Tag Archives: Elena Kagan

How the minority seized the U.S. Supreme Court (and maybe finally sparked the next U.S. civil war)

Five of the current nine U.S. Supreme Court “justices” were chosen by two “presidents” who had lost the popular vote. If it feels to you like the current Supreme Court doesn’t represent the majority of the American people, that’s because it doesn’t: five of the “justices” were picked by “presidents” whom the American people did not actually elect and who thus were illegitimate “presidents” — and President Barack Obama treasonously and anti-democratically was denied a pick altogether.

How did we get to this point today, the day that the U.S. Supreme Court, now solidly dominated — 6-3 — by right-wing nut jobs (actually, they’re fucking fascists; “nut jobs” sounds too innocuous), ruled (5-4) that each state may decide whether or not a woman may obtain an abortion after it was decided in 1973 by Roe vs. Wade that no state may entirely prohibit abortion?

How did the anti-choice minority view — about two-thirds of all Americans support Roe vs. Wade — prevail in this fight for a woman’s basic right to choose what goes on inside of her own fucking uterus?

Let’s go back to the “election” of George W. Bush as president in 2000.

The official popular vote count for the presidential election of 2000 was 50,456,002 votes for Repugnican Bush and 50,999,897 for Democrat Al Gore.

Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes, yet, because of the Electoral Collegeand because of the infamous intervention of the U.S Supreme Court in the determination of a presidential election outcome — Bush, the minority’s chosen candidate, nonetheless became “president.” The pick of the majority of the American voters simply did not matter.

On September 29, 2005, “President” Bush’s first pick to the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

You might argue that yes, Bush “won” “re”-election in 2004 — the official popular vote count for that presidential election was 62,040,610 to 59,028,444 in Bush’s favor, a difference of 3,012,166 votes this time.

However, I’d argue that obviously had Bush not been installed as president when he’d lost the popular vote of 2000, of course he never could have been “re”-elected in 2004. Because Bush’s first presidential term was illegitimate — because he had lost the popular vote — I never accepted his second term as legitimate either, because his second term depended on the fruit of the poisonous tree from 2000.

Bush went on to get another right-wing U.S. Supreme Court “justice” confirmed — Samuel Alito, who authored today’s official decision to kill Roe vs. Wade — on January 3, 2006.

Fast forward to the next presidential election in which the loser of the popular vote still became “president”: In 2016, the official popular vote count was 65,853,514 for Democrat Billary Clinton to only 62,984,828 for Repugnican Pussygrabber; Pussygrabber lost even more bigly than did George W. Bush in 2000: he lost by 2,868,686 popular votes.

Yet the illegitimate “President” Pussygrabber would go on to nominate three U.S. Supreme Court justices in just his one (and what must be his only) term.

Former President Barack Obama, who won the popular vote in 2008 and in 2012, put only two justices (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) on the Supreme Court during his two terms — and infamously and treasonously was denied a third pick to the nation’s highest court when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell treasonously and anti-democratically refused to allow the Senate to recognize any nomination to the Supreme Court by Obama in the wake of the overdue death of fascist “Justice” Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016 — even though Obama had had almost a full year of his presidency left.

So “President” Pussygrabber’s first pick for the U.S. Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, who was confirmed on April 7, 2017clearly had been stolen from Obama.

The unelected-by-the-majority-of-the-American-people Pussygrabber would go on to make two more right-wing-nut-job/fascist picks to the U.S. Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed on October 6, 2018, and Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed on October 26, 2020, even though the Repugnicans had told us that Obama couldn’t have a nomination to the Supreme Court so “close” to a presidential election (Barrett was confirmed only about a week [eight days] before the 2020 presidential election, while, again, Obama was denied a pick to the court with almost a full year of his second term remaining).

So under the Repugnicans’ own fucking argumentation in regards to the “required” timing for Scalia’s replacement on the court, Amy Coney Barrett clearly is illegitimate, and, of course, before her, Gorsuch illegitimately was put on the nation’s high court, because that pick clearly had belonged to then-President Obama.

But, even all of this aside, if we believe that only the majority of the American voters should pick the U.S. president, who then should be able to make nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, then George W. Bush’s picks for the Supreme Court — Roberts and Alito — are illegitimate, since Bush never legitimately became president in the first fucking place. And ditto, of course, for the illegitimate Pussygrabber’s picks to the court, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

That’s five current U.S. Supreme Court “justices” who were nominated by “presidents” who had lost the popular vote. That’s five illegitimate Supreme Court “justices” — four of whom voted to kill Roe vs. Wade.

