‘Puter and Volgi disagree on the relevance of Solicitor General Elena Kagan‘s (alleged) lesbianism as regards her fitness to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

Volgi believes Ms. Kagan’s (alleged) lesbianism is a private matter. Ms. Kagan has no obligation to disclose her sexuality. Nor has she any obligation to confirm or deny reports of her sexual orientation. ‘Puter’s certain Volgi will correct him if he has misstated Volgi’s position.

‘Puter agrees with Volgi’s position in nearly every case. One’s sexuality has nothing to do with one’s fitness to perform one’s job; only merit ought matter. Hence, ‘Puter’s more liberal position on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” However, ‘Puter believes Ms. Kagan’s case is unique for the following reasons.

1. Ms. Kagan is hiding a part of who she (allegedly) is. Normal, everyday Americans are entitled to do so. No one has a right to know what your sexual orientation is, unless you should choose to share that information. However, when you are seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, the fact that you are deceitful/misleading/obfuscatory about an essential part of who you are seems telling as to your character. Most especially because it appears Ms. Kagan did not hide her (alleged) lesbianism or (alleged) partner in the past. It is not Ms. Kagan’s alleged lesbianism that it disqualifying; it is her concealment that is. Particularly as her discomfiture seems newly acquired. If you are not willing or able to withstand scrutiny of who you are, then you are likely not tough enough for the job.

1a. ‘Puter notes in passing that it is high-sterical that the Democrats, normally full-throated proponents of gay rights, have been absolutely silent (and angrily dismissive) about the prospect of the first Lesbian-American Supreme Court nominee. Again we see the Obama Administration’s willingness to jettison supposed bedrock beliefs in the name of political expediency.

2. ‘Puter thinks Ms. Kagan’s (alleged) lesbianism, coupled with her actions related to the Solomon Amendment while dean of Harvard Law School, support an inference that she is willing to ignore the law to champion a cause she finds just. That is, Ms. Kagan’s (alleged) lesbianism is a plausible explanation for her statement that the military’s policy on homosexuality is “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order.” It further explains Ms. Kagan’s written statement, after determining to lift the ban on on-campus military recruitment, that she only did it to preserve federal subsidies of Harvard, the implication being that she sold her soul for thirty pieces of silver. Can Ms. Kagan be fairly and impartially apply the Constitution and the law to matters before her impacting homosexuals? Ms. Kagan’s record is at best unclear, and, as such, this is a fair point for Senate Judiciary Committee members to raise during her confirmation hearing.

2a. Ms. Kagan’s treatment of military recruiters on campus is “separate but equal” by another name. Don’t believe so? What if Harvard Law School adopted a policy of not permitting employers offering same-sex benefit packages access to students except through its Lambda organization? Do you have a problem now?

Ms. Kagan’s (alleged) lesbianism is an issue because Ms. Kagan herself has made it an issue. Without a years-long paper trail (as most other nominees with judicial experience have), we are left to infer her positions from her scant writing and her deeds. Ms. Kagan’s deeds lead to the reasonable inference that her (alleged) lesbianism may be an underlying reason for her flouting federal law requiring colleges and universities to permit on-campus recruiting by the military, based on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

A person who knowingly ignores applicable law to advance her own pet position does not possess the temperament rightly demanded of a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice. And that is why Ms. Kagan’s (alleged) lesbianism is relevant.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.