Mary Dudziak is right regarding Elena Kagan: “let’s focus on her ideas and accomplishments, and not on the unsurprising idea of a single Supreme Court nominee.”
The problem, though, is the cult of personality that has developed around Supreme Court Justices over the past few decades, aided to a substantial degree by how presidential administrations have tried to “sell” their nominees. Who, after all, hasn’t gotten choked up after hearing the life story of the Supreme Court nominee who was raised-by-a-Jewish/Italian/Puerto Rican-immigrant-single-grandparent-on-a-ranch-in-the-barrio-of-Pin-Point-Arizona-and-has-two-adorable-kids?
Given that Justices’ personal histories have become such a significant part of the confirmation process, and the Justices themselves are followed like rock stars, athletes, or prominent politicians [albeit by a much smaller segment of the population for the former two]–all of whose romantic entanglements frequently find their way into the media–it’s little wonder that curiosity has been piqued about Kagan’s romantic life.
UPDATE: For more on the Court’s cult of celebrity, see this essay by my colleagues Craig Lerner and Nelson Lund.
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Kagan and the Cult of Personality -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Volokh Conspirac. The Volokh Conspirac said: Kagan and the Cult of Personality: (David Bernstein) Mary Dudziak is right regarding Elena… http://goo.gl/fb/cIVMR [...]
May 11, 2010, 11:45 pmRonald C. Den Otter says:
What’s next? A reality show? “Being Antonin Scalia”? :)
May 12, 2010, 12:24 amDesiderius says:
Seems like she’d make a good catch for some lucky human being.
May 12, 2010, 12:39 ammarkh says:
Seriously? What kind of crowd are you running with? Do you guys trade Supreme Court Justice cards at the Federalist Society meetings?
The curiosity about her romantic life has more to do with whether she’s a lesbian.
May 12, 2010, 12:50 amSteve says:
Maybe a rock star who could be correctly identified by 1% of the population at most.
May 12, 2010, 12:53 amShelby says:
it’s little wonder that curiosity has been piqued about Kagan’s romantic life.
And yet, I find myself unable to care. I’m more interested in the smoldering question of why David Bernstein won’t open comments on posts that specifically ask the readers a question.
But I’m surely alone in having such bizarre, intrusive interests.
May 12, 2010, 12:57 amDuffy Pratt says:
David has clearly stated his comment policy: he opens a thread for comments when he feels like it. Just because he asks a question doesn’t mean that he feels like opening the thread for comments. Get over it already.
As for the personal life of the S.Ct. Justices, it seems to me that the hint of secrecy about Kagan just underscores what a good replacement she will be for Souter.
May 12, 2010, 1:03 amU.Va. Grad says:
If you think it’s important that Elena Kagan is or isn’t a lesbian, Professor Bernstein, your post should be titled “Is Elena Kagan a Lesbian?”.
May 12, 2010, 1:16 amAnon21 says:
It’s really weird to call a little personal history for leavening a “cult of personality.” The Justices tend to put their lovely families front and center during the nomination process because it’s good PR and humanizes them a bit for the opposition. It’s really pretty mild compared to a public figure like, for example, Sarah Palin, who brings her family’s travails into her campaign in a much more direct and repetitive way.
If Kagan has no interest in discussing her personal life, and we all recognize that her personal life has no actual relevance to the confirmation process, but rather would only be good for a bit of pointless window-dressing, why bother to discuss it?
May 12, 2010, 1:25 amSally says:
I know this is a serious blog but this is not a serious comment. Americans are not interested in Elena Kagan’s sex life or much else that’s personal about her. Let’s face it, she’s the homely smart girl who probably never dated much and long ago settled into a comfortable spinster lifestyle with good friends and a great job and the inner mysteries of her personal psyche, sexual or otherwise, hold about as much fascination as peeling tree bark.
Americans are fascinated by Sandra Bullock’s and Tiger’s Woods’ personal lives, just to name a couple, but not Elena Kagan or any other justice or politician for that matter. The only one who’s ever come close is Bill Clinton.
But I guess it’s interesting to know that there are some in the legal/academic/pundit community who honestly believe that Ruth Bader Ginsberg rivals Lady GaGa in rock star appeal. Delusional but interesting.
