Today in class I assigned students to look at some older articles that were in my old copies of The Week and do some analysis. I picked the article "Kagan: Why the questions on her sexuality?" from a May 28, 2010 magazine. Although the Senate approved her back in August, the question still remains - what good comes from questioning the sexual orientation of a potential supreme court justice?
Andrew Sullivan argues that since the president can take gender and ethic background into account than "why is sexual orientation out of bounds of even inquiry?" He continues to his argument that to take sexual identity off the table when other aspects of human identity are fair game is somehow "offensive". But I wonder how questions of human identity play into politics. Just because I'm a woman does not make me a feminist. Just because I'm a christian does not make me conservative. To assume that personal convictions and beliefs cross over into my professional life and supersede all else is not logical. Most of us juggle many hats that require multiple perspectives.
In fact I wonder how much the Senate digging into a person's background really helps the process. I'm not arguing that we should dump the checks and balances, but rather be a little more realistic with what topics are focused on. Waldman in his online editorial piece points out that using a past as a predictor of the future and what Kagan will be like and do on the bench is kind of pointless. Perhaps the Supreme Court should be more concerned about character than determining a political stance on a myriad of potential issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment