Is Kagan a Lesbian?

reply to post by Annee


Ohhh I'm sorry perhaps you need a tid bit of education for ye?

We don't vote for supreme court judges, tool.

They are appointed.

Most supreme court judges are fugly, this one just happens to be especially so.

reply to post by Annee


Sorry you don't feel well, that sounds awful. Especially on a nice spring day (at least where I am). Sure hope you feel better quickly. Nothing worse than something like that dragging on all summer.
Maybe a viewing of "Miss Firecracker" might lift your spirits. I also find "Drop Dead Gorgeous" good for a laugh in that same vein.

reply to post by skunknuts


It can be. I'm too lazy to read through all the posts so here is my take.

She's a potential homosexual, "ethnic", woman. It's a triple score if you want to bring the voices of the unheard majority to the supreme court to decide future precedents with respect for everyone's equal rights (if we have any left by then)

Take the media influx over "don't ask, don't tell". And how some Generals suggest lifting the policy. Kagan's school specifically prohibited the military from recruiting on campus for that specific reason.

So there is a high probability that once appointed, the legality of don't ask, don't tell will come up. And her probable homosexual background will have a deciding factor in shaping the precedent from the ruling.

My 0.02

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Annee

 

Ohhh I'm sorry perhaps you need a tid bit of education for ye?

We don't vote for supreme court judges, tool.

They are appointed.

Most supreme court judges are fugly, this one just happens to be especially so.

That's the best you can do as a small-minded sarcastic put down?

I doubt I am the first or the last to mistakenly say "voted in place of appointed".

How is anyone's looks relevant in anyway to being a judge?

Your line of posting says way more about you - - - then what Kagan's looks say about her.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Beauty is only skin deep, but UGLY is to the bone... And you, my friend, are quite possibly one of the FUGLIEST members of this site... Your posts drip with bile and lack any intelligent focus whatsoever (and I don't mean just on this thread) I would rather have 9 Kagans on the Court than even ONE of you...

Good Day Sir!

reply to post by mryanbrown


I'm not sure how her POSSIBLY being a homosexual could have any difference in her maybe being one of the judges on the bench if "don't ask, don't tell" were to come up before the Court.

For instance, I am a staunch advocate of same sex marriage and the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. And I mean STAUNCH. But I'm straight. Never even "experimented". So who's to say her sexual orientation, IF gay, has anything to do with her views?

If her possibly being lesbian and supporting same sex marriage is cause for concern then we should be equally worried if a straight person who opposes it were selected for the bench. But we don't do that do we? No, we only discuss their position on the issue not their sex, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

Originally posted by nunya13

If her possibly being lesbian and supporting same sex marriage is cause for concern then we should be equally worried if a straight person who opposes it were selected for the bench. But we don't do that do we? No, we only discuss their position on the issue not their sex, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

True.

A lesbian might even stay closer to "legal terminology" - - then show favoritism - which she might consider compromising.

reply to post by nunya13


I never said I had an issue with it. I was pointing out the opposite. If it's true then it grants better representation for an unrepresented minority on the highest court to set future precedent in accordance with their rights also. Not simply the straight and white majority.

reply to post by mryanbrown


I apologize, I did reply to you because you brought up her maybe being homosexual could have bearing on such an issue, but I truly hope you didn't interpret my reply as hostile. Basically, your post made me realize there was a point to be made but most of the arguments I made were directed towards others who are being very unreasonable, imo.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by nunya13

 

I never said I had an issue with it. I was pointing out the opposite. If it's true then it grants better representation for an unrepresented minority on the highest court to set future precedent in accordance with their rights also. Not simply the straight and white majority.

Therein lies the rub. Is she representational of an unrepresented minority or does she only appear to be so while actually representing the straight and white majority?

reply to post by Annee


Doesn't have anything to do with her judging abilities. Has to do with the fact that she's fugly. That might upset self righteous gits, sure.. but doesn't change the fact that the woman's ugly. Not sure why it's that big of a deal to you.. unless you're ugly and you're taking it personally?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Annee

 

Doesn't have anything to do with her judging abilities. Has to do with the fact that she's fugly. That might upset self righteous gits, sure.. but doesn't change the fact that the woman's ugly. Not sure why it's that big of a deal to you.. unless you're ugly and you're taking it personally?

If looks had anything to do with anything you think Mitch Mc Connell would even be working? No way and women would have to pick men out of magazines because from where I sit very few people indeed have any right at all to remark on the "looks" of another. Momma always said, you may be beautiful but it is what is on the inside that counts. And momma was exactly right... if you catch my drift.

Wouldn't it be nice if before you could spit out something derogatory about someone you had to first prove that you are not guilty of the same "crime" yourself.

So if you call someone f-ugly you have to produce a picture to prove you are not f-ugly yourself or why does anyone need to listen to you?

And if you call someone a lesbian you have to first prove that you yourself are not a homosexual.

It would be interesting because I think people quite often condemn others for what they dislike most about themselves.

You know it's true.

Certainly would narrow down the need for useless discourse on subjects that matter not one wit.

I dunno, but i honestly believe sarah palins a lez, although maybe thats just wishful thinking on my part