More on Kagan
Elena Kagan, Goldman Sachs flunky, O-bot and Liberal Academic ... are we ready for that? Yesterday, I mentioned that the Court no longer represents Americans in terms of religion -- I am not sure if you can hit all the gongs of perfect diversity. But I have real concerns about the type of people on the Court.
The Brethren -- the 9 Supremes -- are all from someplace that does not reflect our society. In education, Ginburg, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy all went to Harvard. Sotomayor, Thomas and Alito went to Yale. Stevens went to Northwestern. Breyer and O'Connor went to Stanford.... Assuming Kagan gets in, that would mean that 5 of the 9 were clerks for Circuit Court of Appeals judges or Justices of the Supreme Court. Precious few of them have EVER run a company, had to make a payroll, worried about the bottom line and felt the yolk of government regulation on their company.
Of course, that makes Obama's administration such a good fit: he has the lowest number of cabinet members and advisors having private sector experience of any American President. FAR lower than even Clinton and Kennedy. I recall that the number, in percentage terms, is less than 10% -- the next lowest in the 25% range (Kennedy).
One last little nugget: since Kagan is also reputed to be lesbian (closeted, but her partner relatively well known in the Harvard community) -- does this mean that she more likely to be willing to tamper with the Constitution to provide extra protection? It certainly explains a (well deserved) interest in "hate speech" and "diversity" and a loathing of "don't ask, don't tell." Fine on all that ... but I don't really see how the Constitution is defective in these regards: enforcement is. You cannot legislate morality, just as you cannot legislate thought, sexuality and belief. The risk here is that Kagan shows signs of being someone who might want to try. If she is "elevated," will she have to recuse herself from cases where sexuality and LGBT rights are impacted -- or even center stage?
I am perfectly OK with the sexual orientation of anyone on the Court ... Souter ... c'mon! I really don't think that it has any bearing as a jurist, unless the candidate themselves might decide to make it such. I'd prefer that Kagan "out" herself -- or refute it -- and take on bigots head-on. You see, for so long as Kagan remains closeted or refutes it, the longer Wingnut Rightwingers can use her as a lever: she only voted that way because she is "secretly...." And that brings the Court and our system into disrepute. If you choose to make yourself a public figure -- accept a Supreme Court nomination -- you don't get to hold your beliefs private: and that is precisely what Kagan herself wrote about Bork.
Still, I'd like to see DOMA shot down in flames ... and I am clearly conservative ... because it is about fundamental freedom and liberty.
The Brethren -- the 9 Supremes -- are all from someplace that does not reflect our society. In education, Ginburg, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy all went to Harvard. Sotomayor, Thomas and Alito went to Yale. Stevens went to Northwestern. Breyer and O'Connor went to Stanford.... Assuming Kagan gets in, that would mean that 5 of the 9 were clerks for Circuit Court of Appeals judges or Justices of the Supreme Court. Precious few of them have EVER run a company, had to make a payroll, worried about the bottom line and felt the yolk of government regulation on their company.
Of course, that makes Obama's administration such a good fit: he has the lowest number of cabinet members and advisors having private sector experience of any American President. FAR lower than even Clinton and Kennedy. I recall that the number, in percentage terms, is less than 10% -- the next lowest in the 25% range (Kennedy).
One last little nugget: since Kagan is also reputed to be lesbian (closeted, but her partner relatively well known in the Harvard community) -- does this mean that she more likely to be willing to tamper with the Constitution to provide extra protection? It certainly explains a (well deserved) interest in "hate speech" and "diversity" and a loathing of "don't ask, don't tell." Fine on all that ... but I don't really see how the Constitution is defective in these regards: enforcement is. You cannot legislate morality, just as you cannot legislate thought, sexuality and belief. The risk here is that Kagan shows signs of being someone who might want to try. If she is "elevated," will she have to recuse herself from cases where sexuality and LGBT rights are impacted -- or even center stage?
I am perfectly OK with the sexual orientation of anyone on the Court ... Souter ... c'mon! I really don't think that it has any bearing as a jurist, unless the candidate themselves might decide to make it such. I'd prefer that Kagan "out" herself -- or refute it -- and take on bigots head-on. You see, for so long as Kagan remains closeted or refutes it, the longer Wingnut Rightwingers can use her as a lever: she only voted that way because she is "secretly...." And that brings the Court and our system into disrepute. If you choose to make yourself a public figure -- accept a Supreme Court nomination -- you don't get to hold your beliefs private: and that is precisely what Kagan herself wrote about Bork.
Still, I'd like to see DOMA shot down in flames ... and I am clearly conservative ... because it is about fundamental freedom and liberty.
posted by Zaphod at Tuesday, May 11, 2010
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home