(Roberts did not vote to kill Roe, but of course Clarence Thomas did, because he is Clarence Thomas, who I always believed committed sexual harassment and thus never belonged on the U.S. Supreme Court in the first fucking place; I always have believed Anita Hill. [And, of course, Thomas’ baby-boomer cow of a wife’s meddling in the 2020 presidential election, which should land her behind bars along with the dozens of other traitors who illegally and treasonously tried to overthrow the 2020 presidential election results, alone makes Thomas an illegitimate Supreme Court “justice” — and a prime candidate for impeachment and removal. Thomas bemoans that the American people don’t trust “our” institutions anymore, but look what the hypocritical piece of dog shit Thomas has done: he probably committed pre-disqualifying sexual harassment, he apparently has allowed his wife to try to change the outcome of a presidential election, and he helped to kill Roe vs. Wade — and now he wants to deprive Americans of even the right to use contraception and to have sex with or marry a member of their same sex, although, of course, he’ll keep the right to have a mixed-race marriage intact, not because it’s the right thing to do, but because, being the typical baby-boomer asshole [redundant] that he is, he wants to retain his own rights while cavalierly destroying others’ rights.])

So that’s how we got to where we are today in the United States of America: the tyranny of the minority over the majority. Even though the clear majority of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, which had been settled law for almost five decades, the minority once again has acted against the majority.

Again, the American people had spoken: In 2000 and in 2016, the majorities of them — of us — voted for the Democratic candidate for president. Instead, because of the anti-democratic, obsolete Electoral College, the minority prevailed, and imposed on the American people were two Repugnican “presidents” for whom the majority of us did not vote, and these two fascist “presidents” put five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court.

This, along with the blatant, bad-faith theft of President Obama’s third pick to the Supreme Court, is how the minority took over the Supreme Court — by 6-3, no less.

While I’d never rule out violent revolution by the majority against the tyrannical minority — if the minority dares to treasonously and anti-democratically tyrannize the majority, the tyrannical minority deserves whatever the fuck it gets — there are some ways that we, the majority of the American people, can take our nation back from the minority, even within our corrupt system of so-called “democracy,” including:

  • We need to abolish the Electoral College. The popular vote alone should decide who gets to sit in the Oval Office inside of the White House. It’s supposed to be one person, one vote, but the Electoral College gives the minority in the red states significantly more say in the presidency than their actual population does. This blatantly anti-democratic bullshit must stop.
  • We need to get enough U.S. senators to abolish the filibuster so that the U.S. Senate can enlarge — yes, pack, if you will — the U.S. Supreme Court. The number of justices on the Supreme Court is set by the U.S. Congress, not by the U.S. Constitution, so if the Democrats were in control of the U.S. House of Representatives and were in control of the U.S. Senate (and eliminated the filibuster, if necessary, which they could do on a simple majority vote, as the filibuster of course also isn’t in the U.S. Constitution, but is an obsolete, anti-democratic Senate rule, much like the Electoral College is obsolete and anti-democratic), they could add as many Supreme Court seats as they pleased (again, the Constitution fully allows this). After how the Repugnicans brazenly stole seats on the nation’s highest court, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. A situation in which only one side of the divide plays by any rules or norms at all is not tenable.
  • We need to radically reform the U.S. Senate, and this would be significantly more difficult than abolishing the Electoral College or finally killing the filibuster or expanding/packing the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that no matter how tiny its population is each state gets two U.S. senators — while no matter how huge its population is, each states gets only two U.S. senators — clearly is anti-democratic. An analysis by Vox’s Ian Millhiser in November 2020 found that in the current 50-50 U.S. Senate, “the Democratic half [represents] 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.” This anti-democratic situation no longer is tenable, and off of the top of my head, I’d start with this suggestion: Change the U.S. Constitution so that each state does not get two (and only two) U.S. senators, but, instead, each state gets from one to three U.S. senators, based upon its population, much how the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that each state gets is determined by its population. We could keep it at 100 U.S. senators, but reapportion the number of senators based upon the states’ population (again, with one, two or three senators, based on the state’s population).* If it were necessary, I’d be OK with adding seats to the U.S. Senate (100 senators is an arbitrary number), but in any case, each state getting two senators each regardless of its population must end. Of course, the red states wouldn’t vote to change the U.S. Constitution to give them less representation in the U.S. Senate, even if their current level of representation is unfair (and it is blatantly unfair). It might be that only a civil war — a great fucking reset — could reform the U.S. Senate so that the minority doesn’t get to continue to tyrannize the majority in a so-called “democracy.”

