Those words came from Justice Clarence Thomas. They can be found in a 1998 piece from Jet magazine covering a speech Thomas made to the National Bar Association in which he stated that he would continue to oppose affirmative action and “make no apologies” for doing so, despite and in the face of criticism from other prominent members of the black community.
Clarence Thomas is black. We know that. And yet, when affirmative action has come before the United States Supreme Court, as it did in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, he has opposed the practice each and every time. The law is the law. And Lady Justice, if you remember, wears that blindfold for a reason.
Elena Kagan might be gay. Her friends don’t think so. My inclinations say otherwise. However, as enjoyable as it would be to see South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, for example, quiz Ms. Kagan about why she hasn’t been more forthcoming about her sexuality, I simply do not care. With affirmative action matters likely pending before the court in terms to come, I did not care whether Clarence Thomas was black or white — and even though gay rights will likely play heavily into coming dockets, I could care less about which team Elena Kagan bats for.
What I care about is her judicial philosophy. Last I checked, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer were straight as can be, but I could estimate with fair certainty how each would come down in a gay rights controversy. Sexual orientation does not figure into it.
What I care about is that she is “not sympathetic” to the right to keep and bear arms preserved by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. What I care about is her support and implementation of a measure banning military recruiters from Harvard Law School. And while her lack of judicial experience is not necessarily a non-starter for me, what I care about is that the closest she came to wearing a robe was working for judges who were hardly constructionists.
That Elena Kagan may or may not be gay — I just simply don’t care.
It makes perfect sense, though, that the left would paint me and others like me as obsessed with Kagan’s sexual orientation. Yet just like race doesn’t enter into my mind when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws and the new legislation catching fire in Arizona, sexual orientation doesn’t matter with regard to the Supreme Court. It is the left that is race-obsessed. It is the left that is sexuality-obsessed. But just as the press has had significant success running with misrepresentations connected with the Arizona immigration story–heck, perpetuating falsehoods seemed to sway Eric Holder–the press will likely have success convincing the ignorant among us that Republicans are the ones who have a problem with Kagan’s dating preferences.
Is it too much
I suspect that Kagan will be confirmed. Shoot, back when the news cycles were atwitter with Sonia Sotomayor’s sentiment that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion” that a white, male counterpart on the bench, the aforementioned Sen. Graham noted that he was “troubled” by her overtly racist statements but would likely vote in favor of her confirmation absent some sort of “meltdown” during the confirmation process. And if Sonia Sotomayor can make the jump from nominee to Associate Justice, with her questionable judicial temperament and her unimpressive record when it came to her Second Circuit decisions being reviewed by the Supreme Court and her mountain of evidence showing a lifelong obsession with identity politics, I see no problem for Kagan in the weeks to come.
In the meantime, however, as representatives of a group of Americans who understand and stand up for the rule of law and for the Constitution as penned by our founders, let’s make sure that our opposition is grounded in the right reasons, and that we do not fall victim to the games being played by the left.