I think it’s crap to suggest that Kagan will “vote a certain way” because of her sexuality. It’s in the same vein of thinking as progressives who tear their garments over the little peeps in the hinterlands who don’t vote out of ‘their own self interest’. It’s as though it’s beyond their conception that someone might have ideals that transcend their own ego.

It’s far more intellectually honest to base prognostications of her stands upon her interpretations of law and her views of the role of the court. Whether or not there’s background enough to do this, is a valid question, but let’s not devolve into a contretemp that is insulting to Kagan’s individuality and to the most basic formation of intellectualism.

I do dislike seeing the question raised, and, given the social trends in our nation, even raising it dates one. O’Reilly, like all of us, is a product of his place and time. In 50 years, no one who have a moment’s pause, I hazard to guess.

Given the fact that the question is raised, in a perverse sort of way, the fact that there is no definitive answer suggests that the candidate’s sexual preference, whatever it may be, would not interfere with or unduly influence her decision-making. Take, by contrast, another name, unfortunately in the news again, Mark Sanford. We rather definitively know that he is heterosexual but a scoundrel of the highest magnitude, given to endless lying and cheating. I should think we might be legitimately concerned about his suitability were he to have been the nominee. It’s not much of a jump to say his impartiality would be compromised in any number of matters.

Yes, we all know how adverse you are to lying, cheating, and masquerading.

“To his credit, O’Reilly has very often shown tolerance and acceptance for many gay rights issues (save some biggies like gay marriage.)”

Whut? No he hasn’t.

Having said that, she is not a good replacement for Stevens. There, I said the obvious.

Royal King, I’d go even further than you in my judgment of the trustworthiness of people based upon their conduct.

I’d certainly venture that anyone who conducted themselves with deceit on the internet is not suitable for public office. ESPECIALLY if they tell themselves that their treatment of people here is somehow less relevant than in real life.

And if they considered their conduct to be validated by some sort of superior political position, I’d be truly fearful. What would they be capable of doing in a job that was truly important? In a position where they wielded real power?

As to personal failings, while they might be physically faithful to their wife, how many the little masquerades? How often the disguising of true feelings and motivations?

No. How one conducts themselves online, is every bit as important as how one conducts themselves in real life. Professionally, personally,–whatever the sphere…you know the person by their behavior.

Snipzor says:
May 13, 2010 at 9:15 am

“To his credit, O’Reilly has very often shown tolerance and acceptance for many gay rights issues (save some biggies like gay marriage.)”

Whut? No he hasn’t.”

Prove it Snip!

Easy. If you have a problem with watching a Mediamatters video that essentially only shows clips of O’Reilly, then I’ll get more for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nCzGK_cFFo

While I don’t accept O’Reilly’s premise that Ms. Kagan’s sexual orientation is relevant because gay marriage may be an issue — the flipside of that coin is that if a nominee is hetero, they may be more apt to vote differently or if one is unmarried, they may feel differently about the institution — the fact is that this story has been propagated and largely driven by gay media, so it was really only a matter of time until it crossed-over to mainstream outlets like Fox primetime.

Right now, I don’t see a way out of this unless everyone agrees to turn a blind eye or the nominee addresses the question, herself. Naturally, gay media was proud to potentially have one of their own, someone who many apparently thought was out, nominated for such a prestigious position and if she is a lesbian, one would hope that she has enough pride to come out.

No, it shouldn’t be important and @TRRK is right; In fifty years, it’ll be a non-issue, but we have to get to that point to get past it and as part of the process, somebody’s going to have to take the first step.

Bill Clinton did not inhale, which prompted Whoopie to go on Leno to talk about brownies. This led to Obama being open about his past drug use and it goes in a straight line to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gary Johnson legitimately discussing legalization. To a large extent, the Kagan question is more akin to the election of President Obama as breaking a glass ceiling to become an example for minority youth; If she is a homosexual, Ms. Kagan would and could be inspirational to a whole other group of citizens, but now that the door is open, only she can prop it wide.

We would all be better off if political commentary in the US got away from insults and personal attacks and focused on frank discussion of real issues. For the time being, only Fox News seems to understand this.

Kagan’s sexual orientation is not an issue, but her desire to water down the Constitution — for example, her view that we need to “redistribute” the right to freedom of speech — is a huge issue. Interestingly enough, it seems that the leftwing mainstream media wants to push the lesbian angle, just as they want to talk about the birther angle on Obama. This allows them to make it seem as if the right has no substantive criticisms, when in fact it is the left wing media itself that refuses to cover substantive commentary from conservatives.

Fortunately there is one network that actually allows a real dialogue on important matters.

“felixw says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:54 am

We would all be better off if political commentary in the US got away from insults and personal attacks and focused on frank discussion of real issues. For the time being, only Fox News seems to understand this.”

Where can I buy my ticket to Planet Wingnuttia? Where reality is nothing but a dream…..

RRK said………
We rather definitively know that he is heterosexual but a scoundrel of the highest magnitude, given to endless lying and cheating. I should think we might be legitimately concerned about his suitability were he to have been the nominee. It’s not much of a jump to say his impartiality would be compromised in any number of matters.

I hope RRK would follow those same standards for Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Obama, Biden, Charles Rangle, Ted Kennedy or should I say ANY Kennedy.

All of the above are given to endless lying and cheating. None of them can be trusted.
My guess is that RRK and others of his ilk will post excuses for their behavior.

Hey Jackie, you obviously don’t watch much Fox. Compare a typical hour of Olbermann and O’Reilly, and count how many minutes are devoted to rants, personal attacks and insults versus discussions of substantive issues. I think you will find that Olbermann loses that match-up every night, every week, every month, every year….