If. And If.


Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor of Cato Unbound. He's on twitter as JasonKuznicki. His interests include political theory and history.

Related Post Roulette

10 Responses

  1. Avatar Trumwill says:

    I’m not sure I agree with the premise that a closeted gay is a problem because she might vote against gays to cover her tracks. There is no job in the country more bulletproof than a Supreme Court nominee. It’s extraordinarily difficult to be fired and it’s not something anyone wants to be promoted from. She’s a career person. It’s unlikely that she is under much social pressure to be straight, either.

    It’s a more weighty variation to what I’ve said about John Roberts’s bald crown. If I was in as public in a position as he, I would not let that happen… but then again, being Chief Justice of the Supreme Court means not having to care if your balding pattern looks goofy.Report

    • Avatar Kyle says:


      I would agree with this.

      If I were concern trolling it’d only be that if she were gay, some of the positions taken by the government in her role as SG and the WH’s response demonstrated setbacks to the community at the expense of her personal ambition but that’s the best I can do as DA here. There are plenty of other reasons to love/hate her nomination besides wondering who she fancies.Report

  2. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    Perhaps she’s asexual. I hear that people say that’s a real thing. But I’m not sure it means they have no orientation at all so much as just very low libido. A low-magnitude vector, as it were. Or maybe it’s just B.S.

    In any case, for those who say it is just simply no business of the public’s, I just think that pretending we aren’t going to be curious whatsoever about the private lives of public figures is silly. I don’t claim to have a right to know every detail of anyone’s life. But where question marks stand in where there is usually some basic representation of a personal life, whatever it might be, I don’t think we are obligated to check our natural curiosity at the door. This extends just to basic questions – major relationaships, interests, etc. – again, I don’t think every whisper and wiggle of public folks’ lives are subject to public review. But neither is modest, basic curiosity an intrusion. There’s every good reason to limit how much we think we’re entitled to. But some basic curiosity is natural.

    I’m not really sure about any of this, though. Thoughts?Report

    • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

      @Michael Drew,

      I basically agree, although it’s not simply our natural, understandable curiosity. If someone has a romantic interest in their life, the nature of that relationship (or relationships) may reveal something about their character. But we can’t assess those relationships until they are at least somewhat publicly acknowledged.

      As of yesterday, there is some more credible denial that Kagan is a lesbian, so I’m going to drop it. She could still be bisexual of course, but I don’t see any evidence for that, and the odds don’t favor it.Report

  3. Avatar North says:

    She isn’t gay. Nor is she gay closeted. Obama wouldn’t have nominated her if she were. The man is controversy shy, he wants an easy nomination fight.Report

    • Avatar Scott says:


      You seem fairly sure of that. If so, then why the picture of her playing softball in the WSJ? Is it just a picture or something else? Inquiring minds want to know.Report

      • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:


        Conservatives would love a controversy like this one. So they print a picture of her conforming to a lesbian stereotype. Then they insist that something must be lurking behind it. The controversy manufactures itself. Inquiring minds? Please. The inquiry was over before it started.

        Incidentally, I find there are three generally acceptable answers, and two unacceptable ones, to the whole question. Acceptable: (1) I’m straight. (2) I’m a lesbian. (3) I’m bisexual.

        Unacceptable: (1) It’s none of your business. (2) Any of the “acceptable” answers, said untruthfully.

        It is our business here, and the usual rules of caution don’t apply, because (a) Kagan is already very secure and in a position of power that she isn’t about to lose, so it’s not as if outing her will devastate her in any way at all; and (b) knowing about a public official’s family is a matter of course for heterosexuals. I’d like it to be that way for everyone.Report

        • Avatar Scott says:

          @Jason Kuznicki,

          I know sarcasm doesn’t always do well on the net but you seem to take it a bit too seriously. I thought the headline which no one mentions was perfect for the picture and quite funny. I didn’t think there were any sinister motives b/c sometimes a picture is just a picture.Report

        • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

          Very unacceptable: “Straight, of course, because homosexuality is against the word of God! Isn’t that right, Lucien?”Report

      • Avatar North says:

        @Scott, Heh, do no straight chicks play baseball? None at all?

        No I am pretty sure though. Nominating a lesbian to the supreme court would take some serious balls. Balls are not really Obama’s M/O right now. I wonder if Jesse actually did manage to cut them off during the primary?Report