Patterico's Pontifications

5/12/2010

Eliot Spitzer: Kagan Not Gay

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:52 am



Heh.

Another friend, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, a member of Kagan’s social circle at Princeton University, wanted to make the same point as Walzer. “I did not go out with her, but other guys did,” he said in an email Tuesday night. “I don’t think it is my place to say more.”

Your punchlines below.

P.S. This part also made me chuckle — but slightly more sardonically:

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.

A heterosexual can’t say she is a heterosexual for fear of offending the gays? What a country!

I’ll have to ask my wife how she feels about this. Oh, sorry — my partner, who (forgive me for saying this) just happens to be a woman. Not there’s anything wrong with that necessarily right about that.

70 Responses to “Eliot Spitzer: Kagan Not Gay”

  1. We need information that is more up-to-date than this. She could have been heterosexual years ago but now dances to a different tune.

    dchamil (bb7f48)

  2. Gawker has an amusing take on the question.
    The mayor of Gaytown has endorsed her: Andrew Sullivan, who is the ringleader of the “gays into politics,” says that she is part of his gay club. “She is, according to large numbers of people who have known her, a lesbian,” he says. If anyone knows the truth, it’s Gay Uncle Andy.

    A Chicago Tribune columnist has weighed in on the subject of which “team” Kagan favors: Is she for the Mets or White Sox?
    Absolutely no innuendo there!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  3. Indeed this is just more joke material than I can handle.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. I don’t care if she’s gay. I care that she’s a Progressive Liberal kook who will rule on cases in a way that will make Satan proud.

    Metallica (bb58d8)

  5. Bi partisan?

    jim2 (a9ab88)

  6. Does Metallica think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?

    mele (688568)

  7. Hey, there’s a character reference for ya, huh?

    mojo (8096f2)

  8. That comment kinda reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch where a British Naval Officer is being interviewed about some naval expedition and then, out of the blue, blurts out “And I just want to reassure the viewers at home that there is no cannibalism in the British Royal Navy.”

    Not that I’m equating being gay to being a cannibal, just that the denial managed to triggger more suspicions than if nothing was said.

    Sean P (993a82)

  9. we’d have to see what’s on her ipod to know for sure

    happyfeet (c8caab)

  10. Here’s what’s stupid.
    It doesn’t matter if she’s gay, of course, except that Democrats want you to believe that all gay people have a hive mind when it comes to issues. The same goes for black people, Hispanics…you know the drill.

    The White House, however, cannot have anyone think for a second that Kagan would bring a “gay” agenda to the court. So rather than admitting not all gay people think alike (like liberal Democrats!) they end up fighting about Kagan’s sexuality. The White House brought this on her, and dragged her sexuality into the spotlight.

    Embarrassing.

    MayBee (805982)

  11. This is yet another example of how the donks really feel about a core constituency group. And the most thing about it is that they brought it up themselves.

    FatBaldnSassy (9520fd)

  12. “The White House brought this on her, and dragged her sexuality into the spotlight.”

    How did they do this?

    mele (017d51)

  13. How did they do this?

    By publicly discussing it.

    MayBee (805982)

  14. I do think it is amusing to see the arguments about whether the gays should oppose her because she won’t out herself. Looking at her, maybe she can’t get a date with either sex.

    Mike K (82f374)

  15. MAYBEE!!!!!!

    I could not give a flying f*ck what her sexuality is. It does bother me a bit that she has never sat on the bench, and has practiced very little, and is less qualified than Estrada and Miers, and a whole bunch of other reasons.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  16. They want the meme of teh ghey, MayBee, because they want to claim that opposition to her is based on homophobia and bigotry. It is the way they do things.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  17. On a more serious note, here is Kagan on free speech.

    Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.

    In short, she does not believe in free speech. Any liberal commenters want to weigh in on this?

    Suboai (6989a7)

  18. That’s so general as to be meningless. You cannot shout “fire” in a crowded movie house or “movie” in a crowded firehouse. That’s been the long for a long time.