May 12, 2010, 1:29 amMahan Atma says:
VC posters like Bernstein are masters of the passive-aggressive post. This one basically says, “I’m not one to raise questions about Kagan’s sexual orientation, but what about her sexual orientation?”
May 12, 2010, 1:30 amA. Zarkov says:
“Who, after all, hasn’t gotten choked up after hearing the life story of the Supreme Court nominee who was raised-by-a-Jewish/Italian/Puerto Rican-immigrant-single-grandparent-on-a-ranch-in-the-barrio-of-Pin-Point-Arizona-and-has-two-adorable-kids?”
May 12, 2010, 1:36 amI don’t get choked up. I don’t believe in government by sob story. Most everyone has had rough patches in their lives.
Desiderius says:
Sally,
“she’s the homely smart girl who probably never dated much and long ago settled into a comfortable spinster lifestyle with good friends and a great job”
I don’t find her homely, but I guess as a fellow spinster, and one who also enjoys that lifestyle not a little, I could be biased.
May 12, 2010, 1:37 am[insert here] delenda est says:
To be fair, I do believe that Obama’s nominees must be questioned about their sense of identity, including sexual orientation.
In voting against Roberts, as well as in nominating Sotomayor, Obama explicitly suggested that this was, for him, a paramount criteria. So it can be presumed to have been with Kagan. Hence the Senate would in my view be entitled to seek to understand how Kagan perceives herself, including her sexuality.
That said, I wish Obama had just sucked it up and voted for Roberts and that we could stick to the ‘clearly competent’ standard of review of nominees.
May 12, 2010, 1:56 amORID says:
Given that Justices’ personal histories have become such a significant part of the confirmation process, and the Justices themselves are followed like rock stars, star athletes, or prominent politicians–all of whose romantic entanglements frequently find their way into the media–it’s little wonder that curiosity has been piqued about Kagan’s romantic life.
What?! Tell me when the TMZ starts to have a Washington DC presence. I think it would great for our democracy if that happened, and we got as much detail on the lives of politicians as we do of every 3 bit celebrity here in Los Angeles. But I can’t remember the last time I read something sordid about Scalia or Thomas, nor hearing about them having to flee from the papparatzi. Tell me the next time a politician shows up on “Dancing with the Stars” (and not a faux one whose names rhymes with Horsmenaeggar). Tell me the next time I read about a politician having some sort of intervention and getting whacked out on drugs that they can’t do their job. Tell me about stories of politicians meeting with lobbyists who have all sorts of conflicts of interests. We can only wish our politicians, and those with aspirations got the TMZ treatment… maybe they would be vetted better, or maybe they would serve us better. Who did Harry Reid meet with for dinner tonight again?
May 12, 2010, 1:58 ambee says:
I’m not one to say that David Bernstein is being a creep by taking a very low road while pretending he’s not. But it’s little wonder that the charge gets made.
May 12, 2010, 2:48 amMaryG says:
Folks, I think the reason it’s discussable is it’s 2010 out here, and these issues are being legislated and will turn up in the Courts. It’s embarassing if true personal stats are being hidden or denied or remade (is she really 6 feet, 230 like her card says?) for personal spin. It’s not wise to make a big issue out of an inquirable personal trait. Not if the Court wants credibility that they’re acting out of logic and solely using the the Constitution as a North Star on these “personal trait” civil rights issues that are going to be before the Court in years to come.
Plus it’s a funny scenario. People are big on entertainment, and this is pretty laughable.
May 12, 2010, 4:46 amCaroline says:
Here’s what’s bizarre about the speculation re this nominee’s sexuality: while most of us don’t care per se about her love life and normally would see this as a privacy issue, one gets the feeling that Obama, who has stated before that orientation might be a consideration in the nomination process, is disingenuously playing to his gay base while doing a “How dare you” at the press inquiries and speculation.
Instead of saying that Kagan’s sexual identity is nobody’s business, or that, as far as they know, she isn’t gay, here is how the WH has reacted:
What’s salient about the sexuality issue so far:
1. That the WH characterized speculation about someone being gay as “false charges” is a telling indictment of the Democratic Party Tolerance doctrine.
2. Kagan had better NOT be a lesbian, if the WH is going to accuse someone of lying and playing the sexist/ ugly stereotyping card for writing what his Harvard contacts told him. Is the WH out and out lying?
3. Andrew Sullivan’s in a tizzy over what he thinks are WH lies about her lifestyle or preference, (which to some of us would have been nobody’s business had they merely said so instead of categorical denial), because he thinks orientation as identity is pertinent to possible upcoming cases before the Supreme Court. Perhaps he’s wrong, but it’s an interesting discussion to have if someone’s personal life didn’t have to get dragged into it.
May 12, 2010, 7:28 amneurodoc says:
Isn’t it clear the Professor Bernstein thinks it is not important, that the “cult of personality” thing which encourages questions like that one is a “problem” rather than a good thing? I thought it was.
May 12, 2010, 7:46 amneurodoc says:
I wouldn’t say it, but I expect some are thinking “FOS.” (Also, you don’t know the meaning of “passive-aggressive.” And if you are going to go with unfounded psychiatric explanations, take care lest someone suggest you are “projecting” your own thinking onto others.)
May 12, 2010, 7:52 amAri8 says:
Bernstein didn’t raise the issue of sexual orientation in his post,and said Kagan’s romantic life is irrelevant. The post he linked to did the same. He must be trying to say that Kagan’s a lesbian!
Where’s Saracastro when we need him!
May 12, 2010, 8:00 amDavid Bernstein says:
Thanks Neurodoc, you are exactly right in your 7:46 post. If a Supreme Court nominee were openly gay, that would be a nice milestone in societal attitudes. Beyond that “Who Cares” is the only appropriate response. But then again, I don’t care about Lady Gaga, either. As I once wrote, in response to the question, “What commonly enjoyed activities do you regard as a waste of time?” “… following the details of the lives of celebrities. Why do people care about the latest ups and downs in Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s marriage? Or who Tiger Woods has been bedding? Don’t they have enough to worry about in their own lives?”
May 12, 2010, 8:01 amneurodoc says:
[The "edit" function is a welcome improvement to this website, but it works only occasionally for me. Though I may exercise that option and hit "save" with >4 minutes to go, what I would have added/changed often does not show up. So, FWIW, here is the entirety of what I wanted to post a few minutes ago in response to the suggestion that Professor Bernstein was being disingenuous and really did want to raise the question of Kagan's sexual identity.]
I wouldn’t say it, but I expect some are thinking “FOS.” (Also, you don’t know the meaning of “passive-aggressive.” And if you are going to go with unfounded psychiatric explanations, take care lest someone suggest you are “projecting” your own thinking onto others.)
May 12, 2010, 8:08 amneurodoc says:
1991 was awhile back, but I expect most of those here who were born before 1970 recall Anita Hill’s allegations about Thomas’ interest in porn. Trivia fans may even be able to name the movie he wanted to discuss with her. (Hint: sounds like peg-legged pirate in Treasure Island)
May 12, 2010, 8:32 amSteve says:
I’m sure people would have whispered about Kagan’s orientation in any event, much like some people always wondered whether Justice Souter was gay, but you can’t really talk about why this became a high-profile issue without discussing CBS’ publication of a Ben Domenech column falsely asserting that Kagan is openly gay. That controversy brought a lot of attention to the issue, or non-issue as the case may be.
May 12, 2010, 9:11 amHouston Lawyer says:
It’s a bit late for lefties to be complaining about attacks on nominees based on their personal lives.
That said, I have no idea what Kagan’s sexual orientation is. There are not that many eligible males looking for someone with her physical appeal that also share her level of accomplishment. Many of my female friends from law school are in the same boat she is in, single at 50 and not necessarily by choice.
May 12, 2010, 9:13 amfollower says:
Quite a few Americans have demonstrated interest, to judge from their Google searches, blog comments, and the attention given to news stories discussing this topic.
Or did you mean to say you wished people didn’t care?
May 12, 2010, 9:18 amneurodoc says:
According to Morning Joe, some people see a problem with the photo the WSJ ran of Kagan playing softball, the title something about Kagan “at the plate.” What pray tell is that about? Nonsense, I’m sure.
