Well, yeah.I oppose Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience, and her main qualification is supporting Obama's radical and socialist views. In her senior thesis "Socialism in New York City (1900-1933)" she said "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." One can conclude from her statement that she is disappointed America still hasn't achieved that lofty goal of becoming a socialist nation.
As dean at Harvard, she opposed allowing military recruiters on campus because she disapproved of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. The Supreme Court ruled against her.Concerning the First Amendment, she feels that free speech should be balanced on "the value of the speech against its societal costs." In other words, if the government says it's OK, then you can say it. And most importantly, she agrees with our president that our Constituition is defective. She feels the court's role is to protect the little guy even at the expense of the law. She believes our founders had "outdated notions of liberty, justice, and equality." She is most impressed with the changes in law that have led to "... the emergence of enhanced methods of presidential control over the regulatory state."
I don't believe Elena Kagan can be relied upon to provide an impartial interpretation of the Constitution. The founders set up a republic to keep the power with the people. Kagan believes the power should reside with the ruler, preferably a socialist ruler.
Not so hard to sink in, eh?
And no need to stop with op-ed analyses from everyday folks. We have Elena Kagan's own lamentations on the disaster of Ronald Reagan's election, "Nov. 10, 1980: Fear and loathing in Brooklyn":
Looking back on last Tuesday, I can see that our gut response — our emotion-packed conclusion that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused — was a false one. In my more rational moments, I can now argue that the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore. I can say in these moments that one election year does not the death of liberalism make and that 1980 might even help the liberal camp by forcing it to come to grips with the need for organization and unity. But somehow, one week after the election, these comforting thoughts do not last long. Self-pity still sneaks up, and I wonder how all this could possibly have happened and where on earth I’ll be able to get a job next year.A more "leftist left"?
Well, we got that now, you think?
But to hear the chattering classes tell it, Kagan's actually a conservative. See NYT, "On Speech, Kagan Leaned Toward Conservatives" (via Memeorandum).
That's bull, of course: "Elena Kagan — Worryingly Wobbly On the First Amendment."
And when Miguel Estrada, George W. Bush's failed nominee for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, wrote a glowing letter in support of Kagan, the leftist press jumped on it with glee:
Talk about a class act.Jim Prevor responds at Weekly Standard, "The Right’s Supreme Court Acquiescence":
You'll recall that Miguel Estrada's nomination to a prestigious federal judgeship was blocked by Democrats and left-wing groups who grossly distorted his record and used every conceivable trick to keep the young, brilliant and, yes, conservative lawyer off the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and out of contention for an eventual spot on the Supreme Court.
But now, rather than join some of his fellow conservatives in blindly lambasting Elena Kagan, Estrada has offered an elegant and earnest testimonial advocating the confirmation of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
Miguel Estrada became something of a conservative hero as he endured the abuse of the left during his nomination process for the Appeals Court. There may be reasons for Republicans not to go to the mat on Kagan -- the next nominee may be worse, the Republicans may not hold their 41 votes, it may distract from issues such as the economy, etc. -- but there is no heroism in simply surrendering the Supreme Court to the left, which is the practical implication of Miguel Estrada’s letter.Actually, no surrender. I'd rather fight than quit:
BONUS: "Elena Kagan's Senior Thesis Princeton University," at No Sheeples Here! (But taken down at Red State following Princeton University copyright claims ... surprise, surprise, surprise!)
After some research into Kagan I now believe that she should not be a Supreme Court justice. She seems very iffy on free speech and the First Amendment. She also seems to be very iffy on the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThat iffiness leads me to believe that she has no real respect for the Constitution and for its precepts. One is forced to ask whether there is anything in the Constitution that she will hold fast on.
I do not find her "plagiarism" a plus either nor the fact she is another New York liberal with little experience outside the confines of the upper East Coast.
She is a danger to our freedom and to the Constitution.
Her inappropriate attitude towards the military on campus is all you need to know
ReplyDeleteGoing back to her undergraduate days is a bit too much. She's a grown woman now. The right question is: who is she now?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is: no one knows. There's some circumstantial evidence but the depth of her character and the nature of her principles are largely unknown.
You can't put an unknown on the Supreme Court. She doesn't have a record--not just a judicial record--but a record of any kind. Either that or the press is involved in a huge cover-up.