    A lot of “intellect” these days is presumed from the use of long words that communicate nothing.

    nk (db4a41)

  19. What was the context of that quote, Subotai?

    JD (cc3aa7)

  20. Comment by Suboai — 5/12/2010 @ 9:35 am

    I’m not a liberal, but I don’t see anything wrong with that statement. Free speech doesn’t mean you can shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, walk down the street shouting political slogans at 3am, or make terroristic threats. Where the line should be drawn will always be debated, but that there should be a line somewhere is accepted almost universally… and certainly by the law.

    I think Kagan should be opposed, but not because she might be gay, or liberal, or even inexperienced. President Obama should not get a free pass on anything for the rest of his term. Every item brought forward by his administration should be fought tooth-and-nail. Let him waste time trying to get his nominee confirmed and he’ll have less time available for his more far-left agenda items. Bring on the gridlock, it would be better for the country than what we’ve seen so far. Then get rid of every incumbent possible, at every level. There shouldn’t be pensions, or even benefits to public service. There is no difference between the terms “professional politician” and “professional master” anymore. That has to change, one way or another.

    My rant for the month. Back to your regularly-scheduled comments, check your local listings. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  21. the *law* for a long time

    This Tiger Woods post and Kagan’s lesbianism are sending me into all sorts of Freudian slips.

    But has Kagan ever had lunch at the Y?

    nk (db4a41)

  22. Stashiu3, is it appropriate to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre if there is, a fire, or should one just leave quietly before panic sets in?

    Len (143e4c)

  23. Amen, Stashiu. Preach it, brother-man.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  24. I’m not a liberal, but I don’t see anything wrong with that statement. Free speech doesn’t mean you can shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, walk down the street shouting political slogans at 3am, or make terroristic threats.

    That’s not what the US Constitution says. It says that Congress shall make no abridging the freedom of speech. Period.

    There’s room there for Peoria to pass a law against swearing in the city limits, but not for the SCOTUS to allow Congress to pass any law which abridges speech in any way.

    The Constitution does not permit the courts to get into the business of making any “balancing tests” taking into account “the value of speech against its societal costs”. Neither the value of speech not its societal costs are any business of the courts under the US Constitution. They are also not the business of any other part of the federal government.

    Suboai (6989a7)

  25. “In short, she does not believe in free speech. Any liberal commenters want to weigh in on this?”

    She’s referring to the categorical test used to uphold bans on things like child pornography and obscenity. Those things do not get first amendment protection, as a result of the balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.

    You can tell this by going back and reading where you got that quote from.

    mele (017d51)

  26. I think what people are objecting to with the Kaganesque commentary on the FIrst Amendment is how it is applied in a partisan fashion.

    Example: big battle about putting up a cross on a hillside. Do you think that the same people would argue, just a strongly, about an Islamic Crescent?

    They wouldn’t. And much if it is due to Marcuse-ian nonsense, that “innate power structure” gives “the oppressed” great freedom than those who are “in power.”

    I was thinking of this the other day, when I received an e-mail from an administrator on my campus about graduation coming up in a few weeks. There is a gay graduation. A graduation for “people of color.” And in justifying it, the administrator wrote that it was up to all of us to support oppressed students on campus.

    Like College Republicans? Or Fundamentalist Christians? Not so, there. But the Muslim Student Alliance? Absolutely.

    So these issues of free speech are not being applied with freedom in mind.

    Sorry for my rant. Just my pre-inflation two cents.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  27. 19.What was the context of that quote, Subotai?

    United States vs Stevens.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

    And this article in the Washington Examiner.

    Freedom of speech, religion and other First Amendment issues are likely to be among the most visible during the coming Senate confirmation hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    As an illustration why, consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center’s David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

    The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan’s reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment’s protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.

    Suboai (6989a7)

  28. Good point Len. I should have said “when there is no fire”. I assumed everyone would get the reference to such an old saw. If there is an actual fire, feel free to yell a warning without generally fearing legal consequences… unless you set the fire of course. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  29. It was in her argument before the Supreme Court on Citizens United where she made a bizarre argument about free speech. But there it is harder to decide if she was trying to make a case for her client (the US) or expounding a personal belief. I won’t attack her for a “belief” that was just an argument she was making on behalf of her “client”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. This is wrong:

    “but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment’s protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.”

    You can tell it is wrong by reading the original. She’s describing the legal test applied. It’s reasoning that has already been accepted.

    mele (c5488f)

  31. oh God, please tell me that spitzer didn’t feel like he couldn’t afford her.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  32. mele – It was not apparently accepted to the extent that she wished it to, since SCOTUS roundly rejected her argument in the case in question.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  33. She’s describing the legal test applied. It’s reasoning that has already been accepted.

    a) It has not been accepted. The supreme court ruled against her 8-1.

    b) The Constitution is crystal clear regardless of any court rulings. Congress may pass no law abridging freedom of speech. If you don’t like that, change the constitution. Don’t pretend it says something other than it does.

    Suboai (6989a7)

  34. does she have a sense of humor?Rosie odonnell is supposedly a professional comic yet i can not remember ever laughing at any thing she has said.

    clyde (2d92c5)

  35. Second Interviewer: Hello. I’m sorry about my colleague’s rather unconventional behaviour just now, but things haven’t been tog easy for him recently, trouble at home, rather confidential so I can’t give you all the details… interesting though they are… three bottles of rum with his weetabix, and so on, anyway… apparently the girl wasn’t even … anyway the activity you see behind me… it’s the mother I feel sorry for. I’ll start again. The activity you see behind me is part of the preparations for the new Naval Expedition to Lake Pahoe. The man in charge of this expedition is Vice Admiral Sir John Cunningham. Sir John, hello there.

    Sir John: Ah, hello. Well first of all I’d like to apologize for the behaviour of certain of my colleagues you may have seen earlier, but they are from broken homes, circus families and so on and they are in no way representative of the new modern improved British Navy. They are a small vociferous minority; and may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they’re to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And, finally, necrophilia is right out. (the interviewer keeps nodding but looks embarrassed) Now, this expedition is primarily to investigate reports of cannibalism and necrophilia in … this expedition is primarily to investigate reports of unusual marine life in the as yet uncharted Lake Pahoe.

    mojo (8096f2)

  36. SPQR

    if you go over her own written papers, it all fits together. she has a frightening view of freedom of speech.

    The good news, however, is that she is also remarkably unpersuasive. so she will harm the causes of the left for years to come, as a member of the Supreme Court.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  37. here’s an article on kagan, on her views of the first amendment. http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/12/the-bounds-of-silence#comment_1703191

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  38. Here’s another good link on her free speech positions.

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/12/the-bounds-of-silence

    Suboai (6989a7)

  39. Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.

    This could be applied in a way that bans flag burning, Nazis marching in Skokie, or publication of naughty pictures. It is fairly meaningless and in a way that is dangerous because it justifies allowing or blocking free speech based in whim, personal preference and Humpty Dumpty thinking.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  40. “mele – It was not apparently accepted to the extent that she wished it to, since SCOTUS roundly rejected her argument in the case in question.”

    SCOTUS also noted that the argument was an accurate summary of how other speech restrictions have been described. It’s not the only argument that could be made to uphold this law, but it’s part of the argument that says this is like obscenity or child pornography.

    In the end I think the court reached the correct decision.

    mele (603c39)

  41. “It has not been accepted. The supreme court ruled against her 8-1.”

    I think you should read the opinion. It’s not kind to that sentence — and I think does it a bit of a disservice by picking it out from the rest of the argument — but it also does say that it comes from precedent.

    “b) The Constitution is crystal clear regardless of any court rulings. Congress may pass no law abridging freedom of speech. If you don’t like that, change the constitution. Don’t pretend it says something other than it does.”

    Why don’t you find out how the child porn is prohibited, and then get back to me about what amendments are needed.

