Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

YankeeFan · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

The White House today posted on its website a video allowing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to speak "in her own words" about her personal history and perspective.

In the interview, conducted by a White House staffer who produces videos for the administration, Kagan discusses her childhood, parents and professional career. At one point she jokes that people get confused between her job as solicitor general arguing cases before the Supreme Court and the attorney general, who puts "the labels on the cigarette packages."

While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today's White House briefing.

"It appears that Solicitor General Kagan did an interview yesterday right after the president's announcement," said a reporter. "You've now posted that on the White House Web site. Who did the interview? And can I have one?"

"I think it's -- I think it's on the website if you want to see it," responded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, "So a White House staffer interviewing her."

Gibbs says yes, and the reporter asks if Kagan would like to do another interview.

"She has -- she's not told me that, no," replied Gibbs, prompting the reporter to respond, "Tell her we're deeply frustrated."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004724-503544.html
Click to expand...

Boom_70 · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

YankeeFan said:

The White House today posted on its website a video allowing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to speak "in her own words" about her personal history and perspective.

In the interview, conducted by a White House staffer who produces videos for the administration, Kagan discusses her childhood, parents and professional career. At one point she jokes that people get confused between her job as solicitor general arguing cases before the Supreme Court and the attorney general, who puts "the labels on the cigarette packages."

While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today's White House briefing.

"It appears that Solicitor General Kagan did an interview yesterday right after the president's announcement," said a reporter. "You've now posted that on the White House Web site. Who did the interview? And can I have one?"

"I think it's -- I think it's on the website if you want to see it," responded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, "So a White House staffer interviewing her."

Gibbs says yes, and the reporter asks if Kagan would like to do another interview.

"She has -- she's not told me that, no," replied Gibbs, prompting the reporter to respond, "Tell her we're deeply frustrated."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004724-503544.html
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I thought it was "the surgeon general" that puts labels on cigarette packs

YankeeFan · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Boom_70 said:

I thought it was "the surgeon general" that puts labels on cigarette packs
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that quote too.

Lugnuts · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

YankeeFan said:

Where's Wally Matthews when we need him?
Click to expand...

I saw him logged in here just the other day. Really.

sportsguydave · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

YankeeFan said:

Boom_70 said:

I thought it was "the surgeon general" that puts labels on cigarette packs
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that quote too.
Click to expand...

I think she's having a little fun with y'all. I'm guessing she's pretty well-versed in the duties of the attorney general and the surgeon general.

But I'm sure there will be a few clowns who work for a certain three-lettered media outlet beginning with "F" who won't get the joke.

dooley_womack1 · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I notice Matthews on here about 2-3 times a week lately. And Kagen will also have to deal with the rumors that she's really Susan Boyle. And I'm not saying it meanly. To me, they look very much alike.

Boom_70 · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

sportsguydave said:

YankeeFan said:

Boom_70 said:

I thought it was "the surgeon general" that puts labels on cigarette packs
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that quote too.
Click to expand...

I think she's having a little fun with y'all. I'm guessing she's pretty well-versed in the duties of the attorney general and the surgeon general.

But I'm sure there will be a few clowns who work for a certain three-lettered media outlet beginning with "F" who won't get the joke.
Click to expand...

Maybe she was channeling Sarah Palin

Boom_70 · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

“Why do the conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don't get to get the liberals?”
/Sen Tom Harkin IA

21 · May 11, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Boom_70 said:

YankeeFan said:

The White House today posted on its website a video allowing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to speak "in her own words" about her personal history and perspective.

In the interview, conducted by a White House staffer who produces videos for the administration, Kagan discusses her childhood, parents and professional career. At one point she jokes that people get confused between her job as solicitor general arguing cases before the Supreme Court and the attorney general, who puts "the labels on the cigarette packages."

While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today's White House briefing.

"It appears that Solicitor General Kagan did an interview yesterday right after the president's announcement," said a reporter. "You've now posted that on the White House Web site. Who did the interview? And can I have one?"

"I think it's -- I think it's on the website if you want to see it," responded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, "So a White House staffer interviewing her."

Gibbs says yes, and the reporter asks if Kagan would like to do another interview.

"She has -- she's not told me that, no," replied Gibbs, prompting the reporter to respond, "Tell her we're deeply frustrated."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004724-503544.html
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I thought it was "the surgeon general" that puts labels on cigarette packs
Click to expand...