May 12, 2010, 9:21 amAri8 says:
“but you can’t really talk about why this became a high-profile issue without discussing CBS’ publication of a Ben Domenech column falsely asserting that Kagan is openly gay.”
In fairness to Mr. Domenech, I’ve seen at least one publication aimed at the gay community that noted the ascension to the Harvard deanship of the “openly lesbian” Elena Kagan.
May 12, 2010, 9:31 amneurodoc says:
Is the question are/were they closeted gays ever of consequence to the rest of us? Eleanor Roosevelt, Justice Souter, Ed Koch, etc.? I would say no, but then how about J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, Larry Craig and others in deep denial, doesn’t their sexual orientation help explain them and their conduct?
May 12, 2010, 9:31 amSally says:
No, I said what I meant to say. 300 Million people live in this country and only a relatively small minority of that number read blogs regularly or spend time discussing news stories. Are Kagan’s romantic interests a big deal in the blogosphere or in the White House briefing room? Probably yes. Out here in the real world no. Walk into the copy room at work or chat with the person behind you in the checkout counter at the grocery store or working out next to you in the gym and ask hey what do you think about this Elena Kagan chick, think she’s got it going on? see what kind of reaction you get. Ask, so what’s up with Lawrence Taylor and the jail bait or did you hear Kim Kardashian’s b**ging some Spanish soccer star, you’ll get a much more sustained conversation I’m sure.
May 12, 2010, 10:04 amMark Field says:
Not to me. I read it as speculating about her sexuality while pretending to decry such behavior.
May 12, 2010, 10:20 amDavid Bernstein says:
Would you show us exactly where I speculated about her sexuality? Or where the post I linked to speculated about her sexuality? I’m very interested to know exactly which sentences in the post constitute speculating about her sexuality?
May 12, 2010, 10:27 amThorley Winston says:
I’m not quite that old but I remember them pretty vividly and also how my rather militant feminist homeroom teacher said that the charges alone should disqualify Thomas from being appointed to the Supreme Court even if they weren’t true because of the importance of the Supreme Court.
May 12, 2010, 11:11 amMCM says:
Well, you only wrote 4 sentences (despite writing over 150 words). So it wasn’t hard to narrow it down to the last sentence: “curiosity has been piqued about Kagan’s romantic life.”
Since you used the passive voice, we’re left wondering, “Whose curiosity has been piqued?” You didn’t mention anyone specific who says he is curious about Kagan’s romantic life, so I can only assume you’re curious about Kagan’s romantic life. Thus, the post takes on the tenor of you rationalizing your own curiosity regarding Kagan’s romantic life.
If that wasn’t what you intended, try re-writing your post without the passive voice and fewer run-on sentences.
Have a good day!
May 12, 2010, 11:25 amJRC says:
Why isn’t it relevant? I agree that it shouldn’t be, but there are a number of people, the president included, who play identity politics and contend that identity necessarily influences a justice’s opinions. If, for example, she is a lesbian and believes she will take a “lesbian view” of the law, whatever the hell that would mean, shouldn’t we know that? Or even if she simply agrees that a person’s race, gender, sexuality, etc., influence his or her legal opinions, then shouldn’t we know all of those things about her?
If she is a lesbian, I find it more problematic that (1) the Obama team is outright denying that fact rather than denying its relevance; and (2) she is denying it. Frankly, I don’t think it would make any difference these days and would find it more troubling that she is hiding it. I would also be concerned that she could be so intent on hiding it that it opens her up to blackmail, etc. I don’t think there’s any reason to hide it if true and I don’t think it’s a good idea to have justices who have something they believe they need to hide.
May 12, 2010, 11:33 amDavid Bernstein says:
I was referring to the link, which discussed curiosity about Kagan’s romantic life.
May 12, 2010, 11:49 amChris Travers says:
Actually people care about this because it distracts them from what they worry about in their own personal lives.
May 12, 2010, 11:51 amRoger the Shrubber says:
That’s clearly not true of some Americans.
May 12, 2010, 11:55 amMark Field says:
As MCM said, it’s the final clause.
Let me note two things also, just to be clear:
1. By no means would I insist that my reading is the only possible one. But neurodoc asked, and that was, in fact, the way I read it.
2. Your question to me assumes that all points are made solely and exclusively by text. I don’t agree with that — some are made inferentially. Thus, my reading was partly text and partly inference. Obviously, if you say that the inference was not intended, then I believe you.
May 12, 2010, 12:19 pmRPT says:
Classic use of the “some people say” technique. It is reasonable to assume that this post was made to focus attention on the “romantic life” issue while allowing plausible deniability.
May 12, 2010, 12:22 pmAnon21 says:
Is it? Can you really see no difference between plausible allegations that a nominee sexually harassed a colleague and allegations that a nominee might prefer women to men? How has sexual harassment in a public workplace been promoted to the inviolable status of “personal life,” anyway?
May 12, 2010, 12:36 pmRoger says:
Kagan’s most famous legal position is her opposition to the military’s DADT policy. If that opposition is grounded in her own sexual preference, then it might illuminate her thinking. It would be better if she explained more of her legal philosophy, but we have to look at what little info we have.
May 12, 2010, 12:51 pmDavid Bernstein says:
So Prof. Dudziak was also speculating about Kagan’s sexuality? I love the Alice in Wonderland nature of some of these comments. If you DON’T say something about someone’s sexuality, even though other people are, and choose to link to someone who does not mention someone’s sexuality, and you specifically say that you don’t think someone’s generic “romantic life” is important, then you are, in fact, really talking about her sexuality. Boys, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and you should get your minds out of the gutter.
May 12, 2010, 12:58 pmneurodoc says:
At the risk of seeming pedantic, doesn’t the speaker/writer “imply,” while the listener/reader “infers”? So what Professor Bernstein is saying, isn’t it, is that he did not intend any such implication, and it was a matter of what you thought was there, and hence inferred or imagined?
I do find this useful illustration of how misunderstandings can arise. Was there really an implication in something said/written or is it the meaning the listener/reader takes from it? You accept that if Professor Bernstein says no such implication was intended, then we can take him at his word, which I think is not only a matter of politeness, but also reasonableness. What I think is preposterous and offensive is, “VC posters like Bernstein are masters of the passive-aggressive post.” (@1:30 AM) No civil discourse is to be had with the likes of that poster.
Now Mark Field, you are to my Left politically, but I take you to be a generally reasonable and thoughtful sort whose contributions here are appreciated. So tell me, if you will, what you think about my question above. Should the sexual orientation of government officials, whether elected or appointed, ever matter to us the public? I think we better understand what is inside their head when someone with a record decidely unfriendly to gays turns out to be gay themselves (e.g., Larry Craig), but does that knowledge give us anything we need to know? Save when national security is involved, in which case I think those doing the vetting should know everything about the individual (do they drink, do they gamble, do they lead secret lives of any sort, who do they consort with, anything that would make them susceptible to being turned, etc.), I can’t say when/how it should ever matter for practical purposes. (Biographers may want to know, but that is not a “practical purpose,” the practical purpose being to determine if are they suited for the job.)
May 12, 2010, 1:01 pmBored Lawyer says:
When the President was a Senator, he voted against the eminently qualified Roberts on the grounds that the latter lacked empathy and had different values, which, acc. to then-Senator Obama, influences 5% of cases.
We also have left-wing professors promulgating various “Living Constitution” theories of interpretation, the upshot of which is license to impose one’s values through judicial interpretation as the law of the land.
If you are going to make such arguments, then it is inconsistent to then turn around and say that a judicial nominee’s personal life and personal values have no relevance to reviewing a nominee. If judicial interpretation invovles, at least in part, imposition of the judge’s personal values on the law, then I want the judiciary to reflect my values and not other’s values.
And many in America feel the same way. It is not idle curiosity or titillation that makes Kagan’s sexuality interesting, it is what effect it will have on her decisions — particular given that she apparently embraces a judicial philosophy that invites such personal input.
(Clearly, such would not be relevant to all decisions before the Court. I doubt it would have much relevance to a patent or securities law case. But how about the upcoming case claiming a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, or the case challenging DOMA?)
