Hearings we’d like to see

Sen. Hatch:  Professor Kagan, can you tell the committee what your sexual orientation is?

Elena Kagan:  Yes, Senator, I can.  However, I will not. All you, personally, need to know about my sexual orientation is that I’m not, and could never be, interested in you. Other than that, it’s NOYFB.

Next question?

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

8 thoughts on “Hearings we’d like to see”

  1. Is this really going to be an issue? I hope not, but who knows what will happen given the raucous nature of today's political debate.

  2. I'd rather hear the following question: "Not so long ago, you were arguing before the Supreme court that book banning was constitutional. Do you really believe that book banning is constitutional, or were you simply willing to argue in favor of violating the Constitution because that's what your employer at that time was asking for?"

  3. No, you wouldn't like to see those hearings. The reply might give you a brief thrill, but once a Senator opens the door the media will rush in with:

    1– repeating the question.

    2– when getting no answer, start investigating.

    3– calling the lack of proof a coverup.

    4– crib notes from Limbaugh, and talk about the possibility of blackmail, and of there being a secret homosexual agenda that would explain why she can't be open about her sexuality.

    5– wondering what else she's covering up

  4. I must say, it makes me sad that this would make the second woman on the Court with no nuclear family of her own (whether traditional or no). It makes me wonder if women are still having to give up more than men to be that successful. And I would guess such women have better chances of having a partner if they are lesbian. It's too bad.

    I mean, since we're wildly speculating about stuff that's none of our business…

Comments are closed.