By If you haven’t heard already President Obama has selected Elena Kagan as his pick to the Supreme Court:
At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, which would give her the opportunity to extend Obama’s legacy for a generation.
Kagan must first win Senate confirmation.
A source close to the selection process said a central element in Obama’s choice was Kagan’s reputation for bringing together people of competing views and earning their respect.
Kagan came to the fore as a candidate who had worked closely with all three branches of government, a legal mind with both a sense of modesty and sense of humor. The source spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss factors that led to Kagan’s impending nomination.
Kagan has clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton and earned a stellar reputation as a student, teacher and manager of the elite academic world. Her standing has risen in Obama’s eyes as his government’s lawyer before the high court over the last year.
Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated. [Associated Press]
It is pretty clear that she was picked for ideological views and not her ability to be a judge considering she has never been a judge. CBS News has a good write up on Kagan on how little is known about her plus her not very robust qualifications. What should have disqualified her from being a justice is her position on military recruiters and ROTC on the Harvard campus when she was the Dean of the Harvard Law School. Whatever your position on gays in the military the law clearly states that if colleges want federal funding than recruiters and ROTC are allowed on campus. She had to back down when all 9 Supreme Court justices shot down her legal argument for banning the military from Harvard. Here is a good write up on the whole ROTC at Harvard University issue.
What I find interesting is that Kagan makes it out to be gays cannot join the military, which is not true. If you are gay you can join the military as long as you don’t disclose it. Heck now a days you can disclose it and you still won’t get kicked out. However, if you are vastly overweight or have disability you cannot join the military no matter what so who is really being discriminated against? That is question I would like to see a member of Congress ask her.
2:18 am on May 10th, 2010 1
I think it is a positive move from USA army to accept gay soldiers. History proves that they are as good soldier as normal soldiers. Alexander the Great for instance.
3:05 am on May 10th, 2010 2
Speaking only for myself here. I've known Gay soldiers. They are no different than those that like to do it the "natural way".
Some are good Troops and some are huck-ups.
I don't care anymore about their sex life than I do about their Religion—unless they are muslim.
The problem for me is that it is just another way to divide the Troops into groups.
When I first enlisted, we checked that chit at the gate. Race, Religion and Sex. Check it at the Gate.
Being a Soldier, Marine, Airman or Navy should be the focus. If it isn't, then there IS a problem.
Do what you want on whatever free time you have. But check that extra chit at the gate. The Military has a job to do.
"but I'm gay or black or brown or yellow or a woman". No you're not. You're the American Military.
I don't believe Alexander the Great went around telling his troops that he was gay. They knew and didn't care.
He had his stash of young boys to play with.
He didn't BOTHER his troops with his desires.
It would be a positive move if American gay Soldiers would stop crying about being gay and do their job.
5:48 am on May 10th, 2010 3
"Nowhere in the ancient sources is it stated that Alexander had homosexual relationships" He did have two female wives.
People can write all sorts of crap in history books. Eventually, others start believing it.
5:57 am on May 10th, 2010 4
Play along Pete. Don't confuse the good Doctor with the facts. He has an agenda, not facts.
7:21 am on May 10th, 2010 5
In Alexander's culture, gay was OK. A guy could marry and have children but still fool around with boys and noone thought any less of him.
8:16 am on May 10th, 2010 6
I agree with Retired GI. I don't care if you do sheep in your non duty time but there is no need to broadcast that crap to the whole world. If the internet rumor control is correct Elena Kagan is a lesbian which I don't give a foxtrot about. The question is if she is in fact a lesbian, will this cause her to prejudge if Don't Ask Don't Tell ends up before the SCOTUS. I think it already has been before the SCOTUS but I may be incorrect. Her sexual orientation may also cause her to prejudge homosexual 'marriage'. If DADT is abolished would the military be forced to give homosexual partners the same dependent benefits as spouses of heterosexual troops? If DADT repeal happens I'm sure that the answer would be 'yes'. If an known male homosexual or a lesbian were to be nominated to the SC does anyone seriously think that they would vote against the 'gay agenda'?
8:16 am on May 10th, 2010 7
Yes. I know it was OK. As was fooling around while married. Maybe they were on to something.
8:31 am on May 10th, 2010 8
I wonder, stating that someone was a gay in a gay society was relevant?
I never met Alexander personally but all my history teachers were clear that FACTS suggested he was a gay, so I follow what they said.
Besides, even if he was not a gay the Greek society was, so it still proves that gays were good soldiers like no-gay soldiers.
8:47 am on May 10th, 2010 9
As I said in the above reply to you; being "gay" does not make you a good soldier, nor does it make you a bad soldier. Nobody really cares—unless you start making noise and crying to be a loud mouth gay soldier. Then you become a bad soldier.
The only indicator of a good solder in as follows: "Right place-Right time-Right uniform and Right action. Which all translate into follow the orders of those appointed over you. If you are in violation of DADT, you have failed to be a good soldier.
Put anything in your mouth that you want to in your freetime. But close your mouth about it while on duty. It isn't difficult to follow these orders.
Oh and I don't know if your teacher told you this, but the Greek society is no longer Great.
9:06 am on May 10th, 2010 10
“If DADT is abolished would the military be forced to give homosexual partners the same dependent benefits as spouses of heterosexual troops?”
If the law legalizes homosexual union, gay and lesbian partners should be considered dependents. I personally believe that gay and lesbian unions should be given a legal solution to solve the financial dependency problem.
“If a known male homosexual or a lesbian were to be nominated to the SC does anyone seriously think that they would vote against the ‘gay agenda’?”
No way. If they are notorious gay or lesbian and are nominated to such position people would expect them to follow their belief when voting, after all, Justices are nominated based on their belief and political agenda (unless they are gays or lesbians against the gay (lesbian) cause).
9:11 am on May 10th, 2010 11
She looks like Janet Reno in drag.
9:14 am on May 10th, 2010 12
You seem to be angry with me RGI. Any special reason???
Is this a sensitive issue for you???
9:38 am on May 10th, 2010 13
You raise a couple of interesting points.
The SCOTUS shouldn't have to hear DADT. That is within the discretion of the Congress and the President to decide, unless someone makes it a civil rights case.
There is an attempt to bring a gay marriage case before the Court. It will be presented by W. Bush's solicitor general, Ted Olson.
Since this topic converges on the Supreme Court and gays, I pointed out somewhere before that when the Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, that basically ruled you have to right to commit sodomy in the privacy of your home, they noted that only relatively recently in American society had the term sodomy taken on its homosexual bias.
In the decision:
Finally, on the subject of ‘gay agenda,’ it seems from the revelation of arry Craig, Roy Ashburn, and George Rekers, to name a few, those most in need to compensate for personal issues may be the strongest opposition against the 'gay agenda.'
Maybe if Ms Kagen is lesbian, she may also feel the need to compensate.
9:39 am on May 10th, 2010 14
"arry Craig" -> "Larry Craig"
9:52 am on May 10th, 2010 15
No. I'm not angry with you personally. I'm angry with the issue itself. It seems that many individuals just don't understand what being a Military person means. You do it for reasons other than personal gain. The only people that wear a uniform for the pay check are the officers. It was understood when I enlisted, that some freedoms would be limited. Those that say individuals should be openly gay, don't understand the Military. For the Greeks, an openly and likely mostly gay society, it was the norm. Not in the American Military. The Troops, are "The Troops". The bond needs to be tight. When you divide "The Troops" into sub-groups, you divide them along lines that are not needed and are counter productive.
If you are Asian, you understand this better than Americans do.
By the way, "The Troops" do not include the (so called) Leaders. Even they are a separate entity, apart from "The Troops". Problems go UP the command. Not DOWN.
Openly gay translates to separate entity within "The Troops".
Bottom line: It doesn't help with the over all accomplishment of the Mission at hand.
They become suspect. They are trying to get something Extra. They are out for themselves. Nolonger of "The Troops" but now something else. That way of thinking doesn't belong in a uniform
DADT really has little to do with sex. More to do with Power. Those who fight DADT either do not understand that, or are actively subverting the American Military.
I guess it is a sensitive issue for me. I'm retired now and will not have to deal with it. But I feel for the "Leaders" that will. I can hear it now: "I got a bad evaluation because I'm GAY!" I heard enough of the crap when it was only about race and sex.
It will become a weapon to use, or an excuse to give, or some other thing yet unseen to subvert Military Command and Control.
It has NOTHING to do with a gay soldier being a good soldier as you seem to think.
9:54 am on May 10th, 2010 16
If gays are allowed to openly serve it's going to cause many problems.
First of all if a soldier is in trouble or facing UCMJ for any reason, he could claim he is gay and being punished/discriminated because of it. No one would go near that one.
Also you're going to have PVT Doe and PVT Snuffy claiming they're gay and getting married just to move off post and receive full BAH and BAS.
9:55 am on May 10th, 2010 17
She DOES!
10:26 am on May 10th, 2010 18
Yeah, a "platonic, gay relationship". Brilliant.
10:31 am on May 10th, 2010 19
Just claiming you are planning to get married won't get you BAH and BAS.
11:17 am on May 10th, 2010 20
"It is pretty clear that she was picked for ideological views and not her ability to be a judge considering she has never been a judge."
Well, aren't they all? Besides…
"Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. "
So, she isn't the first to never have been a judge…and wasn't he US President almost 40 years ago a Republican?
As they say, it's like the pot calling the kettle black and what's good for the goose is good for the gander (and so on and so forth).
11:24 am on May 10th, 2010 21
What do you make of countries where soldiers don't have to give up their individuality and rights the moment they enlist? Canada and the Netherlands, for example, guarantee the same rights to their military members as to the rest of the population. Besides, what about "being all that they can be" and serving in the "army of one"? You're telling me that was a bait and switch scam?
6:17 pm on May 10th, 2010 22
Oh no.. Bad visual…BAD BAD Visual… Now all i need is to see Songtan Sally walking the vill…urgh..
10:35 pm on May 10th, 2010 23
There ideological views play into the decision but their judicial qualifications should as well. That is why I had no problem with Justice Sotomayor, I may not agree with all her ideological views but no one can't say she is unqualified to be a judge considering her judicial background.
Kagan on the otherhand was picked solely because of her ideological views and political connections.
4:27 am on May 11th, 2010 24
Around, I’m going to try and take this a different direction. I really think the gays in the military issue in this scenario is just an excuse here. If DADT was a non-issue at the time, Kagan and her cohorts would be trying to keep recruiters of campuses because of the women in combat thing. If not that, environmental issues would be the reason and so on. Liberal elites just don’t want their kids exposed to the military. They just might join and ruin their lives
!