Some self-described progressives suggest that Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan should be "bashed" for standing up for gay patriots denied the right to serve in our military. I could not disagree more: if ever America needs strength and nuance, it's on issues of national security and equality.
The line of thinking goes something like "if you deny the military on campus it is like denying the flag or the President and estranges you from America. Just concede the issue so you can get military voters." I disagree on both counts.
First off, standing up for equality does not ipso facto estrange us from America. Dean Kagan's opposition to the military recruiters issue was not based upon opposition to the military as an institution, but in support of gay patriots wishing to serve and in defense of Harvard's non-discrimination policy which preceded her deanship. Then-Dean Kagan pressed for the change in military law and equality policy, joining the ranks of no less a conservative as Barry Goldwater who said, "you don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
Additionally, when the anti-military smear was leveled during her Solicitor General nomination hearings, young veterans themselves attested that Dean Kagan welcomed veterans on campus, writing "as Iraq War veterans who currently attend Harvard Law School, we wanted to inform the Committee of Dean Kagan's strong record of welcoming and honoring veterans on campus."
I attended University of California Hastings College of the Law in the early 1990s when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was initiated and the issue raged on campuses from California to Cambridge. Our stance as U.C. Hastings students was simple: open your recruiting to all of us based upon our school's non-discrimination policies or invite our students to interview at an off-campus location. The U.C. Regents and the Supreme Court ultimately disagreed, and the debate over DADT continues to this day. But to say that we were denying the military because we didn't think they should exist is patently false. In fact, some of my colleagues were veterans and one said quite often "the air force didn't care about my sexuality when they asked me to jump out of planes." Years later, when the SF School Board moved to cancel JROTC because - some said - they did not want to have any military presence, I took the "keep JROTC" view and voted for Prop V, a ballot measure drafted by JROTC students urging the Board to reconsider the cancellation because I believe JROTC has lifted up hundreds of thousands of young Americans and surely has a place in our community. Prop V passed and the SF School board voted 4 to 3 in favor of reinstating physical education credit for students enrolled in JROTC. Compromise and nuance worked. As my own experience has taught me, freedom to serve is a national security issue that requires nuance as we stand up for our patriots, gay and straight alike. No reason, therefore, to concede the point when we could benefit from a strong and nuanced national discussion on the march to equality from U.C. Hastings to Harvard.
Second, the political premise of "concede a point to gain votes" is wrong. Indeed, Democrats take pride in our efforts to separate the war from the warrior, and to encourage a culture of service among all Americans. My colleagues on the DNC Veterans & Military Families Council and allies around the country work tirelessly to promote veterans issues, support military families, elect Fighting Dems, and get out the vote. In 2008, the efforts paid off, considering that President Barack Obama received tremendous support from active duty service-members and military communities. (See Brandon Friedman's November 2008 HuffPost article demonstrated for a breakdown).
Yes, the issue of Don't Ask Don't Tell will continue to divide Americans until it is rescinded. (And change is coming, with 57% of Americans supporting the right of our lesbian and gay patriots to serve openly in the military). But there is a huge difference between banning the military recruiters or ROTC on campus because you hate the military and restricting their access when it conflicts with anti-discrimination policies. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Elena Kagan spoke against the military and everything to suggest that she went out of her way to defend the anti-discrimination policy and to welcome veterans. So to suggest that progressives simply allow anyone - much less our President's Supreme Court nominee - to be swiftboated on security and equality to gain political points is both bad politics and bad policy.
Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sfpelosi
DADT will, ultimately, I think, collapse of its own weight, but not, I suspect, until aspects of equal and equitable civil rights for gays and lesbians are fully tested in the courts at, I suspect, the highest level. To that degree, this may provide a window into Kagan's understanding of civil rights, particularly when coupled with her commentary supporting Marshall's critique of the Constitution as having clear defects.
Personally, although I view my own service as a 2lt with considerable ambivalence (it was an ugly and unpopular war) I look forward to the day that the policies of the military align with common civil rights values, and military recruitment can be ethically sustained without conflict on campus. To me, the maintenance of a balance between Acadamy trained cadre and ROTC officers is essential to retain a diverse military leadership.
In fact, the poll results stated that 57% supported the rights of gays and lesbians to serve. What do you think that little T at the end of LBGT stands for? That question was not asked. You need to be more precise, otherwise you are spreading falsehoods rather than reporting facts.
