Barack Obama Sets Another Record for Incompetence
with Elena Kagan Nomination to Supreme Court
With the Sotomayor nomination and now the Elena Kagan nomination to be a United States Supreme Court Justice, Barack Obama is setting a record. Yes, yes he is attempting for the first time to place three women on the nation’s highest court. Yes, yes, for the first time it will be possible that the U.S. Supreme Court will not have a Protestant justice (Kagan is Jewish) . . . but more importantly, for the first time it will be possible that the U.S. Supreme Court would feature two justices who have seen their interpretations of American law overturned by a 9-0 or 8-0 contrary vote (against a Sotomayor judicial decision; and a Kagan advocacy position). The obvious assumption? Kagan, like Sotomayor, is a “living constitutionalist” that is she believes in creating law or attempting to create it from the bench or the advocate's chair or even the Dean's chair rather than making sincere efforts to respect the United States Constitution.
The shocking matter is that both cases featured the two ladies advocating great expansion of government powers against individual liberties. Sotomayor was clearly unqualified for the Supreme Court seat because in her two cause celebre`s one favored affirmative action that took away earned (by test scores) promotion from twenty-some firefighters of mixed races but NO Blacks in favor of affirmative action promotion of Black candidates who failed the test; and in another she sided with the state’s power to force an individual to sell his land over his objection so that a corporation could build a potentially lucrative shopping center. Like Sotomayor, Kagan, also, stands right in the crosshairs of legal philosophy. You’ll recall that Barack Obama insulted the Supreme Court attendees at his state of the union speech by cutting them down for their alignment 8-0 on corporate free speech and campaign donations. Kagan was the lawyer, technically the “solicitor general,” arguing the case for Obama when he tried to shutdown corporate free speech.
Kagan’s most clearly controvrsial actions as Dean of Harvard’s Law School were banning the presence of military recruiters on the campus and her defense of the action by referring to her distaste for “don’t ask don’t tell” standards for soldiers and other military citizens. Conservatives across the board favor denying federal funds to schools that oppose military presence (ROTC programs, recruiters’ visits and guest speakers for the most part) and this alone makes her highly suspect. Voicing her opposition to the policy is totally, OK. Rajjpuut disagrees mightily with her opinion, but free speech is guaranteed. Banning the recruiters is totally out of line . . . she was taken to court on the matter and when it reached the Supreme Court, surprise, surprise, her lower court wins were overturned and the school was denied government funding.
Kagan has been very guarded and even ingenuous about her views. Feigning a belief in constitutional limits regarding one matter in her only semi-open interview, she was pushed later in the interview for clarification and she would only say, she was referring to present status of the law, not necessarily her own views. The Obama administration has not allowed her since then to talk to the press. They engineered a phony-interview with an Obama administration sending her softball question and released that videotaping to the various press outlets apparently fearing another gaffe. So the opponent of free-speech is protected by denying the country a free-speech interchange with the news media??
She’s lived a circumscribed life in Academe and government, never had a real job and has always been aligned with the progressive-left leadership. Every action and word indicates that she’s like all those who in their ivory-towered stupidity believe we must “progress” well beyond the U.S. Constitution . . . ready, perhaps eager, to progress us over every available cliff in search of political correctness and expansion of government. Elena Kagan will definitely NOT exhibit a “principled view of the U.S. Constitution. Nor of common sense . . . she kicks the United States military off her campus and want federal funding for her unilateral UN-American show of political correctness??? Horse Pucky! Peter Beinart, no conservative he, puts it this way:
“On the day he or she is unveiled, conservatives will announce that they are approaching the selection with an open mind. Ten minutes later they will declare, more in sadness than anger, that the nominee has the judicial philosophy of Chairman Mao and the temperament of Dennis Rodman. Ten minutes after that, liberals will rise en masse to defend the nominee as wise, brilliant and humane, a person who restores our faith in humankind. And the kabuki theater will continue like that all summer long.
Beinart has just committed the ultimate sin of political incorrectness in supporting a conservative argument and been proved right beyond the shadow of a doubt by the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Kagan's ugly argument 8-0, If only the United States Senate had Beinart's guts and integrity . . . .
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
Brigitte Gabriel
MG Paul E. Vallely
