White House: Kagan 'Volunteered' Info On Sexuality Before SCOTUS Nomination

There has been a disproportionate amount of focus in recent days and weeks on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's sexuality and how both the media and the White House handled the issue.

Kagan, as the White House has said, is not gay. But that didn't stop the New York Post from running an article on Thursday under the absurd title: "Does a picture of Elena Kagan playing softball suggest she's a lesbian?" The piece was supplemented with interviews with various authors and experts on lesbianism and softball -- without providing a definitive conclusion.

On Friday, the Washington Post ran a meta-piece on the matter under the title: "Is sexual identity our business, or are we a nation of busybodies?" In it, author Karen Tumulty reported that "administration officials asked Kagan directly about her sexual orientation when she was being vetted for her post as solicitor general." It was a slightly interesting revelation, for nothing else than that it demonstrated the topic was on the administration's radar early in 2009.

But a White House official emailed the Huffington Post to push back on Tumulty's claim. It was Kagan who relayed her sexuality, not the White House who asked for it. And the conversation happened recently, not back in 2009.

"Solicitor General Kagan volunteered the information to the White House when media reports surfaced in the pre-nomination process for the Supreme Court," said a White House aide.

All of this, of course, is a grand sideshow to the question of whether or not Kagan is qualified for the court. But for the sake of an accurate historical record, it does seem important to note that the White House didn't vet Kagan on her sexuality. She came forward with the information.

Comments

[sbirdog]

02:17 PM on 05/19/2010

What if she is gay? So what?

[Carlo Lorenzo]

11:10 PM on 05/18/2010

I think he will make a great Supreme Court Judge. His credentials and intelligence is better served in the highest court of the land.

[Javalation]

07:02 PM on 05/18/2010

What bothers me even more than this busybody sexual orientation issue is Republicans demanding to know her position on abortion. Have they forgotten that abortion is legal, or that the majority of women if not most Americans believe it to be a personal decision. The issue is pro individual choice vs no legal choice. They claim to favor individual freedom, but one would never know it from the positions they take on freedom of choice issues.

[sbirdog]

02:34 PM on 05/19/2010

You may have heard this before; "We hold these truths to be self evident ..., that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, ..."

It is no mistake that Americans value the sanctity of life. No wonder this truth is listed first among the unalienable rights. The issue is about the "life" of the unborn not a choice. We have multiple laws in support of our fellow human's well being. Science reveals that life "begins with a single cell." Isn't an unborn human an 'individual?' Who is it that speaks for the 'unborn?' Even if one doesn't believe in a Creator, shouldn't life be held up for protection as, at the very least, a human value? We have associations/societies that demand the fair treatment of animals, animals rights and protections for their habitats. Please don't tell me you have more empathy for animals than you do human being.

[sbirdog]

02:35 PM on 05/19/2010

Only Republicans are pro life?

[Brooke Steele]

03:54 PM on 05/18/2010

Would you be offended if someone asked you your sexual orientation on a job interview? I would think, in light of the recent "outing" of Reikers proves that your orientation does not necessarily motivate your opinion of gay rights.

[sbirdog]

02:39 PM on 05/19/2010

Although it wouldn't put me at unease, I don't believe that sexual orientation questions are relevant to most job positions or career paths. With respect to gay rights, those choosing that life-style are not quarantined from the laws of the land and continue to enjoy their rights as a citizen. Right?

[sbirdog]

02:47 PM on 05/19/2010

I meant to say "not relevant to most..." Sorry about that.

[wendybaby10]

10:34 AM on 05/18/2010

Let's move on--she has said she is not gay. Surely we can get past the question of her sexual orientation and move on to more relevant information about her qualifications for the Supreme Court.I personally am more interested in her position on issues of today and how she is likely to rule than I am in her sexual preferences.

[sbirdog]

02:40 PM on 05/19/2010

Dittos.

[Eric Orwell]

10:17 AM on 05/18/2010

No one cares she is a woman.
No one cares if she is a lesbian.
This is all about making everyone miss the fact that we now have nothing but Roman Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court.

This is why the last 2 picks have been female minorities, to shift the focus on anything but the fact that America is dominated by the Catholics and the Jews, not only on the Supreme Court but also in the House and Senate.

The controlled opposition is not really even against her.
They bring up things like this because it only galvanize their support base, when we may not have normally supported having yet another Catholic/Jew in this position.

[Rachel E]

07:09 PM on 05/18/2010

Frankly, I likewise fail to see how religion is a relevant determinant. The only thing I can see it being remotely relevant to is abortion rights, but the evidence on that front just doesn't bear out. The pro-choice justices of the Supreme Court have included Catholics and Jews, and the pro-life justices of the Supreme Court have included Protestants. Most of them are mature enough to put their personal faith aside to rule on the letter of the law. Unless they clearly and egregiously hand down a ruling on no legal grounds whatsoever, how is it our business?

[theerrantsoul]

05:31 PM on 05/21/2010

Well said.

[sbirdog]

02:45 PM on 05/19/2010

Eric,
You really believe that anyone cares about the make up of the SC beyond their judiciary theology? Tell me you're joking. Aren't you 'profiling' here a bit? Should you investigate, further, if the majority of the legal profession is dominated by 'Roman Catholics and Jews?' Does the BAR discriminate against women or any other 'cultural' category? Hasn't the SC had women or 'so-called' minorities in place?

[Zonie]

08:46 PM on 05/17/2010

Could care less if she is a lesbian.

The argument is distraction from what I really want to know....what are her ties to Goldman Sachs all about?

[sbirdog]

02:46 PM on 05/19/2010

Let us not forget her connection to the 'softball' cabal!

[JohnJames]

05:58 PM on 05/17/2010

Kagan's sexuality is irrelevant? So explain to me, straight Democrats, why in 1972 Wisconsin was the first state to ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and since then gay Americans and their straight allies have only been able to add 19 other states to that list despite constant effort. That's right. It remains lawful in 30 states to fire a person because of their sexual orientation. So let's quit pretending that no one cares about sexual orientation when it suits a Democratic administration that's petrified of taking a principled stand on gay rights and the dignity of gay Americans.

[elcerritan]

04:37 AM on 05/18/2010

Excuse me, but what the hell does this have to do with KAGAN's personal life, one way or the other?

[Rachel E]

07:16 PM on 05/18/2010

As a gay rights activist, I find it offensive that you'd even draw a comparison. The point of the gay rights movement (and the civil rights movement) is to achieve equal treatment for all members of society regardless of their sexual orientation. Pointing to existing discriminatory laws during the confirmation process of a justice who MIGHT be gay does absolutely nothing to help anyone.

[Colorado Bobby]

05:46 PM on 05/17/2010

I can't wait until Rush is outed, Glenn is exposed by his former "partner" from his mission days, and then won't the fun begin at Faux Snooze!

[vgirl1]

05:12 PM on 05/17/2010

IT IS A DISGRACE THAT ANYONE EVEN THINKS IT IS MINUTELY APPROPRIATE TO BRING UP MS. KAGEN'S SEXUALITY AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION ON HER QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT.

SOME AMERICANS JUST HAVE SO MUCH INTOLERANCE.

[Beaucheron]

05:27 PM on 05/17/2010

And the Adminstration is just as guilty for asking. This is NOT our business. We should all be embarassed..........

[RLMcKee]

05:31 PM on 05/17/2010

They did not ask. Did you actually READ the article? This was a major point of it.

[Libby123]

05:28 PM on 05/17/2010

Kill the Caps Lock please.

[Yikes11]

04:48 PM on 05/17/2010

Scott Brown in the flesh.
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS337US337&q=scottt+brown+cosmo+pics&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=7Z3xS9iXOqLcM62c_N8P&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQsAQwAA

Kagan's background is tame, compared to this playboy.

[Supersteel]

05:44 PM on 05/17/2010

Scott brown's past was known to the voters who voted for him. Kagan is a pretty blank slate. We dont know a lot about her. and she is chosen by the senate and the president

In other words, the two are completedly unrelated.

[Colorado Bobby]

05:47 PM on 05/17/2010

Her personal life is irrelevant.

[leonhardsr]

04:38 PM on 05/17/2010

Supreme court nominie Kagan Phillosopy is the Same as Ubama and Holder. The next elextion the Country will get rid of these two wered politicians. If Kagan is nominated . She will be in the Position to ruin the United States for Many years.The democrats has lost any talent in there party.Check out there leaders.

[herbygee]

04:43 PM on 05/17/2010

And it's nice to know that unlettered cretins like you make such judgements. Have you perhaps heard of a dictionary or ever used spellcheck?

[elcerritan]

04:47 AM on 05/18/2010

His grammar and syntax leave a lot to be desired, too.

And yet he spreads his illiterate (and asinine) comments around by "social networking" and gets himself a fancy "badge." If anyone needs more proof that this "badge" B.S. is a bad idea, let me point to leonharder as Exhibit A.

[oberon123]

05:07 PM on 05/17/2010

Clearly being able to speak or write English is not a requirement to be a Huffpo Super User. Or maybe Leonhardsr is really Sarah Palin in disguise. In any case, go F yourself.

[theaetetus]

04:33 PM on 05/17/2010

so what did she say?

[Euterpe360]

04:44 PM on 05/17/2010

I was just thinking that myself.

[Sunshine1970]

05:12 PM on 05/17/2010

Does it really matter what her sexuality is? If she has the qualifications to be a SC judge then who cares?

[theaetetus]

06:25 PM on 05/17/2010

lotsa people care. if she was it would mean a huge step forward for the civil rights of LGBT community

[greysells2]

04:21 PM on 05/17/2010

America is a country with more than enough prudes and hypocrites when it comes to human sexuality. There are enough of them to influence public debate. It is never any of the public's business what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors. The press "plays to the gallery" by snooping and publishing their ill found smut. A sniggering and prurient public gobbles it up. Long live gossip and tittering!

[Euterpe360]

04:45 PM on 05/17/2010

HUZZAH!

[slaxx]

04:15 PM on 05/17/2010

how come the only articles that i have ever happened upon about kagan are about her sexuality and not one dealing with where she stands on the issues or her biography?