However...
If Mr. Obama demonstrated honesty when it comes to this issue, he wouldn't have had the audacity to claim, while addressing a West Point crowd of cadets and the nation, that "The United States is a great nation because it respects the dignity of all people."
That statement is not only flat out wrong, it is offensive the President expects gay people to eat up with a spoon that kind of empty rhetoric.
Also, as far back as '96 Obama was "unequivocally supportive of same-sex marriage"...but then he got aspirations of the White House and viola, FLIP-O-CHANGE-O. Against it.
So, I really can't quite believe Mr. Obama is intellectually honest on the subject of gay rights.
This is yet more of the hypocrisy the left has become famous for! Just like all those who were doves when Bush was in office are now hawks with BHO there, we'll see the usual suspects defending the indefensible here.
Students who want to join the military simply walk of campus and sign up at their local office.
And that's what makes those who argue for such antics hypocrites!
You say "the Military's discriminatory policy" except that it's not the military's policy. It was enacted through a Defense Directive issued by Bill Clinton that modified the gay ban in a Defense appropriations bill sponsored by House Armed Services Chairman Ron Dellums (D-CA) in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell
This wasn't a protest against DADT. It was a confirmation of the school's non-discrimination policy.
This is the role of a SC justice. Read the current laws on the books and determine whether said action conforms or violates the current policies of the insitution (or Constitution in the case of the the SCOTUS)). In this context she abided by the current policy of her institution. Just as I would expect her to abide by the current statutes and precendents which have been established within the framework of the Constitution and rule accordingly.
Neither yourself nor any of our elected Democratic leaders such as your mother have addressed the following issues:
Kagan may be a brillant legal scholar who is also a woman, but she's also extremely conservative because
1) "She once hosted a celebratory dinner for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia when he marked his 20th anniversary on the high court, and another time she drew a standing ovation from members of the Federalist Society during a national convention on campus."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/05/obama_to_make_kagan_pick_offic_1.html
I view Scalia as an extremist, and I blame him for engineering the Supreme Court majority opinion in which they appointed George Bush President and stopped the recount of votes in Florida which showed Gore leading back in Nov 2000.
2) During her hearings to be confirmed as Solicitor General, the New York Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without a trial -- even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone."
So Kagan supports indefinite detention without a trial and she praises Scalia. Christine, how do you reconcile her hosting the 20th anniversary party for extremist Scalia and her comments supporting unlimited detention?
I have met you on several ocassions.
Regards,
Katie
She once hosted a celebratory dinner for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia when he marked his 20th anniversary on the high court, and another time she drew a standing ovation from members of the Federalist Society during a national convention on campus."
Kagan is not "extremely conservative."
She hosted a dinner for a conservative justice, so she must be extremely conservative? Wouldn't that be part of her duties as Harvard Law Dean?
"Meanwhile, numerous accounts detail an appearance before a student branch of the right-wing Federalist Society at Harvard in February 2005. "I LOVE the Federalist Society!" she is said to have exclaimed, eliciting a standing ovation, while also saying, "But you are not my people.""
http://www.alternet.org/rights/146807/6_things_you_may_not_know_about_supreme_court_nominee_elena_kagan/?page=2
thanks very much, I stand corrected. I had just seen these bits about the Scalia 20th anniversary dinner and the statement about supporting unlimited detention and so it's easy to think the worst.
I have grave concerns about Kagan being the next Supreme Court Justice. She also lobbied for a ban on late term abortions to Presiden Clinton back in 1996, fyi. Did you know that four of the five most conservative justices since 1937 are on the bench today
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/12/ranking-the-politics-of-supreme-court-justices.html
In case you have no idea who former Alabama Gov Donald Siegelman is, I have kindly copied and pasted some info below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Testimony-Overlooked--For-by-KatieSF-090520-416.html
Alabama Republican Elmer Harris, the former head of Siegelman's transition team and former CEO of Alabama Power, says in a recent interview with 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman didn't accept a bribe. In fact, he states: "There was no bribe."
Harris explained he never testified because no one had ever asked him to, not the DOJ, not the US Attorneys, NO ONE. He says his testimony would have cleared Siegelman. Check out Harris'60 second interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3996872n%3fsource=search_video
If you missed the original 60 Minutes segment that was finally aired on Feb 24th(same night as the Academy Award Oscars), go to:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3870545n%3fsource=search_video