May 12, 2010, 1:06 pmJohn Herbison says:
Is anyone surprised that what Ms. Kagan does with her female parts has become the subject of rank speculation by those on Eric Rudolph’s and Antonin Scalia’s side of the culture war? After all, Jerry Falwell’s organization has wondered about what Tinky Winky does with genitalia that it does not have.
Some folks are simply wound too tight about who sticks what into whom.
May 12, 2010, 1:12 pmMark says:
Once again Bernstein “inadvertently” starts a cretinous thread. For such a smart guy, he sure has a lot of these “accidents”.
May 12, 2010, 1:30 pmMark Field says:
Agreed.
I’m going to digress a bit by way of giving a longer answer to your question than a simple yes or no.
It’s an interesting issue of what we mean by “really”. The legal profession generally takes an objective view of interpretation. That is, a court would reject Prof. Bernstein’s testimony regarding his internal intention if it decided that a “reasonable reader” would have made the inference.
One way I look at issues like this is to see how many people made the same mistake. If many readers did, then, well, there was obviously a failure to communicate.
In my view, rarely if ever.
May 12, 2010, 1:36 pmAri8 says:
And if he didn’t open up the post for comments, you’d be complaining about that. Get a life.
May 12, 2010, 1:36 pmMark Field says:
Apparently the name “Mark” is more common than I used to think it was. I hope everyone can keep them all distinct.
May 12, 2010, 1:37 pmMCM says:
The first “M” in “MCM” stands for “Mark”.
May 12, 2010, 1:41 pmneurodoc says:
Good point about the “subjective”/”objective” distinction, especially since this is a legal blog. The problem with looking to the responses elicited by the OP for the “objective” interpretation, though, is that you have a good many “non-objective” (yes, I’m confounding meanings for my purposes) types who show up to comment, especially with Professor Bernstein‘s threads. They’re aggrieved and angry because Professor Bernstein did not open a previous thread of his to comments; they’re ideologic warriors here to take him on personally; they’re anti-VC; they’re (blank). No need to call them out individually, but do you think that if this were a jury pool, some would be struck for cause?
May 12, 2010, 2:05 pmneurodoc says:
Yup, he certainly does manage to draw in the cretins.
May 12, 2010, 2:07 pmSarcastro says:
‘Cretin:’ the new ‘Asshat’ of the internet?
May 12, 2010, 2:27 pmcaliforniamom says:
You don’t have to look back as far as the Clarence Thomas hearings to find personal lives being analyzed. I remember open speculation about how John Roberts got his two adopted children from South America and wasn’t it strange that they were blond. Whether this was on a blog or from the TV pundits, but I do remember it.
May 12, 2010, 3:22 pmBill the Cat says:
I object simply because she is another northeast ivy league academic who has lives in a bubble. Good lord don’t we have enough of these in Washington already. If she were from an academic from Nebraska, or Missouri I would probably be fine with her.
May 12, 2010, 3:48 pmrichard says:
May 12, 2010, 3:51 pmMark Field says:
I agree that the sample is biased that way, but as others have noted, the same people don’t react that way to posts by others, nor have I seen the same people react the same way to every Bernstein post. While I wouldn’t defend the tone of their reaction, the fact of it seems genuine in this case. I could, of course, be wrong about that; confirmation bias and all that.
Again, I want to emphasize that I take Prof. Bernstein at his word.
May 12, 2010, 4:11 pmMaryG says:
“It wasn’t on TV and I had never heard about Robert’s kids being adopted until you just mentioned it. There’s all types of blogs out there, some just crazed, but no person on TV and no reputable blogger on the left (including far left blogs like Firedog Lake and Daily Kos) said a word about this.”
Wrong. Plenty of reputable newspapers and sources noted that the (cute blonde) children were adopted, and the ages of Roberts and his wife. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, and people were naturally curious, no doubt.
The kids were featured in a (seersucker, iirc) shorts set and dress when the nomination was announced, and also were present as Roberts’ family when he was sworn in, much like Sotomayor’s nieces/nephews/brother represented her family. And Janet Napolitano had her sibling’s (grown) children there too, when it was her turn.
Family is family. It is what it is. Really, do you think it’s somehow dredging to note that someone’s children were adopted? I don’t. It’s just a fact — one of those personal characteristics that presumably blends together to make the person view the world in a certain way. That’s the Obama Judicial Doctrine, right?