Sounds like the person writing the story misquoted her.

Ben_Hecht · May 12, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

deskslave said:

printdust said:

Ace said:

printdust said:

Ace said:

Point of Order said:

Guy_Incognito said:

Point of Order said:

Unfortunately, there is a large portion of our society, call them the "family values" crowd or whatever, that thinks being gay is. Notwithstanding that a higher than average percentage of this family values crowd are themselves gay, they think non-hidden homosexuality is a character flaw.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that there's no evidence of this, and I can't think of a theory as to why it would be, assuming that homosexuality is genetic, it undermines your point when you use homosexuality as a put-down of people you don't like.
Click to expand...

Regressive republicans will do anything, including trying to make an issue out of Elena Kagan's sexual orientation to slow down her confirmation to the Court, if they think it will benefit them politically. Therefore, anyone covering her confirmation has to be ready to possibly discuss her sexual orientation as an issue. If regressive republicans don't try and use it against her, fine, leave it out of the debate. But if they do raise it, as YF has done, those covering the issue and those supporting her nomination need to be prepared. That is the relevance of her sexuality being an issue and why journalists should be able to have an informed discussion about it.
Click to expand...

To me, the question is not whether she is gay or not. The question is whether it's an issue at all.
Click to expand...

Well, there are, you know, heated debates in many states concerning this issue, so I would think it would be an issue as to how she will "interpret" the constitutional matters regarding rights in this regard.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming that a gay person would be against anti-gay legislation? Because recent news stories seem to discount that.
Click to expand...

No quite the contrary. I think in favor of it would ramrod any legislation from the bench in that regard...going againsthe vast majority of state governments and voters.
Click to expand...

Just like that annoying Brown v Board decision, right? Not to mention the one that overturned the prohibition on interracial marriage.

Basic rights trump the will of the masses, and constitutions exist to protect the unpopular from the popular.
Click to expand...

Saved me the trouble.

Until people fully understand that, the adult table is a stretch.

Azrael · May 12, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Not gay, says

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37114.html

YankeeFan · May 12, 2010

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Azrael said:

Not gay, says

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37114.html
Click to expand...

Interesting. I think a lot of gays & lesbians will be disappointed. I think many saw her as one of them.

Still not sure what to make of the reports that she was known as a lesbian to her friends.

Either those reports were b.s., and since it was mainly blogs and such, that's not hard to believe, or this is a pretty disgusting campaign to deny her sexuality.

I guess this is part of why I wish that a major news organization would cover it -- so that rumors and blogs weren't the only source of information.

It's like learning about sex "on the street" instead of from your parents or another responsible adult. You get a lot of the facts wrong.

But, I do think Politico does a good job of explaining why this had to be addressed:

The rumor about Kagan has circulated for months on gay blogs and became a matter of controversy when it was cited as fact by a conservative blogger on the website of CBS News, drawing a sharp White House rebuttal. It has, since, been a source of particular fascination in some socially conservative circles and particularly among gay and lesbian political observers, some of whom objected volubly Tuesday to a Wall Street Journal cover image of Kagan playing softball, which they perceived as a jab at a stereotype of lesbians.

The result has been an awkward dilemma for the traditional media, for whom reporting about homosexuality has always been considered to be off limits. Reporters and bloggers have debated, publicly and privately, the propriety of asking whether Kagan is gay. But Walzer – who has spoken regularly to the press this week – said that in a series of interviews with reporters she had been asked only obliquely about the nominee’s “social life.”

The intense scrutiny that comes with a Supreme Court nomination leaves ample space for curiosity – particularly intense in the gay community— on a question that even leading Republican Senators have dismissed as irrelevant to the job. But Kagan’s friends’ desire to “out” her as straight has been complicated by their hope to avoid offending gay friends by implying that there would be any problem if she were a lesbian.

...

The rumors that Kagan is gay, Walzer said, were current before she became a public figure, and a source of frustration to Kagan and her friends – who were frustrated by their persistence, but worried that denying them could imply some anti-gay prejudice.

“There is this assumption that people make at a single point about women who get to their 40s or 50s and never marry that it must be because they’re gay,” Walzer said. “It’s just usually that they don’t get nominated for the Supreme Court and have everybody talking about them, so nobody really cares.”
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Lugnuts Well-Known Member

sportsguydave Active Member

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Lugnuts Well-Known Member

sportsguydave Active Member

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches