Kagan

Kagan. It could be worse ... Obama could have nominated some crazy from the 9th Circuit.  In case you don't know what that means, the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which contains California, is populated by hyper-liberal crazies, and of the last 16 cases granted certiorari from that Circuit by the Supreme Court, 14 have been reversed.

But she is no bargain either.

Elena Kagan was an aide to Joe Biden in the Bork hearings -- which she cited and lauded at the time and later as the ideal model for future confirmation hearing: Senators pressing nominees on what and how they will decide on issues likely to come before them.  She also served in the Clinton White House as an assistant counsel and then as a Deputy Policy Advisor.

Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School in 2003-2005 and presided over the whitewash of plagiarism proved and admitted by two liberal professors (one being Larry Tribe). Essentially, Kagan and Larry Summers found no malfeasance for conduct that would have at least suspended any undergrad and did result the failure to graduate of two recent law school students. A third had their degree revoked. Boosters call her someone that hired conservatives ... someone who brought sides together, a consensus builder. But the same talking heads have been telling us the same thing about Obama.

Kagan is Solicitor General ... essentially she represents the Government before the Supreme Court defending government actions as constitutional. She has been doing this for one year. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all the court experience she has. She has never been a judge. She has never had to defend her interpretations of the law before judges. She is a theoretician. An academic. 

Kagan is yet another Eastern Liberal who is going to tell us what is good for us and trample the constitution in the process. Another Harvard blowhard out of Obama's bag of Harvard blowhards (or Goldman Sachs personnel).  Kagan, as a academic has but 5 published articles ... a truly paltry number for someone in the "publish or die" business of tenure, etc.  But since her boss, POTUS has never published anything and yet worked as a Constitutional Law professor (and got it wrong in the State of the Union Address), we should not be too surprised.

What do we know about her, apart from a lack of substantive experience and a taste for grandstanding while eviscerating potential conservative nominees?

We know that she is a supporter of the Federal Government's regulatory powers, she is no fan of State's rights. She is a supporter of increased reach of "hate speech" laws and as a consequence, likely not a fan of the 1st Amendment.  How do we know? Of the few things she has published, one was entitled "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V." She also wrote a law review article; "Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine."

She is an ardent advocate of anti-discrimination laws ... even where they may have a disproportionate and reverse discriminatory effect. Examples? As Dean of Harvard Law School, she support Harvard's long-standing ban on ROTC and military recruiting on campus because of Clinton's "dont' ask, don't tell" policy: she felt that it discriminated against lesbians and gays. (Campus Progess). When she was faced with judicial decisions that might support the Federal Government withholding funding, she allowed the recruiters back on campus but at the same time exhorted the students to protest and demonstrate against "don't ask, don't tell." She wrote, "it causes me deep distress."

At Princeton, for her senior thesis, she wrote about the socialist movement in New York City in the early 20th Century.  Hang on, doesn't this start to sound similar to Obama antecedents? Go back to my post reflecting on Obama's past influences.  Her clerkship upon graduating Harvard Law School ... Justice Thurgood Marshall. So she does have some idea how the Supremes work, no fooling, and working with a singular Liberal genius. As an aside, nothing but respect for Justice Marshall, he WAS the man.

AND GET THIS ... too funny if it was not true: from 2005 through 2008, Kagan was (wait for it ...) a member of the Research Advisory Council of the GOLDMAN SACHS Global Market Institute. All f-ing roads lead back to Goldman Sachs. Every stinking one of them.

Plus side? She appears to support the notion that during wartime POTUS may detain enemy terrorists indefinitely without trial, or at least dispense with the niceties of civil prosecution. But what constitutes "wartime" is not clear, and might make the foregoing moot. She appears to be to the right of departing Justice Stevens (Ford was a complete sphincter in appointing him), but that is really not saying much.

A last reflection: as Stevens leaves, the Supreme Court will be made up of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Yet, Protestants remain the most numerous denomination in the U.S.  In fact, add the rest together, and you don't reach Protestant numbers. In a Court and society so desperate for diversity and representation, it strikes me that this apparently does not matter.  Or?

The notion being put about by O-bots like the Huffington Post, Salon and NY Times that "Liberals are afraid that Kagan might move the Court to the Right, perhaps substantially..." is part of the smoke screen being laid down to mislead the American public. If lots of media start stating that this is a "risk," the thought is that perhaps some Republican Senators can be snookered into supporting her as a back-door victory over Obama. Don't be fooled. She is a genuine Liberal Looney Lefty, an O-bot of the highest grade and pedigree.

If seated, she will be around for a LONG time ... she is only 50 years old.