May 12, 2010, 4:20 pmcaliforniamom says:
A quick Google search. It was reported back in 2005 that the New York Times was searching for a lawyer to look into the adoption records of Robert’s children who were adopted from South America.
And I think there was more commentary on the adoption than just this.
May 12, 2010, 4:20 pmptt says:
Is there, for most people, such a chasm between their “romantic” life and their sexuality? And what, exactly, is “gutter”-like about lesbianism?
May 12, 2010, 4:21 pmfred says:
You SHOULD care. Kagan’s lesbian lifestyle obviously affected her ability to be a fair administrator at an Ivy League university. She unconstitutionally forbade the military from recruiting on campus because of her bias over the homosexual issue of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” She has shown herself to be too emotionally invested in her homosexual lifestyle to be a fair judge.
May 12, 2010, 4:32 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Oh, come on. Do I send out some kind of subliminal code that leads commenters to try to twist innocuous comments into something sinister?
But, since you asked “get your mind out of the gutter” is a well-known expression, often today used ironically or humorously, to admonish someone whose mind turns to sex when sex is not being discussed. It has nothing to do with “lesbianism,” as such.
May 12, 2010, 4:34 pmptt says:
The word “gutter” doesn’t strike me as particularly subliminal.
And who, exactly, was discussing sex?
May 12, 2010, 4:38 pmMaryG says:
“Oh, come on. Do I send out some kind of subliminal code that leads commenters to try to twist innocuous comments into something sinister? But, since you asked “get your mind out of the gutter” is a well-known expression, often today used ironically or humorously, to admonish someone whose mind turns to sex when sex is not being discussed.”
Lol. They’re just playing with ya now, DB.
Children of Tomorrow: “What exactly is a gutter anyway, Mr. Bernstein?”
“And, is this anything one might call a place to float a boat? Wait — let me Google that…”
May 12, 2010, 4:44 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Look, if you have no idea what the expression “get your mind out of the gutter” means, and how it’s used, just say so, apologize, and move on. Don’t prolong the agony.
May 12, 2010, 4:44 pmptt says:
I know exactly what “get your mind out of the gutter” means.
I’m just mystified as to why you used the word.
May 12, 2010, 5:11 pmleo marvin says:
The inference Mark (Field) and others took is perfectly reasonable, even if mistaken. The inference that DB was trying to associate “gutter” with “lesbianism” is far fetched at best.
May 12, 2010, 6:15 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Try refreshing the screen after editing – you’ll find the edits implemented.
Took me a while to figure it out myself.
May 12, 2010, 8:02 pmDesiderius says:
“The inference Mark (Field) and others took is perfectly reasonable, even if mistaken.”
Why the inference of pretense, though? Do you really think that the Fred’s of this world can still command a majority and that Bernstein of all people is interested in fomenting one if they could? What sort of monster do you take him to be, any why?
While people are still queasy about the redefinition of marriage, there are large majorities who support “live and let live” on personal lifestyle questions. The soft-libertarian middle, while of course heartlessly heedless of the economic plight of the oppressed masses, is nonetheless on your side on this one, whether she’s lesbian, cougar, or spinster.
As for me, I’m just wondering how I can swing an introduction…
May 12, 2010, 9:02 pmKagan Sexuality Mystery Talk Shrouds Inexperience | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP says:
[...] Finally, a nice Kagan potpourri by InstaGlenn. Who, by the way, earlier in the day recommended Kagan and the cult of personality. [...]
May 12, 2010, 10:13 pmneurodoc says:
When you say “the same people don’t react that way to posts by others, nor have I seen the same people react the same way to every Bernstein post,” I would first ask which individuals you have in mind, since I would like to look at their “priors” for myself. Second, if you are correct about that (same people not reacting that way to other VC posters, nor to every Bernstein post), what do you think it proves? I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with the substance of what Professor Bernstein or any other of the VC or other posters have to say. When they favor the ad hominem and flare with anger, though, I think they can and should be dismissed. And third, I don’t know why the fact that Professor Bernstein agitates more people than other VC posters should be seen as proof of anything, let alone reflect unfavorably on him.
May 12, 2010, 11:32 pmneurodoc says:
Thanks for the advice. I’m not sure what you mean by “refreshing the screen after editing,” though. If I go to a different screen, I often lose what I have typed out but not yet posted, so I’m always leary lest happen. How exactly do I “refresh the screen after editing”? By doing something after I have hit “save” and the clock is ticking down on the alloted 5 minutes?
And do you ever have another problem that I run into when trying to edit, or sometimes just compose – can’t control the cursor to place it where I want it to go directly, lines scrolling while I try and refusing to sit still? Doesn’t happen at top of screen, but does toward the bottom. Don’t recall this before changes were made to platform. (When changes were made, we lost the ability to see other poster’s emails by clicking on their names, that is if they allowed us to.)
May 12, 2010, 11:43 pmleo marvin says:
You’re right. On reflection I’d say that sort of pretense is so common the inference is probably inevitable, but in DB’s case I was unfair to call it reasonable. For better and for worse, I don’t recall him ever tip-toeing around what he wants to say. Preserving deniability would seem out of character.
May 13, 2010, 1:53 amDesiderius says:
“For better and for worse, I don’t recall him ever tip-toeing around what he wants to say.”
= )
Where angels fear to tread. There is not shortage of substance to criticize in DB’s posts, which is what I love about him – he gets it out there, then fixes it, with our help.
The ad hom bullying misses what he’s about.
May 13, 2010, 7:47 amMark Field says:
As I said above, I’m not justifying the tone of the responses. I’m only saying that they were apparently based on a genuine misunderstanding of his post. While I might dismiss the responses substantively, there’s no reason to dismiss them as evidence in that way.
In legalese, I’m not using them for the truth of the matter, but only to show that they were made.*
I’m not big on discussions about posting styles — what’s good, what’s bad, how to argue, etc. — so I’ll leave off any reaction to your final point.
*Since you’re not a lawyer, I’ll explain that this is one way to avoid the hearsay rule: you introduce a statement which would be hearsay, but you say you’re not claiming that the statement is true, only that it was made. A common reason for this would be as a preliminary to introduce the response.
May 13, 2010, 10:40 amneurodoc says:
Those may have been genuine misunderstandings of DB’s meaning here, but if you look at other threads, most particularly those concerning Israel, you will see it is rarely a matter of misunderstandings. Many respond to him angrily and personally.
I wasn’t talking about “posting styles,” I was talking about what amount to personal attacks on the speaker, Professor Bernstein, rather than engagement with what has been said.
And while I may not be much of a lawyer, I am one nonetheless, admitted to the bar, and proud of the fact that I have helped individuals injured as a result of medical negligence get some very substantial compensation.
May 13, 2010, 11:45 amMark Field says:
Oops, my apologies. I *ahem* inferred from your name (and some medical posts I remember) that you were “only” a doctor.
May 13, 2010, 12:31 pmneurodoc says:
No apology required. And yes, that was a mistaken “inference” drawn from what you took to be the “implication” of my nom de plume (or is it nom de guerre?) and some of my medically-related posts.
Now, I would invite you to join me in rebuking those who go “personal” when there is no reason to do so, thereby debasing the discourse here. (Yeah, I am not always “sweet” when disagreeing with others in the course of these threads, but I think I’m usually responding to nastiness rather than initiating. When I’m reproachable, feel free to reproach me.) And I think you will find those individuals most often, though not exclusively, participating in DB threads.
(Out of curiosity, of which I have a lot, what sort of law do you do? I’m going to guess that you are neither a criminal prosecutor, nor on the side of companies against labor.)
May 13, 2010, 12:58 pmMark Field says:
As I said, I’m not a fan of meta discussions and I don’t feel it’s my place to rebuke others. I certainly don’t think personal attacks add anything, though I’ve been guilty of them myself at times.
I’m a business litigator. If you’re interested, you can see a few appellate decisions I’ve been involved in: Summit Health Limited v. Pinhas; Doe v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.3d 1406, 272 Cal.Rptr. 474 (1990); Kevorkian v. Arnett, 939 F. Supp. 725 (C.D. Cal. 1996); and In Re American Honda, 958 F.Supp. 1045 (D.Md. 1997).
May 13, 2010, 1:23 pm