Kagan is Another Dubious Choice

Have you noticed how much the new Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan physically resembles our Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano?


And after we conservatives warned that Napolitano was unqualified to be DHS secretary based on her unwillingness to enforce immigration laws when she was governor of Arizona, we have seen the expected incompetence in her federal role.


Napolitano even said that “the system worked” after the Christmas Day bomber failed to detonate his weapon on the Detroit-bound flight, when in fact it was only dumb luck that the explosives did not bring down that plane. This is the type of absurd comment that gets conservatives canned. If conservatives were stupid enough to make them, that is.


Now we have Kagan, who is as far removed from the real world as any person in America – born and raised in New York City, Princeton, Harvard Law, U Chicago law professor, dean of Harvard Law. And if approved by the US Senate, she will fail us as a Supreme Court justice just as Napolitano has failed at DHS.


Because a person as far left as Kagan – you don’t become Harvard Law dean by campaigning for Dick Cheney – is going to bend the law to her political ends, not interpret it. And she will never even acknowledge that there is a difference. Because in the rarefied and isolated bubble of leftist legal academia every rule, law, standard, precedent and discipline is manipulated only for intellectual/political gain, not for settling real-world issues in a fair and balanced manner under the Constitution.


Remember when Obama talked in 2009 about a Supreme Court justice needing “empathy”?


Well, it turns out that Kagan once called “a thing of glory” the view of Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall that the courts must “show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged” and “to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion”.


This is wholly un-American. Anyone who genuinely understands history and political theory knows that judicial fairness under a republican Constitution is a bedrock institution established to safeguard all citizens equally, not to “show a special solicitude” for certain people based on race or social status.


Would justice Kagan vote to exonerate a poor black who killed a rich white man for no reason whatsoever?


Apparently that would be possible. Her philosophy like affirmative action works precisely that way.


Already the Conscience of the US Senate James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, has said that he will oppose Kagan. And this should be a positive signal since Inhofe was the only person in the Senate with the courage to call out Al Gore for his myriad lies and obfuscations on ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ or whatever Gore is calling it these days.


When president Obama said recently that “powerful interests” are intervening in the legal system to deny rights to us ordinary citizens, he failed to mention the “powerful interests” of the left and how they harm us little folks – labor unions (which push up our prices), the poverty lobby (which pushes up our taxes), the enviro movement (which kills our jobs and jacks up our energy costs) along with homosexuals, illegal immigrants, blacks and other groups that an elitist like Kagan is naturally friendly to in a special-interest sort of way.


Of course, the “powerful interests” of the American military do not appear on Kagan’s radar screen at all.  She denied the military the right to recruit on the Harvard Law campus over homosexuality. But it was not by dint of the fact that gays are banned from the military, but by dint of the fact that gays who identify themselves are banned. Kagan pronounced our armed forces guilty of “a moral injustice of the first order” for carrying out the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy of the Clinton administration.


So rather than expecting gays to serve their country quietly and obediently like every other soldier does, Kagan found it appropriate to ban the armed forces from recruiting at Harvard Law. Which is surely a plus for our uniformed personnel. After all, what Harvard Law student could the military possibly want?


Perhaps a Harvard janitor or grounds-crew member would be more appropriate military material.


Kagan has never even been a judge. And while they say that Marshall went from solicitor general of the United States (chief lawyer for the government) to the Supreme Court as Kagan wants to do, he previously had served as a circuit court of appeals judge. So the comparison between Kagan and Marshall is unfounded.


Will Kagan, if seated, say that “the system worked” when a white firefighter is discriminated against and denied a promotion simply because no black people passed the promotion test?


Will Kagan advocate ‘social justice’ which is not to be confused with ‘justice’. Because the ‘social justice’ that comes out of Harvard and U Chicago is the diametric opposite of real justice; it is like using the courts to help “the despised and disadvantaged”. The concept of ‘social justice’ is based solely on race and grievance, like when you tell white firefighters to drop dead because no blacks passed the promotion test (as Sotomayor did) ignoring the fact that the black people perhaps weren’t smart enough or didn’t study hard enough.


No, that couldn’t possibly be the case under the ‘social justice’ regime, where every parameter is skewed for political ends. Which is precisely the type of system our Founders intended to avoid at all costs. 


Kagan also showed leftist sympathies by writing about socialism in her senior thesis:


“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.”  (end of excerpt)


This pedantic thinking shows that if someone as poorly qualified, radical and, frankly, as bland as Elena Kagan had been nominated by George Bush, she would not have a prayer of confirmation.  And Kagan should not become our next justice on the Supreme Court. She is biased, petty and has shown a propensity to think irrationally about the issues, and about the very concept of the rule of law itself. 


Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.