Yes, that’s pretty much where I am: I’m OK with a second U.S. civil war at this point. The treasonous right wing has brought it on by insisting on running roughshod over the majority of us Americans who disagree with their politics and their (theo)fascist “vision” for the United States of America. We Americans don’t even get to vote for U.S. president, for fuck’s sake, not when the Electoral College simply hands the presidency to the fucking loser of the popular vote.

Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the name of today’s dazzlingly overreaching U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the minority yet once again has tyrannized the majority — very well might prove to have been the most proximate salvo fired in the Second American Civil War.

P.S. More to the point of the majority-illegitimate U.S. Supreme Court ruling that each state may decide whether or not a woman may control her own uterus, while I’m not a woman and so of course won’t ever need an abortion, and while I live in a state that has codified abortion rights into state law, the rolling back of anyone’s rights — perhaps especially by unelected theocrats wishing to impose their backasswards religious beliefs on the rest of us — is disturbing, and, of course, if it’s open season on others’ rights, your rights might be on the chopping block next. (And, of course, the Dobbs ruling might be just the intended first step in the theofascist-controlled U.S. Supreme Court ruling that no state may allow any abortion at all.)

I’m hoping that Dobbs inspires us, the majority, to finally take our nation back from the tyrannical minority — bloodlessly, if possible, but bloodfully, if necessary.

*Even if my plan to change the system so that each state gets one to three U.S. senators based on its population were enacted, the smallest states still would be overrepresented in the U.S. Senate based on their population, but this still would be a move in the right — that is, the actually democratic — direction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Will Kagan come out NOW?

Elena Kagan, John Roberts, Jeffrey Minear

Associated Press photo

Elena Kagan is sworn in today as the third woman on the nine-member U.S. Supreme Court. She is only the fourth woman ever to have sat on the nation’s highest court.

Comedian Wanda Sykes joked that after having been given so much shit by stupid hypocritical white men for her biography,* Sonia Sotomayor, on her first day as a U.S. Supreme Court justice, should have walked into the court’s chambers with a Puerto Rican flag draped around her, shouting, “Mira!” (“Look at me!”)

So: Will Elena Kagan walk into the court’s chambers on her first day draped in a rainbow flag? Maybe she can shout: “We’re here! We’re queer! Get used to it!”

Really, though, it’s a lifetime appointment, so isn’t it safe for “bachelorette” Kagan to come out now?

Anyway, Kagan earlier in the week was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 63 to 37, showing the political weakness of the stupid white men in the U.S. Senate, who decried her as a raging liberal when she appears to be yet another Clintonesque centrist who was appointed by a Clintonesque, centrist president.

Kagan is allowed to function as a U.S. Supreme Court justice now that she has been sworn in, but won’t formally be sworn in until Oct. 1, the first day of the court’s next term.

*The white men’s backgrounds as priviledged white men couldn’t possibly have biased them, but Sotomayor’s background as a Puerto Rican woman surely has biased her, you see. The stupid white men are never to required to prove anyfuckingthing, but anyone who isn’t a white, conservative, heterosexual, “Christian” male is required to prove his or her fitness and worthiness.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Elena Kagan is a pussy

Elena Kagan

Associated Press photo

Elena Kagan testifies before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today in her quest to become the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan, being a woman (biologically, at least, to our knowledge…) is in a prime position to subvert the patriarchy, but she refuses to do so, instead choosing to claim that she just goes along with the good ol’ boys — like a good woman should.

I’m not following the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan much, since her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court pretty much is a foregone conclusion.

But I am struck by what a pussy she is.

First, she and her supporters dodged the question of her sexual orientation. My money is on her being a big ol’ dyke. (We fags and dykes may use the words “fag” and “dyke”; you breeders may not.) By refusing to be out and proud, no gay man or lesbian — er, fag or dyke — is helping to advance the cause of equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals.

And now, Kagan is smooching militant stupid white male ass, assuring her stupid white male Repugnican inquisitors (especially uber-asshole Repugnican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alafuckingbama*) that of course she blindly, bleatingly, wholeheartedly supports the stupid white man’s military-industrial complex!

It’s a sign of how too-much power the bloated military-industrial complex has that a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court should feel the need to lick the asses of the members of the U.S. military-industrial complex and their brain-dead pseudo-patriotic cheerleaders — especially when the last justified war that the U.S. military fought was World War II and given the fact that now the U.S. military doesn’t stand for actual defense, but stands for corporate expansion (Iraq’s oil fields were nationalized before the Vietraq War but now are open to corporate exploitation, for example) and war profiteering (Halliburton, anyone?).

