Is Kagan a lesbian?

Apparently the left, the media, the administration, even conservatives, and Kagan are all operating a DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL policy.

Hmmm. Seems kinda … HYPOCRITICAL.

According to Ben Domenech:

An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

I guess the only way they know this is that they asked.

The fact that after this story was published a few weeks ago mentioning an unnamed administration official, the White House did not respond: “We *don’t* know, and further, we *don’t* care.” says a lot.

BHO said that Elena Kagan would mean the Supreme Court would be more inclusive, more representative… (you can read the quote above). I pulled out my pocket Constitution to check out the difference between the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. Guess what I found? Doesn’t mention that the Supreme Court is supposed to be representative of the people. Founding Fathers made provision for that otherwise.
What then is the purpose of the Supreme Court? Maybe it should be that they represent the Constitution. Why would the Constitution need a representative? To protect it from “we the people” is the best answer that I can give.
If Elena Kagan believes that the Executive Branch should be more powerful (which I read that she believes) then she would not be a qualified representative of the Constitution. There are no written qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. (I guess that means that I am just as qualified as she.)
I for one do not believe that she is qualified if her plan is to change the constitution from the bench rather than represent it.

What diversity that Elana Kagan brings to the SCOTUS. It’s spelled “LGBT”. You did know that, didn’t you?

But he thinks we do. Snake oil salesmen are always the last to know when their claims no longer persuade.

President Obama, during his presentation of Kagan as his nomination for the Su. Ct. the President and Kagan referred to the Court’s need to know how the law effects the ordinary person. I believe that to be a serious flaw in his thinking and that of his nomination. It is the job of Congress to be concerned as to how legislation effects the ordinary citizen. The job of the Su. Ct. is to interpret the law not how the law effects the average person. The President and Kagan infer it is proper juries’ prudence to make decisions based on personal opinions as to the effect of the law and not the letter of the law.
Kagan has everything to please the RINOS and the LINOS

and to which I cannot find an answer is if homosexuality is so great, good, wholesome and normal then why must it go by a euphemism or an alias rather than its real name?

whether or not her homosexuality will influence her decisions in court cases. That is the problem for the leftists – not that they hold leftist views, but that they ignore the constitution when they vote on court cases because of their viewpoints. Activism is a good thing, but it has never been the job of the courts; it’s supposed to be the job of the congress.

sticking his bony finger in the eye of conservatives and conservatism than anything else. There are plenty of otherwise qualified and experienced liberals throughout the land. Yet he seems to go out of his way to select one that he knows will cause even conservative Democrats (o.k. that is an oxymoron. I acknowledge that. Let’s move on.) to wince.

gays have come out of the closet decades ago, but she doesn’t have the courage to stand in front of the country, and show what she’s about. It is an american tradition. She want’s to dictate how Americans are to live their lives, but won’t be honest about exposing herself (figuratively), or her true beliefs. Culture matters, and so does honesty.
I’m not pro or anti gay, it’s their business. I am anti-phony, and am losing that battle.

I’ve been holding back, but I’ll go there. No, not her sexual orientation just her. well… Let’s just say I’ve had this clip in my mind all day

… that’s a man, baby!!!

As a practical matter, Kagan’s sexual orientation is probably a net plus in terms of public perception. I wouldn’t confuse voters contempt for Big Gov,, Spending or even Anti-Gay marriage positions with a notion that people would begrudge an openly homosexual individual on SCOTUS. I’m guessing a majority of Americans would probably applaud it, say no biggie, and go about their business.

Other than an MSM reference to her being a lover of softball, I can’t find much on her sexual orientation in the last 36 hours. This is strange given Obama’s love for identity politics and also his desire to make nice publicly with a constituency that he has largely ignored (As apparently Kagan has as well.)

What’s troubling is that Dems are not acting in their predictable manner. So what’s under the surface? I have no clue, but there must be a reason. Why would Obama lose an opportunity to exploit is theme of the “Bigoted Right” which surely would become an issue whether real or manufactured if her sexual orientation were publicized contemporaneously with her SCOTUS candidacy.

So why has the left decided to take a pass on marginalizing right wingers who are all obviously radical homophobes? (sarcasm)
Your thoughts. It can’t be as simple as they are scared of a Tea Party style or Anti-Immigration style backlash? It just can’t be that simple. Your thoughts?

Souter.

Samuel Alito was in the U.S. Army Signal Corps.