority to her critics.

Yep