I wrote before about the claims that Supremes nominee Elena Kagan just might be a lesbian. Since then a friend has come forward to say that Kagan is indeed straight, though has remained single. Julia Baird in Newsweek says with that the tone of comments has shifted from "We can't allow a lesbian on the high court!" to "Ah, the poor dear can't get a date." That moldy claim that spinsters are pitiful. And a brilliant mind is reduced to her (lack of) dating life. Isn't it much more important to discuss her judicial philosophy and her views on the rights of states?
Ezra Klein, also in Newsweek, noted that Chief Supreme Roberts spoke a great line during his confirmation hearings about the justices only being umpires. Roberts, once seated on the court, started his own sweeping activism. So how much did we learn from his hearings?
Kagan has written in the past that the Senate should demand nominee's views on important legal issues. The Supremes have vast power and jurisdiction and its members are there for a long time. We should know more about what we're getting. Does Kagan the nominee agree with her younger self?