Is Kagan Jewish? Is she a lesbian? Who cares? What are her values?

I am sure that many Jews are just thrilled that President Obama has nominated a Jew, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, to the Supreme Court.  (She even had the first Bat Mitzvah at Lincoln Square Synagogue!)  For the record, that will make three Jews of nine justices on the Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer being the others).  The over-representation is beyond overwhelming.  Jews represent around 2% of the American population, yet are close to being 33% of the Supreme Court, an over-representation by nearly seventeen times.  (By the way, why is there no talk about this skewed diversity of the Court, from those who preach about diversity so often?  There are currently five Catholics on the Court (55%), yet Catholics represent less than 25% of the population, while Protestants, of whom there will soon be none, represent more than 50% of the population.)

For some Jews, this may be a badge of pride.  For me, however, I am ashamed that the two Jews already on the Court, and the one poised to join it, are such poor representatives of traditional Jewish values.  (I believe that modern conservatism is much closer to traditional Jewish values than modern liberalism.  I look forward to writing on this in the future.)  Admittedly, Ms. Kagan's record is far from clear.  But since we do know at the very least that she made it extremely difficult for ROTC to recruit at Harvard, in my book that's one strike against her.  Additionally, she was nominated by the most left-wing President in American history, who has made it clear he wants to leave his mark on American history.  Does anyone seriously believe he would have nominated a Center or Right person?  I realize, of course, that to most liberals, identity politics is paramount.  "Be more concerned with a person's race, gender, or class than with her values," they tell us, albeit more palatably.  "If you want someone to be concerned with what is important to you, then support someone who is of your race, gender, or class."  Or, in this case, religion.

But do Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and Solicitor General Kagan, represent my beliefs as a traditional Jew?  No, they do not.  I find I have much more in common with the values of a number of Catholic justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) than I do with the Jewish ones.  Why?  Because I am much more concerned with someone's values than with anything else about him.  Period.  He is a Jew who shares my values?  I'll support him.  She is a Muslim who shares my values?  Ditto.  He is a Red Sox-loving transgender from Jupiter who shares my values?  Ooooh, that's a bit tougher.  I'll get over the Red Sox part.  I'll support him.

Which brings us to the lesbian issue.  Writers on both sides of the aisle are debating whether or not Kagan's purported lesbianism.  I disagree with any opinion which says she must address the issue.  Why is it anyone's business what she does in the privacy of her home?  As I wrote regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor, the issues of ethnic background, gender, and, in Elena Kagan's case, sexual preferences, are completely inconsequential to me.  If Elena Kagan is a lesbian, good for her.  If she is a heterosexual, good for her.  Since I assume she is a devoted liberal (Upper West Side of Manhattan upbringing, Princeton undergraduate, Harvard Law, and Oxford have a tendency to do that to you), I say, bad for the country.

I wish we could get to the point where the only issue which mattered to a candidate's fitness for higher office was his or her record, and views on important issues.  But thanks in large part to liberals, we have to deal with a candidate's/nominee's race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. 

As if any of those things tells you what a person's view is on any given subject.  To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the values, stupid."