Kagan Nomination Sure To Spark Predictable Rhetoric

Late yesterday afternoon I started hearing rumors that President Obama had settled on his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. Later, just before I went to bed, my BlackBerry started buzzing with reports that indeed, the President had made his choice, and that he would be publicly announcing it early Monday morning. Well, as luck would have it, I had already booked a tour of the Pentagon for this morning at 10:00 am, the exact time the President would be unveiling his nomination.

When you tour the Pentagon, there are a few rules. Among them: no carrying any weapons of mass destruction. Check. No chewing gum. Check. And most importantly, no cell phone use (the guide makes everyone turn them off). Not wanting to cause a stir, I politely obeyed that last rule. But my obedience came with a price, I would not be able to read all the breaking news and Tweets from reporters covering the major announcement.

My tour ended around 11:00 am. Naturally, the first thing I did was turn my phone on and check Twitter to see what had been written about the announcement. As I had expected, based on numerous reports both yesterday and earlier this morning, the President had nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the summer. The next thing I did was check my inbox for press releases. Not surprisingly, I had already received more than a few.

Now, I don't pretend to be a Supreme Court expert -- I'll leave that to my colleague -- so I'll spare you my misguided opinions on whether or not Ms. Kagan is qualified to serve on the High Court. However, as someone who covers Congress, I plan on paying close attention to the forthcoming nomination process because I am interested in seeing how it plays out in a political context.

It's no secret that the divide between the two major parties has only grown larger over the past few years. Now, thanks to one-party control of both Houses, the rise of the anti-big government Tea Party movement and a monumental healthcare reform bill that re-ignited a once politically doormant legion of voters nationwide, that divide is arguably at an all-time high.

The first email I read was a lengthy statement on the nomination from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a sure-to-be VIP in the months to follow. Near the end of his statement, Leahy said the following:

"Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to the Senate is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Americans are looking to Washington to cast aside the political rancor and partisanship that has fueled so many recent debates."

Indeed, driven by such partisan rancor, the battle lines have been definitively drawn on every single substantive issue Congress has worked on lately. From health care, to extending unemployment benefits, to Wall Street reform, the debate has become fairly predictable. In a nutshell it's this: if you're a 'D', you're probably with the President and his administration. If you're an 'R', you're opposed.

Case in point, the following three statements were sent to my inbox from Democrats this morning:

"President Obama has chosen a candidate who will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Solicitor General Kagan's outstanding service as a lawyer, professor, public servant, and administrator prepares her for this challenge, and she will come to the bench with a deep knowledge of the law and respect for all individuals."

"Elena Kagan has won the respect and admiration of colleagues on both the left and the right for her legal and policy knowledge and for her success in working with advocates of a wide range of viewpoints. I have no doubt that she will bring the same skills to the Supreme Court, as its unprecedented third female justice, where I know that she will be mindful of the impact of the law on the lives of ordinary Americans."

"It appears that Elena Kagan would bring a great deal of knowledge and real-world experience to the Supreme Court...Elena Kagan’s experience outside courtrooms should not be held against her."

Which three Democrats issued those statements, you ask? I say, does it matter? To me, anyone with a D after their name could've written them. 100% of Democrats (at least in the Senate) will do anything the current President asks or demands of them. During last year's confirmation battle over Sonia Sotomayor, Democrats often chided Republicans, saying they wouldn't even vote to confirm Moses if he had been nominated to serve (they're still using that talking point, by the way). I don't know about that, but let's suppose the President had chosen a candidate completely lacking in qualification. I am willing to bet that most Democrats would have uniformly supported a quick confirmation.

To be fair, when it comes to solidarity, the same can be said of the other side as well. Here are some excerpts of a few emails I received this morning from Republicans.

“President Obama's decision to nominate Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice experience and judicial impartiality for political activism. Despite Ms. Kagen's lack of judicial experience and limited legal practice, it is clear  that she will use her position to push her personal and political agenda."

 “We know that several areas warrant close scrutiny. Ms. Kagan’s lack of judicial experience and short time as Solicitor General, arguing just six cases before the Court, is troubling."

“There is nothing that requires the President to replace a liberal Justice with a liberal; but unfortunately it appears President Obama is doing just that.  Though Kagan has no prior judicial record for the Senate to review, her role as an Obama-insider and senior official in the Administration indicates that she shares the same liberal judicial philosophy as the President and his top advisors."

Again, I'd reveal the names of the Republicans that released these statements, but it's a moot issue. They are Republicans, they CAN'T support anything this administration attempts to do. Especially with mid-terms coming up.

Listen, if you're still not convinced that this is about anything more than D versus R, consider Arlen Specter. As a Republican last year, he voted against confirming Ms. Kagan as Solicitor General. Now, as a Democrat, he says he is open to supporting her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Really? Did she change that much over the past 12 months? Hmmmmmm.