    “Here’s another good link on her free speech positions.”

    She’s written a long article on the first amendment, you could read that too.

    mele (8bb588)

  42. JD at #16 got half of the reason the WH brought the lesbian issue to the forefront, the other half is that if you’re talking about Kagan’s sexual preferences, her appalling lack of judicial experience and scholarly qualifications for any high court position isn’t being exposed.

    ropelight (5c7bab)

  43. Or, to put it another way: Quick! Look over there, funny bunnies!

    ropelight (5c7bab)

  44. “her appalling lack of judicial experience and scholarly qualifications for any high court position isn’t being exposed.”

    Would you say she is more or less qualified than Rehnquist?

    mele (8bb588)

  45. We have seen this mele-type of argumentation before.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  46. I think you should read the opinion. It’s not kind to that sentence — and I think does it a bit of a disservice by picking it out from the rest of the argument — but it also does say that it comes from precedent

    What came from precedent? That sentence did not.

    Why don’t you find out how the child porn is prohibited, and then get back to me about what amendments are needed

    You’re talking gibberish. If you think that you can defend the child porn laws under the First Amendment, then let me see you do it.

    She’s written a long article on the first amendment, you could read that too.

    That article is linked to in the link I gave you. The one you did not bother to read.

    Suboai (6989a7)

  47. We have seen this mele-type of argumentation before.
    Comment by JD — 5/12/2010 @ 11:10 am

    Yes, we certainly have. Good catch. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  48. as a proud lesbian, albeit trapped in a man’s body, i find the fixation you prudes have with her sexual orientation disgusting.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  49. What’s with all the hubbub over the WSJ’s picture of Kagan playing softball? It’s the best picture of her I’ve seen yet, she looks a good bit thinner and more healthy compared to the short, squat, pasty-faced schmoo I see on TV now.

    I just don’t get the purported lesbian identification at all. Kagan is wearing pants, but that can’t be it. She’s holding a bat, but so what? Clearly, or unclearly, am I missing something obvious to others?

    ropelight (5c7bab)

  50. Why is the right so hyper-fixated on whether Kagan is gay or straight?

    JEA (cfcb76)

  51. Talk about “code words” … here I never knew that playing softball or an image of playing softball was code for “gay” and obviously some derogatory “gay code word” at that.

    As for the “Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?” reference, “bowling” is obvious a code word for “not gay” (good to know). Perhaps “gays” don’t like the idea of hanging around with “rednecks” totting 16 pound polyester spheres.

    So today I determined that if you are a homophobe, gays don’t bowl or at least they stay in the closet while they bowl.

    I suggest that Kagan go bowling .. and take Barack along .. he needs the practice.

    Neo (7830e6)

  52. First, spam time! if you want to defend freedom of speech, let’s everyone draw mohammed today!

    If you send to my site (http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/) I will practice no censorship (only two rules: 1) has to depict mohammed and 2) can’t be porn).

    And for that matter, we don’t care if you have actual artistic skillz. Trust me, most of our drawings suck. Because quality is not the point.

    Sabutai

    Great minds think alike on the reason article.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  53. Why is the right so hyper-fixated on whether Kagan is gay or straight?

    Why is the hyper gay – baiting left so fixated on her sexuality in the first place? Who brought this subject up again, initially?

    You’re like our own little Mynah Bird of Lefty regurgitation points.

    Dmac (21311c)

  54. as a proud lesbian, albeit trapped in a man’s body,

    Thanks redc1c4, that made my day.

    BT (74cbec)

  55. #50, JEA asked, “Why is the right so hyper-fixated on whether Kagan is gay or straight?”

    They aren’t, not at all, just the opposite, mostly no one, right or left cares. It’s the Obama Administration and the Left that’s desperately trying to make Kagan’s sexuality an issue to stir-up their base, trying to manufacture an enthusiastic outrage against imaginary bigots in time for the coming legislative and electoral battles.