We civilians are supposed to be in charge of the U.S. military — not the other way around. Even though the wingnuts would rather that stupid white military men be in charge of the show, that’s not how it fucking works.

If Kagan had balls, she’d not only proudly assert her sexual orientation, but she would assert the fact that the U.S. military is to answer to civilian control and not vice-versa.

The Obama administration’s selection of the balls-less Kagan is just yet another example of how Clintonesque (that’s synonymous with milquetoast) the Obama administration is.

Elena Kagan — having been nominated by the president who promised us “hope” and “change” (only in order to get our campaign contributions, we realize now)should make me moist.

But because she has no balls, she leaves me quite dry.

*Here the wingnut is pictured today during Kagan’s grilling:

Jeff Sessions

Associated Press photo

You can tell that some people are major fucking assholes just by looking at them. Sessions is one of them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I join the cat fight over Kagan

“So is she gay?” — asks gay pundit Andrew Sullivan of Elena Kagan.

“Elena Kagan is not gay,” answers gay pundit Richard Kim of The Nation. (Um, I think he’s gay, that is. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

Sullivan and Kim exemplify the two camps on this question — this question that I would answer with another question: “Is Johnny Weir gay? Duh!”

Concludes Kim:

Gay isn’t some genetic or soulful essence; it’s a name you call yourself –and Kagan has not done that. So in my book, case closed. Elena Kagan is not gay. Is she straight? I don’t know, and again, I don’t care. Why does she have to have a sexuality at all?

Wow. I wholeheartedly disagree.

Gay is not just “a name you call yourself.” A straight guy can call himself gay and that doesn’t make him gay. Gay indeed is a “soulful essence,” and it’s probably genetic, too, at least in many if not in most cases.

What is Kim smoking? (Shit, maybe it shouldn’t be legalized…)

Why does Kagan have to have a sexuality at all? Um, because she’s a human fucking being?

Why is it so important for Kim and his ilk to strip Kagan (and some others) of all sexuality? (I mean, who is she, Jesus or Mary?)

The straw man that Kim and the others of his camp put out there is that people want the salacious details of Kagan’s (and other public figures’) sex lives. The very last sentence of Kim’s piece is: “The Senate and the press have the right and responsibility to interrogate [Kagan] about her legal opinions—not about her sex life.”

Oh, puhfuckinglease.

Like anyone (besides a “tea party” dipshit, perhaps) actually is going to ask Kagan if she engages in cunnilingus (receptively and/or administratively) and/or whether she has worn and/or been the recipient of a strap-on.

No one, to my knowledge, has much, if any, interest about any of Kagan’s actual sexual practices (or whether she even engages in any sexual activity at all).

However, to assert that her sexual orientationa basic part of herself (and perhaps I should write that as “her self”) — is irrelevant is pure, raw, unadulterated bullshit.

Sullivan writes of the question of Kagan’s sexual orientation:

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay … and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the [Obama] administration will tell us definitively.

He continues:

In a word, this is preposterous — a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority — and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality — is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a justice’s sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified…. Are we ever going to know one way or the other? Does she have a spouse? Is this spouse going to be forced into the background in a way no heterosexual spouse ever would be?

Yup. Excellent fucking points.

Sure, I would rather focus on Kagan’s record (what there is of it) and how she might perform for the plethora of progressive causes as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

But, truth be told, there is plenty of that discussion already, and as a blogger, I prefer to discuss what people aren’t discussing but should be; there is no reason for me to regurgitate what plenty of others already are saying.

And I’m with Andrew Sullivan on this one.

The fact that no one — on the uncomfortable right or on the cowardly left — wants to address Kagan’s sexual orientation — when one’s sexual orientation is as basic to oneself one’s self as is one’s race, age, biological sex, and political and spiritual/religious beliefs and values — and that addressing her sexual orientation at all is considered by so many to be “inappropriate” — demonstrates how far the United States of America needs to go on the issue of equal human and civil rights for those who are not heterosexual and/or not gender-conforming.

Frankly, I don’t want to see Elena Kagan seated on the U.S. Supreme Court until I know whether or not she is heterosexual or homosexual or somewhere in between, and whether or not she has a significant other, and if so, whether her partner is a he or a she. (We would find it awfully odd for a heterosexually coupled U.S. Supreme Court justice to try to hide his or her partner, so why wouldn’t we find it equally odd for a gay or lesbian justice to hide his or hers?)

