Tag Archives: Harriet Miers

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

Stupid white men set to beat up on Sonia Sotomayor for being a Latina

Updated below (Monday, July 13, 2009)

In this photo provided by CBS, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., appears ...

Associated Press photo

Repugnican Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, shown above in an image from today, plans to beat up on U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor at her confirmation hearings because Sotomayor doesn’t think, speak and act like a fellow stupid white man does.

Is it possible for the Repugnicans be bigger fucking idiots than they already are?

Federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate for her promotion to the U.S. Supreme Court begin tomorrow, and Repugnican Sen. Jeff Sessions plans to call a white firefighter who was involved in the affirmative action case that Sotomayor ruled in — that the right-wing, stupid-white-male-dominated U.S. Supreme Court reversed — to testify regarding Sotomayor.

The Repugnican Party is sinking because it still, in the year 2009, is the party of the stupid white man in a rapidly demographically changing nation. Shifting national demographics don’t favor the Repugnicans, yet here they are, making Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings a battle between the stupid white man and the “racist” Latina.

The Repugnicans already have dug their own grave; they now are throwing the dirt upon themselves.  

The “victimized” white man bullshit might fly with Rush Limbaugh’s audience and in Sessions’ podunk red state of Alabama, but nationally, it goes over like a lead balloon. That the historically oppressive stupid white man now is the “victim” because groups that historically have been oppessed by the stupid white man — women, non-whites, non-heterosexuals, non-Christians, et. al. — are gaining more power is a big fucking joke to those of us who historically have been oppressed by the stupid white man.  

I encourage the stupid white men who comprise the Repugnican Party to beat up on Sonia Sotomayor as much as they possibly can. I encourage them to continue to criticize her because she does not think, act and speak just like a stupid white man does. I encourage them to continue their charade of being “victimized” because the nation is about to get its first Latina U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Since white people comprise no more than 74 percent of the U.S. population, white men comprise no more than a little more than a third of the U.S. population, yet seven of the nine current U.S. Supreme Court justices (more than 75 percent of them) are white men. Here’s photographic evidence:

And it would be unconscionable to the stupid white men if we had one more woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. That would be two of the nine justices being women, or fewer than 25 percent of them, even though women actually comprise slightly more than 50 percent of the U.S. population.

Yes, I encourage the stupid white men who comprise the Repugnican Party to bash Sonia Sotomayor as much as they possibly can this coming week so that the Repugnican Party’s grave is more quickly completely covered in dirt.

Update (Monday, July 13, 2009): Lest you think that my headline “Stupid White Men Set to Beat Up on Sonia Sotomayor for Being a Latina” is inaccurate and/or over the top, Sen. Jeff Sessions, the highest-ranking Repugnican member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, said this today, on the first day of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings:

“I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their [sic] own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their [sic] decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.”

What Sessions is saying, essentially, is that Sotomayor isn’t allowed to be a Latina — unless she thinks, acts, speaks and rules just like a white man does. (A conservative white man, in this case, of course.)

When is the last time that a white male nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court was admonished against allowing his whiteness or his maleness or his “personal background” influence his rulings?

How can one’s race and gender, which shape one’s life, for fuck’s safe, not influence how he or she thinks and what she or he values and believes?

No, Sessions’ and the other stupid white men’s real problem with Sotomayor is that she isn’t a fellow stupid white man. She would be acceptable to the stupid white men only if she acted just like a stupid white man, like Sarah Palin-Quayle and Condoleezza Rice do.

It’s as simple as that: Repugnican opposition to Sotomayor is more about racism and misogyny than anything else. If she has to be a Latina, then she should be a “good” Latina as the Repugnicans define the term “good,” just as Condoleezza Rice is a “good” black woman and Sarah Palin-Quayle is a “good” white woman.

Times are changing and the stupid white men can’t handle it. The nation’s first black president has nominated the first Latina to the U.S. Supreme Court. This can mean only one thing: End times!

“President” George W. Bush, when he had the opportunity to replace two justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, chose two white men. He could have chosen a non-white; he did not. He could have chosen a woman; he did not. (He initially nominated Harriet Miers in 2005, in my estimation, only to give the appearance that he was willing to nominate a woman. He knew all along, I believe, that his eventual nominee would not be Miers, who ended up withdrawing herself for consideration for Supreme Court justice*, but that the nominee would be yet another white man.)

For all of their talk of “reverse discrimination,” the fact of the matter is that the Repugnicans want to see only conservative white males on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I rest my case.

*Wikipedia notes of Miers: “Miers’ nomination was criticized from people all over the political spectrum based on her never having served as a judge, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court justice.”

Does this sound like a nominee that Bush really expected to get on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized