My previous post about Elena Kagan was written before I learned that the New York Times and others had begun to question Ms. Kagan's sexuality. It was already known that she was in her early 50s, had never married and had no children. I should have predicted that if her detractors were unable to make much out of the fact that she had not appeared in court very much and was never a judge, they would sink to the bottom like a stone and go after her for the possibility she might be a lesbian. Lots of people love to trot out the Salem Witch Trials when explaining this sort of phenomenon but I think it's a little shopworn at this point.
The reality is there are many, many men and women who are qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That should surprise no one. We have a lot of lawyers in this country, many of whom are scholarly, hard-working and are experts in Constitutional law. The interesting question is what disqualifies an otherwise qualified nominee. It's certainly not gender, race or religion any more. Is it sexual orientation, real or perceived? Certainly there are many people who would answer that question in the affirmative. There are also many people who would think that is preposterous. Put me in the latter camp.
It sometimes seems as if there are as many advocacy groups in this country as there are people. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT for those who didn't know where the acronym comes from) people have developed their own advocacy groups - some political and some social. Some focus their attention full equality and try to move the political debate by defining what true equality means or should mean. Even Republicans who advocate on behalf of the LGBT community (Log Cabin Republicans, e.g.) would say that sexual orientation should never play a role in employment decisions.
Call me crazy, but when a woman picks up a bat to play softball, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is a lesbian. Deciding not to marry or working so hard that you never find a suitable mate doesn't necessarily mean someone is gay or lesbian.
Assuming for argument's sake that Ms. Kagan is a lesbian, Senators in a position to vote on whether to confirm her as an Associate Justice should be very careful. If it is obvious that bigotry played a role in her failure to get the job, I predict that more than a few people in Washington, D.C. - many of them in Congress and other very visible positions - will wake up a couple of days after the vote on Ms. Kagan and find out that their name is on a list of closeted lesbian and gay government officials, many of them doing a fine job in their roles. Some will be married. Some will have children. Some will lose a bid for re-election. I don't advocate "outing" anyone but others don't share my views. If there is a mass "outing", it will change politics forever and those who are working hard to keep the LGBT community from achieving equality will have to work a whole lot harder than they are working now.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Elena Kagan
Unless there are disturbing revelations in Elena Kagan's appearance before the Judiciary Committee, I am hopeful that she will receive the support necessary to her appointment as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many people have already commented on Ms. Kagan's lack of courtroom experience but no one can deny that she is an exceptional scholar - legal and otherwise - and has held a diverse array of jobs that insulate her from any charge that she is out of touch with ordinary Americans. Harvard University and the University of Chicago would never have risked their reputations to hire a woman who was not prepared to teach at the highest level or to be dean of the most prestigious law school in the country. Her family background is marked by a father who was a lawyer, a mother who was a school teacher and siblings who attended the best universities in the country and became teachers themselves. No one can call her a dilletante with dynastic wealth. She is a product of what many people still believe is the American Dream.
It is difficult to say at this point what her judicial philosophy is or the way she would analyze a variety of cases. I believe she will answer those questions with candor and confidence but will not answer direct questions about whether she believes that Rowe v. Wade ought to be overturned or that, despite her statements about the lack of constitutional support for same-sex marriage, how she would rule on various challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). No nominee, except perhaps for Robert Bork, ever revealed what they might do in hypothetical cases. That - and his supreme arrogance - derailed his nomination.
Some left wingers are disappointed. Some right wingers are disappointed. That's exactly where she ought to be. Nominating individuals to serve on the Court is clearly an important Presidential responsibility but over the last few decades has become so overly-politicized that it is easy to become cynical about the process. I didn't like the idea of a Chief Justice Roberts but there was little question that he was fit for the job. Conservatives didn't exactly like the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would ascend to the Court but they, too, had to agree that she was prepared to do the job. They frequently disagree with each other. In a balanced Court with a diversity of background, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation, the moderates have much of the control in decision-making. Most of those moderates believe that there is a place for divining the "original intent of the framers" and a place for recognizing that the nation is not what it was in the 18th century and that the Constitution is a living document. There are times when both philosophies work hand-in-hand when analyzing and deciding important cases.
For those of us who will watch or listen to the confirmation hearings, I hope that we pay as much attention to the questions Ms. Kagan is asked as we do to her responses. When we hear an unfair question or one primarily designed to pander to a Senator's local constituency, I hope we will organize to complain loudly. In this role, at this moment in time, each Senator has the same constituency: all of us. When politics gets out of control, we get Clarence Thomas. When it remains in check, we get Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and a host of other jurists who have never been completely predictable. Unless there is someone out there who knows every case that will come before the Court during the next 25 years, the search for predictability will always lead to a dead end. It was designed that way over 200 years ago. It is perhaps the only time I will agree with Antonin Scalia's orginalist dogma.
Many people have already commented on Ms. Kagan's lack of courtroom experience but no one can deny that she is an exceptional scholar - legal and otherwise - and has held a diverse array of jobs that insulate her from any charge that she is out of touch with ordinary Americans. Harvard University and the University of Chicago would never have risked their reputations to hire a woman who was not prepared to teach at the highest level or to be dean of the most prestigious law school in the country. Her family background is marked by a father who was a lawyer, a mother who was a school teacher and siblings who attended the best universities in the country and became teachers themselves. No one can call her a dilletante with dynastic wealth. She is a product of what many people still believe is the American Dream.
It is difficult to say at this point what her judicial philosophy is or the way she would analyze a variety of cases. I believe she will answer those questions with candor and confidence but will not answer direct questions about whether she believes that Rowe v. Wade ought to be overturned or that, despite her statements about the lack of constitutional support for same-sex marriage, how she would rule on various challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). No nominee, except perhaps for Robert Bork, ever revealed what they might do in hypothetical cases. That - and his supreme arrogance - derailed his nomination.
Some left wingers are disappointed. Some right wingers are disappointed. That's exactly where she ought to be. Nominating individuals to serve on the Court is clearly an important Presidential responsibility but over the last few decades has become so overly-politicized that it is easy to become cynical about the process. I didn't like the idea of a Chief Justice Roberts but there was little question that he was fit for the job. Conservatives didn't exactly like the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would ascend to the Court but they, too, had to agree that she was prepared to do the job. They frequently disagree with each other. In a balanced Court with a diversity of background, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation, the moderates have much of the control in decision-making. Most of those moderates believe that there is a place for divining the "original intent of the framers" and a place for recognizing that the nation is not what it was in the 18th century and that the Constitution is a living document. There are times when both philosophies work hand-in-hand when analyzing and deciding important cases.
For those of us who will watch or listen to the confirmation hearings, I hope that we pay as much attention to the questions Ms. Kagan is asked as we do to her responses. When we hear an unfair question or one primarily designed to pander to a Senator's local constituency, I hope we will organize to complain loudly. In this role, at this moment in time, each Senator has the same constituency: all of us. When politics gets out of control, we get Clarence Thomas. When it remains in check, we get Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and a host of other jurists who have never been completely predictable. Unless there is someone out there who knows every case that will come before the Court during the next 25 years, the search for predictability will always lead to a dead end. It was designed that way over 200 years ago. It is perhaps the only time I will agree with Antonin Scalia's orginalist dogma.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Happy Mother's Day
A clear majority of my friends would say that I love my mother more than any other person on Earth. The only dispute I would have with that is that I romantically love my partner just as much and that my brotherly love for my sister is equivalent, even if it's different. Thank goodness that I don't have to choose. I truly believe that the best mothers' hearts grow larger with each child and that there is no limit to our ability to love others unless it is self-imposed.
I can tell my mother almost anything (I spare her intimate details about my partner's and my relationship as soon as it involves anything sexual or otherwise qualifies as "too much information") and she almost invariably finds a way to make me feel better about myself. She was and remains my cheerleader-in-chief. She pushed me and my sister to do sometimes difficult but important things and did whatever she could to smooth the way for us. Often, it involved letting us go our own ways and left her more physically isolated from us as we moved, got different jobs and became busy adults. She has never been afraid to say those were difficult things to do but she did them anyway and knew - and still knows - she made the right decisions.
I'll admit (I've already discussed this with her) that I sometimes was embarrassed when Mom would blow into my elementary classrooms dressed like Erin Brockovich and deliver cookies when it was her turn to do so. She doesn't apologize anymore for that. I'm glad. By the time my parents' marriage was over, so was her desire to let other people define who she was and truly believed - but rarely said it aloud - that despite 35 years of teaching English, her biggest accomplishments were helping get her kids into the most rarified places they could be. I don't ever recall her trashing other women for choosing a different path or a different way of parenting unless she was being attacked for not doing things that seemed so standard. Even then, she blamed herself for not trusting other women enough to confide in them. She lost trust in men, too, ultimately concluding that they were often weaker than she was, and almost pitying them.
That's not to say she didn't try to fit in. She did. Unfortunately for her contemporaries and fortunately for me and my sister, she didn't begin to fit in until she hit her 60s. I think that happened because, by then, women who had either shunned her or belittled her saw the results of what she very privately spent so much time and energy doing. How do you raise a lawyer and doctor with middle class wages, no woodie station wagon and very, very little baking or knowing where the vacuum cleaner is on any given day? It sounds like a tough question but it's actually pretty easy. You set priorities, talk to your kids, cry with them, laugh with them and tell them long before it was ever said in a movie theatre that "my kids will never sit at the back of the bus."
Last year, I recall overhearing a conversation on the day of my sister's rehearsal dinner which was being staged at her house under a tent in the back yard. She said that she couldn't believe how smart her kids were and that it scared her to death. How was she going to handle what she believed were 'these incredible gifts? I felt this overwhelming responsibility to make sure they got what they needed and wasn't at all sure I could handle it.'
She did.
To every mother who loves her kids, I wish you a Happy Mother's Day. I don't need to say it to Mom because she knows exactly what I think.
I can tell my mother almost anything (I spare her intimate details about my partner's and my relationship as soon as it involves anything sexual or otherwise qualifies as "too much information") and she almost invariably finds a way to make me feel better about myself. She was and remains my cheerleader-in-chief. She pushed me and my sister to do sometimes difficult but important things and did whatever she could to smooth the way for us. Often, it involved letting us go our own ways and left her more physically isolated from us as we moved, got different jobs and became busy adults. She has never been afraid to say those were difficult things to do but she did them anyway and knew - and still knows - she made the right decisions.
I'll admit (I've already discussed this with her) that I sometimes was embarrassed when Mom would blow into my elementary classrooms dressed like Erin Brockovich and deliver cookies when it was her turn to do so. She doesn't apologize anymore for that. I'm glad. By the time my parents' marriage was over, so was her desire to let other people define who she was and truly believed - but rarely said it aloud - that despite 35 years of teaching English, her biggest accomplishments were helping get her kids into the most rarified places they could be. I don't ever recall her trashing other women for choosing a different path or a different way of parenting unless she was being attacked for not doing things that seemed so standard. Even then, she blamed herself for not trusting other women enough to confide in them. She lost trust in men, too, ultimately concluding that they were often weaker than she was, and almost pitying them.
That's not to say she didn't try to fit in. She did. Unfortunately for her contemporaries and fortunately for me and my sister, she didn't begin to fit in until she hit her 60s. I think that happened because, by then, women who had either shunned her or belittled her saw the results of what she very privately spent so much time and energy doing. How do you raise a lawyer and doctor with middle class wages, no woodie station wagon and very, very little baking or knowing where the vacuum cleaner is on any given day? It sounds like a tough question but it's actually pretty easy. You set priorities, talk to your kids, cry with them, laugh with them and tell them long before it was ever said in a movie theatre that "my kids will never sit at the back of the bus."
Last year, I recall overhearing a conversation on the day of my sister's rehearsal dinner which was being staged at her house under a tent in the back yard. She said that she couldn't believe how smart her kids were and that it scared her to death. How was she going to handle what she believed were 'these incredible gifts? I felt this overwhelming responsibility to make sure they got what they needed and wasn't at all sure I could handle it.'
She did.
To every mother who loves her kids, I wish you a Happy Mother's Day. I don't need to say it to Mom because she knows exactly what I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)