The Relevance of Biography

[babylonsister]

:wow: Will this line of questioning be acceptable one day? :scared:



http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/12/the-relevance-of-biography/#more-26184


The Relevance of Biography
Posted by Amy Sullivan Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 12:58 am


Will Saletan has a fascinating piece up at Slate right now about the extent to which the borking of Robert Bork at his Senate confirmation hearings involved questions about his religious beliefs. I had completely missed that part of the confirmation battle (in fairness, I was in ninth grade and seem to remember that I spent part of the summer at church puppetry camp because, yes, I am that much of a geek).

It's appalling to go back and see how Bork was compelled to address charges that he was an agnostic in statements like the following before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I don't want to go into my religious beliefs, but the report in a national magazine that I was an agnostic arose from the following conversation, and the reporter agrees that it rose from the following conversation. He said, ''You're not terribly religious, are you?'' And I said, ''Not in the sense you mean.'' That's it. … And I later denied that I was an agnostic, in The New York Times, when I got a chance to. I took him to be talking about regular—you know, great piety and regular church attendance, and that's what I meant. … But agnostic does not come out of that conversation in any way and I am not an agnostic, but that's as much as I think I should say about it.

Such an inquiry into a nominee's religious behavior and beliefs seems unthinkable now. But Saletan's point is that the same argument being made by those who demand Elena Kagan publicly reveal her dating history and sexual orientation--that this aspect of her personal life could affect how she approaches cases regarding homosexuality--was used to justify the religious inquisition of Bork.

You could also make the point that it's an especially treacherous slippery slope. If it's essential to know a judicial nominee's religious beliefs or sexuality because that sort of personal experience can't help but inform their judicial rulings, why not other aspects of their past? Why not ask female nominees whether they've ever had an abortion and male nominees whether they've ever had a partner who aborted? That kind of personal experience would seem to be relevant when deciding an abortion case wouldn't it?


more...

[Jennicut]

1. I think some of the questions about Bork were ridiclous but many people forget

that what cost him being confirmed was the argument that our current VP actually made about the right to privacy. That was what the votes against him were for on the Judiciary Committee. Asking personal questions IS a slippery slope and can easily backfire when they go to far. Would the GOP learn this lesson? I doubt it.

[Prism]

2. There are two belief systems here

1) Sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic is just as relevant, influential, and comment worthy as gender, ethnicity, or cultural background.

2) Sexual orientation is an ala carte sexual characteristic, and it is deeply invasive to ask about it just as it would be to ask which sexual position a person enjoys.

Number 1 is how the LGBT community sees it. Number 2 is deeply offensive.

A lot of people on DU have trotted out Number 2 this week. A lot.

A lot of people don't know LGBTers as much as they seem to think they do. This week has certainly been an education. And this week makes it clear that a lot of people need one. I am a lot less surprised about why the LGBT community has gotten such push back on our issues with this administration.

When this is what people think of our orientation, it becomes clear why our equality isn't all that important.