You know, as a member of the court that will rule on my equal human and civil rights, Kagan’s business indeed is my business.

Duh!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

At least one inquiring mind wants to see Elena Kagan nude (um, I’m good…)

On WordPress, I can see what search terms people use to find my blog. My WordPress blog has had more hits on each of the past two days than it has had on any other day in more than a month, and by far, the piece that I posted last month on U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan — titled “Kagan Looks Queer to Me” — is getting the most hits. 

“Elena Kagan looks like a man” and “Kagan looks like a man” are the top two search phrases that people used to stumble upon my blog yesterday.

Someone found my blog by typing “Elena Kagan nude” into a search field. (Um, good luck with that search. Please don’t share the results with me…)

But seriously (all of the above is true, however), I am a little surprised that President Barack Obama has picked Kagan as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court to replace the retiring John Paul Stevens.

I’m more than fine with another woman on the court — even if Kagan is confirmed, women still will be under-represented in the composition of the court — but I didn’t think that the Obama administration was ready for the chatter about Kagan’s lack of gender conformity and her sexual orientation (whatever it may be) that no doubt will ensue. Therefore, I had expected the administration to pick someone else.

Some are comparing Elena Kagan to Harriet Miers, George W. Bush’s ill-fated nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

I mostly disagree with the comparison. I surmised at the time of the Miers fracas in 2005 — and I still surmise — that Bush never really intended to get her on the U.S. Supreme Court, but that he nominated her only to give the appearance that he was willing to put another woman on the court, only to end up putting yet another stupid white man (Samuel Alito) on the court instead. 

Obama, I believe, really wants Kagan on the court. 

Finally, I have to note that Kagan has been femming it up as of late. In her appearance with President Obama yesterday to announce her nomination to the high court —

** Alternate Crop ** President Barack Obama introduces ...

Obama names trailblazing Kagan as Supreme ...

Associated Press and AFP photos

— she looks more feminine than in any other photo of her that I’ve seen.

Just sayin’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kagan looks queer to me

Supreme Court justice to retire, Obama gets new ...

Solicitor General Elena Kagan is widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court.

AFP and Associated Press photos

Quick! Is that a woman or a man in drag?

Looks more like a man than a woman to me. But it’s U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said to be a possible nominee to replace the retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Yahoo! News reports today that “yesterday the [Obama] administration blasted CBS News for a blog post on its website claiming that [Kagan] is a lesbian, eventually getting the news organization to retract the claim and take down the post.”

I’m pissed.

What the Obama administration essentially is saying is that being non-heterosexual and/or non-gender-conforming is a bad thing.

Otherwise, why would the White House — which, it seems to me, has a lot better things to be doing for the nation — work to squelch a probably-true rumor that the U.S. solicitor general is a lesbian?

This action on the part of the Obama administration is not that promised leadership on achieving equality for non-heterosexuals and the non-gender-conforming. This action basically affirms the destructive myth that there’s something wrong with being gay or lesbian or otherwise non-gender-conforming — otherwise, you wouldn’t have a fit about it.

Fuck the White House.

Apparently the CBS News blogger is a right-winger with a dubious background that includes allegations of having plagiarized others’ work. But regardless of the source, Kagan either is or is not heterosexual, and my money is on the latter.

White House mouthpiece Anita Dunn called the allegation that Kagan is a lesbian an application of an “old [stereotype] to single women with successful careers.”

Oh, please.

Yeah, former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno —

Associated Press photo

— who on “Saturday Night Live” was portrayed by Will Ferrell, for fuck’s sake, is/was just a “single career woman,” as is former Arizona attorney general and current U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano:

Gee, I wonder if the White House will try to get me to take this blog post down for “outing” the obviously lesbian Napolitano…

(Napolitano, by the way, also is said to be a possible nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.)

I’m fine with a lesbian on the U.S. Supreme Court. I’m fine with lesbians period

So why isn’t the White House? 

Why does the White House treat an allegation of non-heterosexuality as though being non-heterosexual were a bad thing?

That’s not fucking leadership.

That is cowardice and ignorance and a lazy pandering to bigotry and fear.

Keep on hoping for that promised change.

You — we — were punked. Big time.

P.S. I nominate current “Saturday Night Live” player Bobby Moynihan (pictured in drag below) to play Elena Kagan.

NBC image

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized