That's because their vision in 1787 was just so amazing

Politics today can get truly bizarre. Elena Kagan at 50 has never married and has no children. Perhaps because she has written things favorable to gays the anti-gay crowd is trumpeting, "SHE'S A LESBIAN!" We can't have that kind of person on the court! She would always rule in favor of the homosexual agenda! (Has nobody paid any attention to the harm gay yet homophobic legislators have been doing?) She should just tell us whether she is or not. And if she doesn't it's an admission that she is.

Though Kagan hasn't, Obama has. Long before he nominated her he said she is straight. Then again, people don't listen to him when he says he was born in Hawaii.

Perhaps we'll see if the Obama team is able to handle this kind of mess.

This storm has brought a variety of responses from the gay blogsphere. One voice says she should put the issue to rest and say so one way or the other. It's no longer shameful. Another asks if Obama is using a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet. It's important to ask and cowardly not to tell. A dissenting voice says it would ruin her chances of confirmation if she disclosed a female lover now after being silent for so long (and the only reason for the silence is because she is ashamed of it). Besides, her sex life is of no importance (though Bill Clinton might disagree). A second dissent tells the accusers to offer evidence or shut up.

Aside from this distraction the Fundie smear machine is swinging into action. The National Organization for Marriage (the Fundie group prominent in the Maine marriage battle last year) is convinced that if Kagan is confirmed then gay marriage will be imposed on the rest of the 50 states. The reason they give is Kagan defended the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supremes and "purposefully" did a weak job of it.

Bill Kristol is convinced she is hostile to the military because she barred recruiters from Harvard Law School. Or maybe she tried to steer a middle ground and have it both ways.

Some suggest that if Kagan is confirmed even if she is a lesbian then when any gay related case comes before the court she'll have to sit out the case. Which must mean the only people qualified to sit on the Supreme Court are neutered eunuchs.

Dahlia Lithwick writing in Newsweek (before Kagan's nomination was announced) has an issue that actually has some weight behind it. She is bothered by the criteria that Obama laid out to guide his selection (and apparently resulted in Kagan). He said he wanted the candidate most likely to influence the rest of the court. This court? Can anyone influence the gang of Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas? So Kagan's job will be to win over Kennedy? It would be so much better if the new justice was capable of crystallizing the liberal worldview into fiery dissents. Not long ago the fiery dissenter was Scalia and look where he (and the country) are now.

Anyone want to convince me that Obama didn't blow his chance?

Joseph Ellis of the Washington Post (sorry, no link) takes a swipe at the conservative notion that justices are supposed to read the Constitution only in the way the original authors intended. That's ludicrous. He wrote:

"But the doctrine requires you to believe that the 'miracle at Philadelphia' was a uniquely omniscient occasion when 55 mere mortals were permitted a glimpse of the eternal verities and then embalmed their insights in the document. … We might call it the Immaculate Conception theory of jurisprudence. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the very justices most disposed toward wrapping their opinions in the protective armor of original intent have consistently voted in support of the conservative political agenda championed by the Republican Party."