Andrew asks (repeatedly, ad nauseum) if Kagan is gay.
I can't decide if it's a fair question. And it is bothersome that the White House treated the assertion that she is gay as a "charge."
I tend to think that if she's gay it shouldn't be an issue but if she's in the closet it should be a matter of concern. I have never met someone who has spent their entire adulthood in the closet who hasn't had their psyche stunted in some way. George Rekers, Larry Craig, Ted Haggerd, witnesses for the prosecution.
But I think what bothers me about Sullivan's insistence on the question is his suggestion that her gayness (or, for that matter, her straightness) would have bearing on how she would rule. This coupling of a person's background with their Court decision-making troubles me. It did when Obama made the connection in nominating Sotomayor. Yes, it's obvious that a person's background, ethnicity, sexual orientation, family life, etc would shape their personal thoughts and opinions. But if judicial restraint means anything it should mean the discipline to balance those beliefs against the rule of law and legal precedent.
In short, if Kagan ever rules that DADT or DOMA is unconstitutional, I hope that it would be from her service to the law and not service to her community.
3 comments:
OMG you were quoted in this morning's WaPo Express 'Blog Log' section.
It is unfortunate that this question regarding sexuality seems to have a larger voice than judicial temperament does. Washington ton is sooooo screwed (may also be read f-d) up.
@Jimbo -- hey thanks for the heads up. They've quoted me before (thank you Express editors!).
Post a Comment