Editor's notes: this is a great article out of American Spectator. After reading this, consider the stated approach to Kagan's nomination on the part of the establishment GOP. Senator Kyl (R- Arz) has made it clear that a filibuster is not in the works. "The filibuster should be relegated to extreme circumstances, and I don't think Elena Kagan represents that," Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl told CBS’s "Face the Nation" last Sunday. Kyl and other conservative Senators are focused on Kagan's idiotic rejection of the military from the campus of Harvard University, a decision she pursued to the Supreme Court only to lose 8-0, unable to attract a single liberal justice to her point of view including Ginsburg and John Stevens. What they should be looking at is Kagan's ties to Obama in Chicago and her views of free speech. Hint: she does not believe that free speech principles apply to all people in all venues. She is pro net neutrality and for that, she should be rejected out of hand. Case closed. What conservative Senator's have missed and are missing, concerns itself with Obama's view of free political speech. He doesn't believe in it. The first shot across the bow of the first amendment was Obama's nomination of Sotomayor. His second shot is Kagan who holds similar views. No self respecting Republican congressman should ever consider the nomination of an anti-free speech candidate to the Supreme Court as anything but "extreme." Time for Kyl to be shown the door. . . . . . . . . and Kagan. --- jds
Elena Kagan: Estranged From America
It was not conservatives who first claimed that Elena Kagan is "estranged from America." Those strong words were used by liberal columnist Peter Beinart. He said in a blog piece posted on the Daily Beast, that "barring the military from campus is a bit like banning the president or even the flag. It's a statement of national estrangement."
Beinart went further. He said it showed "bad judgment." Well, what is it exactly that we want from our judges? Is it not judgment? So now, the Washington Post tells us that there's a "battle to define Kagan." What battle? She's already defined herself. She has always been left and lefter.
Here's a woman who describes her all-American upbringing on the West Side of Manhattan. It's a bluestocking district so liberal no Republican could hope to compete. There, the elections are decided in the Democratic Party primaries -- in September. She cut her political teeth interning for the ultra-liberal Congressman Ted Weiss (D-L-N.Y.) who would go on to demand that President Reagan be impeached. And she campaigned as a teen for the über liberal Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman.
Her Princeton senior thesis was titled ominously "To the Final Conflict," and lamented the failure of socialism in New York City, 1900-1933. She thought socialism's failure "a sad but also a chastening one for those who...still wish to change America."
Young Kagan in 1980 was already estranged from the weak tea Democratic policies of President Jimmy Carter. She was the editorial chairman of the student newspaper, the Daily Princetonian, when it excoriated Carter for reinstituting draft registration. He didn't actually draft anyone, but the mere requirement of 18-year old men to sign up for the military was enough to raise the hackles of Kagan and her early anti-military circle.
Not every outside influence was unwelcome on Princeton's campus in Kagan's time there. She and future New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer signed a manifesto which appeared in the student newspaper. They complained that Princeton's administrators had not consulted them about keeping pornography off campus. Do we have any doubt as to what a progressive view of pornography would be?
Kagan's story of election night, 1980, is revealing. She refers to the defeat of a cluster of liberal U.S. Senators in mournful tones. George McGovern, Frank Church, Birch Bayh, and John Culver all went down to defeat in the wake of Ronald Reagan's landslide victory. The pro-life senators who replaced them were, to young Elena Kagan, beneath contempt. She styled them as "avengers" of "innocent life."
Innocent life? Oh, that would be the millions of unborn children whose lives Kagan would not even recognize as lives. Do we really have any doubts as to what a Justice Kagan would think about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? Or even the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?
Some lives, of course, deserve more protection than others. Do we have any doubt that Kagan shares the view of this administration that captured terrorists deserve a presumption of innocence? This presumption of innocence would be extended -- being extended even to Khalid Sheikh Muhammed -- the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
Do we have any doubt where a Justice Kagan would stand on giving Miranda warnings to terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, Farouk Abdulmutallab, as well as American citizens like Nidal Hasan and Faisal Shahzad?
Al Qaeda watches CNN. They know how to use our ACLU-whipped court system against us. As former Vice President Cheney said:
Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
Do we really want another ACLU-er on the Supreme Court?
No comments:
Post a Comment