And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Posted on: May 12, 2010

A blog post I brought home from another blogger who had done the research I am too lazy to do.  This Old Broads  allergies are acting up today!  A big thank you to Jackie Durkee at

Also to my friend and frequent commenter Hungry for Food for the tip.  BB

By: hungry4food on May 12, 2010
at 9:15

Who is Elena Kagan?

by Jackie Durkee


As a biography for her, here are the following points:

  • 1960 – Born April 28 in New York City
  • 1981 – Earned her Bachelor’s Degree from Princeton University, summa cum laude.
  • 1983 – Earned her Master of Philosophy degree from Oxford University
  • 1986 – Received her Juris Doctor at Harvard Law School
  • 1987 – Served as judicial clerk for Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. circuit.
  • 1988 – Served as judicial clear for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court.
  • 1995 – Began as Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy under President Bill Clinton
  • 1999 – Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  • 2003 – Appointed as first female dean at Harvard Law School
  • 2005 – Began service as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute.
  • 2009 – Became the first woman to hold the position of Solicitor General of the U.S.

Another area of controversy is her senior thesis, “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.  The Weekly Standard obtained a copy of it and here are a couple of excerpts from it:

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?”(pp. 127)

“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. 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. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.” (pp. 129-130)

Now I have no clue if she is a socialist.  Some websites have said that just because she wrote this in her thesis that it doesn’t mean she supports it.  They cite that she wrote from an entirely historical perspective.  It was in fact a history thesis.  Given Obama’s radical agenda, I would not be surprised to learn that she at least has sympathies in that direction.

However, I would like to read the whole thesis before I make a judgment there.  I would love to read other things she has written down through the years, but those documents are also impossible to find.  One other red flag that comes for me is her affiliation with Goldman Sachs in their Global Market Institute, yet I cannot find any articles attributable to her.

The biggest thing so far that I fear about the nomination of Elena Kagan is the lack of information about her and as a scholar and intellectual that seems a bit suspicious.


  1. Looks like you’ve already made up your mind that the most conservative nominee from a Democratic President ever isn’t good enough for you.

      By: Poker Face on May 12, 2010
      at 8:57 am


      • You are probably right. I can say that because Obama chose her, I start out skeptical and that is why I then try to research the person, and NO, I don’t go straight to Fox News. I’ve been reading articles everywhere from the Huffinton Post to Wiki-pedia and everywhere else I can find something. I really want to read what she herself has written, or listen to things she herself has said. Then I can get a better feel for who she really is – apart from all the spin.

        And yes, you are right that it is because a democractic President nominated her, just like most liberals, progressives and Democrats are skeptical when a Republican president nominates a person. I guess that means we’re human.

          By: Jackie Durkee on May 12, 2010
          at 9:24 am


          • Fair enough.
            I wish there were more conservatives like you.

              By: Poker Face on May 12, 2010
              at 9:27 am

        • Jackie, I am a political blogger and have started researching Kagan but you have done all the work all ready so I am borrowing your post and taking it home to my readers. Then I can just add some of the other things I have learned about her.

          Because she seemed at first to be the least leftist of those that were getting publicity I too thought she would be the best but do not feel this way now. Besides having not judicial experience she is a lesbian and therefore very much into changing our marriage laws, she is very much for abortion and has said so and she is prejudiced against the military. Not someone I want on the highest court in the land. Sincerely Brenda Bowers

            By: Brenda Bowers on May 12, 2010
            at 10:03 am


            Your comment is awaiting moderation.


          1 Response to ""

          Well, Brenda, good for you. But I would have started questioning this choice right from the word go. She was appointed by Obama, someone who, as far as I’m concerned, has not met the highest standards of what a President should be. Actually he hasn’t even met the lowest standards.

          That being said, here’s another one from Harvard, a school if I can remember correctly has on staff professors, 78% of which are progressives (radical, socialists to me).

          But worst of all, beyond your objections, here is another one where we cannot or there just is not enough info on her for us to look at, in order to make an intelligent decision.


          I do recall that they publicly said, when asked if he had been vetted, that they could do that after he won the primary. And the people just went along.

          After the DNC chose him to run in the election instead of Hillary, they never vetted him. In fact as of this writing he has never been vetted. And you know what trouble
          we have because of this.

          Now, these same morons want us to just “go along again” and take their word that she’s perfect for the job?

          I have to say, if I won $250 Million or even $2 Million dollars in the Lottery and I had a kid graduating from high school with all A’s and that he was qualified to attend any college in the country. There is no way in hell I would allow him to go to Harvard. I have seen what they produce and “it ain’t pretty”.

          Leave a Reply

          Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:


          You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

          Google+ photo

          You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

          Twitter picture

          You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

          Facebook photo

          You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


          Connecting to %s

          See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

          Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

          Join 97 other followers

          BB’s file cabinet

          %d bloggers like this: