On Friday, in an article entitled "Is sexual identity our business, or are we a nation of busybodies?", Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post wrote:
"Administration officials asked Kagan directly about her sexual orientation when she was being vetted for her post as solicitor general, Dunn said in response to a question that she protested was inappropriate. But she insisted that it was not a relevant factor in determining who was named to that job or this one. 'When there's a gay nominee, there's a gay nominee, which will be a good thing, if they're qualified and should be on the court,' Dunn said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051305305.html?hpid=topnews
Sorry, Anita, but the question of whether or not the Obama administration asked Kagan about her sexual orientation as part of her vetting process is appropriate. That the Obama administration indeed inquired concerning Kagan's sexual orientation is disgraceful.
Perhaps it is time for Obama to appoint a self-acknowledged gay person to the Supreme Court and thereby put to rest any future questions about a candidate's sexuality. This would truly amount to the much vaunted "change" promised by presidential candidate Obama, yet ignominiously ignored by his administration.
Sorry, Jeffrey, I do not follow. If it is good to appoint a gay judge, then why it is bad to ask? How will they know "the good thing", if they do not ask? And why is it good to have a gay judge? Why we even care? The person is supposed to work as a judge, not produce offsprings.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you've made too much sense here.
ReplyDeleteObama's main shortcoming is that he doesn't respect the ideals he speaks of sufficiently.
http://findingourdream.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-pragmatic-and-ideal.html