    It’s a more mild example of the worst sort of false flag operation, like a black student hanging a noose around the campus statue of Martin Luther King, or a feminist law professor pretending to have been raped. It makes for big splash and lots of publicity, but gets short shrift in the media when exposed for a self-serving fraud.

    The damage the Towana Brawleys and Al Sharptons of this world do to our social and political systems isn’t really ever given careful and public scrutiny, and that’s the real tragedy.

    ropelight (5c7bab)

  56. rope:

    I am opposed to gay marriage and i hope she is gay.

    There is no way a gay supreme court justice would be the 5th vote for gay marriage. So you would need at least 5 justices besides her to do it. So where would they get the 5th? i mean you would have Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor (sp?), Kennedy and…? All that is left is Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Good luck with that.

    But don’t tell me it is not relevant. if gay marriage came up, and any of them were gay, in truth she would have to recuse herself, because there is absolutely no way she could be unbiased.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  57. Gay or straight should have no bearing – it certainly has no bearing on my opinion.

    But why are we are we even listening to Eliot Spitzer

    Joe (367573)

  58. Btw, in unrelated news, the Swedish cartoonist attacked yesterday is standing defiant. and i have waaaay too much fun with it.

    http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/lars-vilks-is-defiant-of-terrorists.html

    Follow the link and have a defiant laugh.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  59. Why is it that cretins such as Spitzer and Edwards, thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the public by their own deeds,
    refuse to go quietly into that good night, and spare the rest of us from having to remember why they are so disgusting?

    AD - RtR/OS! (04f5c9)

  60. Knock it off with the anti-Muslim stuff unless you’re willing to put on a nightshirt with a red cross painted on it and ride your charger to the Holy Lands.

    nk (db4a41)

  61. Who cares about this issue.

    Red herring

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  62. Comment by nk — 5/12/2010 @ 1:46 pm

    Not all crusaders fit that description; but it did mark those of the Knights Templar, who wore white robes with a red cross (a Maltese Cross IIR)and were pledged to the defense of the Holy Sepulcher, and pilgrims in the Holy Land.

    AD - RtR/OS! (04f5c9)

  63. Now that Chastity Bono is legally a man, is he/she/it still gay?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  64. #56, AW, OK, some people care if Kagan is gay, I don’t. I understand that most authorities say that somewhere in the neighborhood of one in ten or 20 guys are gay and I suppose it’s nearly that for women as well. So, I say live and let live.

    ropelight (5c7bab)

  65. Eliot Spitzer has a thing for sluts. That’s why he didn’t date Kagan. She wasn’t a slut. She was a lawyer.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  66. Birdbath wrote:

    Eliot Spitzer has a thing for sluts. That’s why he didn’t date Kagan. She wasn’t a slut. She was a lawyer.

    Yeah, even Mr Spitzer wouldn’t stoop that low!

    The snarky Dana (474dfc)

  67. Have they been able to dredge up any men who have slept with Kagan yet? Milky Loads is on the prowl.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  68. I’d rather have a jurist who is a homosexual conservative (and not an squishy “centrist” or faux rightist, as Andrew Sullivan originally was) than a heterosexual liberal. However, the odds of a gay person being anything but of the left is rather low.

    As for the question of whether Kagan is into women or not: It’s interesting that in this era of dumbed-down, no-shame, anything-goes standards, when public discussion does develop about a person’s non-hetero sexuality, “gay” often is latched onto instead of “bisexual.” That’s even though activists love the acronym of “GLBT” (ie, the “B” in “GLBT”), and in spite of the life history of many well-known self-proclaimed “gays” being one of intimate relationships with both sexes. IOW, there apparently is more free will in “gay” than many liberals want the public to accept or believe.

    Mark (411533)

  69. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Kagan.

    Eliot Spitzer (3e4784)

  70. But don’t tell me it is not relevant. if gay marriage came up, and any of them were gay, in truth she would have to recuse herself, because there is absolutely no way she could be unbiased.
    Comment by A.W. — 5/12/2010 @ 1:24 pm

    — You’re being silly today.

    Icy Texan (1cd8c3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1129 secs.