This post and the next one I have stolen from other bloggers. But my readers all know that I am a lazy Old Broad who will take something I think is good to bring it to them. This post is from my dear friend Joe Guarino and is a series of comments by knowledgeable people Joe has taken from the National Review Online. This and the next post from another blogger should give you the information you need to determine the qualifications of probably the person who will be the next judge appointed to the Supreme Court.
Kagan’s appointment will be a misfortune for our nation. Then again as I said on Joe’s site: “Joe, I am still wading thru National Review today, so thank you for picking out these salient points concerning Kagan. The only thing that I can see as good about her appointment is that if Obama and his communist friends here and around the world have their way then the Supreme Court will soon be abolished. In point of fact, I believe it is the policy with Marxist governments to round up all the intellectuals who have supported them and place them in a mass grave. BB”
Be sure to read all the comment also. Some very intelligent and insightful people visit Joe’s blog. BB
Her lack of judicial experience and the paucity of her scholarship are not assets for the job. But they are not disqualifying. Neither does it matter if she is a lesbian, save insofar as her sexual orientation (whatever it is) may relate to (as cause or effect of) her convictions about the meaning and nature of marriage. These convictions matter a great deal to her qualifications. And they point to grounds for opposition to her…
Anyone who believes that the Court in Roe v. Wade misread the Constitution and, in so doing, exposed unborn persons to murderous acts should require Kagan to state that she believes that Roe was wrongly decided. In light of the grave injustice that Roe unleashed upon our land, she should further be required to say that Roe lacks legitimacy, and that it should be overruled at the first appropriate opportunity.
The second matter is marriage. Kagan is on record as saying that traditional marriage laws lack a “rational basis.” This is tantamount to saying that she would read the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate same-sex marriage across the land. If Kagan is permitted to act on these views, she would participate in a social revolution as momentous as that delivered in Roe. This one, too, would alienate most Americans from the Supreme Court, even from the Constitution itself. It would be another institutional disaster piled on top of a grave injury to the common good.
Our central focus should be to expose Kagan’s troubling, subjective standard of judging, namely that the high court exists primarily to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.”
The opposition — i.e., the defenders of limited government and our written Constitution — needs to start talking right away about Kagan’s view, shared by her old boss Thurgood Marshall, that the U.S. Constitution was “defective” from the start.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s record includes an affiliation with hard-line pro-abortion organizations. Kagan has contributed money to a pro-abortion organization, the National Partnership for Women and Families, which lists as one of its major goals to “block attempts to limit reproductive rights.” We all know that this refers to abortion. But, somewhat atypically, they go on to make their agenda explicit, stating that their objectives include: “to give every woman access to . . . abortion services”…
Through her association with this group and articles she has written, Kagan has staked out a clear position of active support for unrestricted abortion.
Kagan waded into the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case, amending a brief that offered “responsible procreation” as a reason for DOMA to instead explicitly reject procreation and child wellbeing as a reason for defining marriage as one man and one woman — undermining the law she claims to be defending. We’ve seen this tactic in state litigation before: Attorneys general pretend to defend the marriage law but sabotage the case by explicitly rejecting procreation as a reason for marriage. (See Jerry Brown in California.)
If you doubt my reading of Kagan’s record, see the Human Rights Campaign’s press release, which specifically cites her support for “marriage equality” in cases before the Supreme Court as a reason for voting for her.
HRC and Maggie Gallagher agree: A vote for Elena Kagan is a vote for finding a constitutional right to gay marriage that will overturn marriage laws in every state.
In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law—is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.”
Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to “victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber . . .” Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term “innocent life” in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?
Kagan’s exclusion of military recruiters from the Harvard law school campus promises to draw considerable attention precisely because—as Peter Beinart, the liberal former editor of the New Republic, has written—it amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.” In her fervent opposition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Solomon Amendment, Kagan elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security. At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists…
Kagan has indulged her own ideological views in the one area, gay rights, in which she has been vocal: as law school dean, Kagan embraced an utterly implausible reading of the Solomon Amendment, and as Solicitor General, she has acted to undermine the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Defense of Marriage Act that she is duty bound to defend.
Pres. Barack Obama has chosen to replace the only military veteran on the Supreme Court with extensive wartime experience* with a nominee whose only significant record indicates hostility and opposition to laws protecting the culture and best interests of the American military.
Posted at 11:36 AM | Permalink