The bottom line is this: In the end, Elena Kagan will be sworn in as our nation's next Supreme Court Justice, probably sometime before the Fall. The question is, will her confirmation process go smoothly? That all depends on whether or not the divide between parties diminishes or grows larger. And based on what I'm seeing so far, I'd say it's safe to expect bumpy conditions this summer.

There Is A Place for Gays In Conservative Politics, Says British Politician

By Chingyu Wang - Talk Radio News Service

Conservatism is not only compatible with the principle of equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but such equality is an essential element of conservatism, says prominent British politician Nick Herbert.

Herbert, who was elected and became the first openly gay conservative member of Parliament in 2005, participated in a panel discussion on Wednesday hosted by the Cato Institute, along with notable gay blogger Andrew Sullivan and National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher.

"If we stand against equality of opportunity, which should be an article of faith for the Right, it becomes the preserve of the Left," said Herbert. "For the modern Conservative Party, embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon, nor an agenda which can be reversed."

Herbert said that although his party was once against homosexuality, current leadership has helped changed its agenda.

Gallagher, who opposes gay marriage, doesn't see the U.S. following the footsteps of the British political system, citing data produced from a recent Gallup Poll that showed 48% of Americans oppose gay marriage, while just 13% support it.

After sharing his experience of same-sex marriage, Sullivan pointed out that the GOP isn't as supportive of gay marriage as the British Conservative Party.

"In this country, those of who proudly call ourselves gay conservatives have struggled against the gay Left, and now we are struggling against the far Republican Right, which is now the Republican Party," said Sullivan.

Obama Will Grant Limited Benefits To Same-Sex Couples

By Learned Foote - Talk Radio News Service

President Obama will sign a memorandum on June 17th granting limited federal benefits to same-sex couples, and requesting that the Office of Personnel Management issue guidance within 90 days preventing discrimination against federal employees based on factors other than job performance.

John Berry, Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the highest-ranking openly gay member of the Obama administration, said that he and the Secretary of State have “conducted internal reviews to determine whether the benefits they administer may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act].”

These benefits will not include health insurance, survivor or retirement benefits, or any other benefits outlawed by the Defense of Marriage Act. The Obama administration recently defended DOMA using arguments and language condemned by the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and other advocates for LGBT rights. Obama has promised to repeal DOMA if the appropriate legislation reaches his desk.

The benefits granted to civil-service employees will include long-term care insurance and sick leave to care for ailing partners. Foreign service employees and their partners will gain the use of medical facilities, medical evaluations from abroad, and consideration of family size in housing units. The memorandum also requests that the heads of executive departments and agencies conduct an internal review to locate other benefits that may be legally extended to same-sex couples.

The Clinton administration issued guidance requiring that many executive agencies grant some of the benefits identified in Obama’s memorandum. Berry said these benefits thus far have been “subject to the whim of a supervisor.” Berry said that “what the president is doing today is making this no longer optional; he is making it mandatory and is making it clear that this is now the policy of the federal government.”

Within 90 days, the OPM will issue guidance regarding civil service laws that make it illegal to discriminate against federal employees for reasons other than job performance. Berry said this guidance will not impact "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," a law that prevents openly gay people from serving in the military.

“This is a first step, not a final step,” said Berry.

GOP's Gay Candidate

Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News

Peter Hankwitz, Former GOP congressional candidate, member Republican Leadership Council, Log Cabin Republican talks about being an openly gay Republican candidate.

00:30

LGBT families get their golden egg at White House Easter Egg Roll

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico


Since 1878, families have participated in the official White House Easter Egg Roll event, but this year another community of families were invited.

Some 30,000 guests were expected to attend the event and this is the first time in Egg Roll history that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) families have been invited.

Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, said she was thrilled when she received the invitation from the White House.  

“The outreach on President Obama and First Lady Obama’s behalf to gay and lesbian families was very meaningful and very important symbolism of this White House and its belief that all kinds of families should be valued in this country... We are very, very grateful,” Chrisler said. “We as parents, as gay parents, do all the same things that other parents do. We worry about getting our kids to school safely, about being good participants in our community, paying our taxes and to have a president that actually affirms us as families really helps when we face those hurdles that we face from time to time," Chrisler said.

Cathy Renna, a member of the Family Equality Council, said she has been going to this event for several years but that this year it felt different. The FEC works to ensure equality for LGBT families by building community, changing hearts and minds, and advancing social justice for all families.

“It looked a lot more like America this year,” said Renna. “This represents a shift both symbolically and hopefully in a policy way in the way that will be treated in this country. There’s clearly a tremendous amount of hope that we’ll pass hate crimes legislation, that we’ll pass employment non-discrimination legislation at the federal level.... There’s just a very different sense of dialogue and relationship that we haven’t had in a very long time,” said Renna.