Where do such policies stop? What is the threshold that determines when a preference is for the supposed common good? Do 100 people have to like it? 1,000? There is no possible standard, thus it reduced to whim and fancy. Whim and fancy make poor standards of law.

No, to be able to support policy that goes against one’s preferences is not only admirable, but the only moral course, because it demonstrates that the principle that all humans are free to pursue their own rational self-interest actually matters. Government’s medium of action is force, and by what right can we threaten someone’s livelihood if they don’t want to support opera, for example? (If you don’t pay your taxes, you will have serious troubles, and taxes support opera).

I think my only reaction to someone supporting policies contrary to a personal interest would be to be suspicious. For instance: opera. The posited views make me wonder: 1) does your interest in opera extend to a belief that others should be interested in opera? 2) does your interest in opera extend to a belief that opera should be available? 3) does your view on government subsidization of opera remain if it meant opera would be discontinued versus less available? I would ask these questions because I think there is the potential for the views to be inconsistent and poorly founded (as with my own views), and I would want to verify that they are not poorly founded. Which isn’t to say that I think they are, since I’m sure you’ve considered the views with care, but I think additional specificity will sometimes eliminate apparent inconsistency.

Well put. That answers my question. Interestingly enough, Miguel Estrada, a Harvard classmate of hers and a conservative appointee of Bush, wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee endorsing her nomination. While I agree with you overall in your answer/post, I do fear a little concerning the Solomon Amendment. As a member of the US Armed Forces I am very dissapointed and a bit disgusted that schools in the past took federal government money while barring that same government’s military recruiters. Because Dean Kagan was so opposed to this amendment, and perhaps has some very deep personal reasons for this opposition, I am slightly concerned that she may not be able to defend such in a future legal battle. However, that is one small piece of legislation which is unlikely to come before the Supreme Court again anyway due to Rumsfeld v. FAIR.

As a side note on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy: I have thought a lot about this policy and beleive it should be re-emphasized and re-defined a bit so that all military members regardless of gender or sexual orientation must adhere to a high professional standard of conduct which should prevent any focus on one’s personal life and intimacy practices outside the workplace. In other words, I am so sick and tired of typical straight Marines dragging thier private intimate lives into every conversation. It is quite offensive. And many of the practices of military members is punishable under the UCMJ as it is (ie: Adultery, etc.). Overall, the military as a whole needs to raise the bar on the conduct of its members as it relates to their work demands. It is innappropriate for any military member to drag his/her personal intimate life into the workplace in any way, if such practices or unprofessionalism impact ones workplace, they should be punished (however, not outright removed, unless it is congruent with discharge under the UCMJ). For example, I know many Marines who through a Non-Judicial Punishment (under the UCMJ) have lost rank for domestic violence while living on base since the MP’s got involved. In similar fashion, if a Marine, regardless of sexual orientation, were to in someway negatively impact the workplace through his actions in his personal life, he would be punished. In other words, individuals who are homosexual should not be removed from the military even if they are open and others know about it. They should, like a heterosexual, be removed if they violate the UCMJ and let their personal life negatively impact the workplace.

However, with that said, I should inform the public that there are many openly gay members of the military who have not been discharged under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The fact is that their co-workers and leaders could care less about their sexual orientation because it does not impact their professional work and on a personal basis, their co-workers value their companionship in the armed forces. I believe this is quite common. For those who vehemently oppose the military because of their espoused “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy I challenge them to find a recent occurence when a member of the military (who DID NOT want to be discharged) was discharged for their sexual orientation. My guess is that most who get discharged essentially use it as an easy way to get out of the military, rather than upstanding members being forced out based on mere sexual orientation alone. My experience is that the fellow members protect those co-workers of theirs who are gay. Even in the Marine corps (which could be thought of as most hostile towards a gay member–this is not the case).

p.s. First! (Ever?!)