Posted on 05/24/2010 10:44:50 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
As part of the marketing of Elena Kagan's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the White House is trotting out some graduates of Harvard Law School to vouch for Kagan, who served as dean before going to work as Barack Obama's solicitor general. A conference call Tuesday morning will feature three recent graduates talking about her support for public service -- including a Texan described by the White House as a Republican political consultant, Sarah Isgur, class of 2008.
She's not exactly Karl Rove, but it turns out that Isgur has a rather surprising political pedigree for someone willing to promote a would-be justice viewed so skeptically in conservative circles.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Liberals all
For me, an endorsement by a Harvard person would be a kiss of death.
Do people really think that the effluvia that comes out of places like Harvard and Yale are really smarter or better educated than any of a hundred colleges elsewhere?
Some of the dumbest people I have known have been from Harvard, where they attended because of their wealth or family connections or affirmative action status. I would have to show them how to turn on a light bulb.
Just look at the Harvard and other Ivy League imbeciles running the Obama regime.
If Willard were honest, he’d switch parties like Arlen did.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051810/content/01125108.guest.html
Here is part you can read the rest at the link above.
Kagan and Sunstein Aim to Censor Free Speech: Web, Books, Radio May 18, 2010 Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's move on to Elena Kagan, or get back to her for just a second. Ed Whelan, National Review Online: "According to this Wall Street Journal article, during her service as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1987, Elena Kagan took the position that the Constitution confers so-called 'positive' rights to governmental aid, not just 'negative' liberties protected against governmental interference or penalty.
Specifically, with respect to one certiorari petition she expressed her 'worry that a majority of this court will agree with Judge Posner that "the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties."' And with respect to another, she discussed a lower-court ruling that, relying on 'evolving standards of decency,' held that the 14th Amendment (in her words) 'imposes [some] affirmative obligations on state officials,' and she opined that 'the holding is correct.' (By 'correct,' she evidently was referring to her best understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted, not to the Court's then-prevailing case law.)"
This is important because this negative rights versus positive rights, we brought this up during the campaign. The extremist libs today don't like the Constitution because they look at it as negative, meaning the Constitution says what government can't do to you, and they don't like that. They want a Constitution of positive liberties. I know it sounds convoluted, but what they mean by that is they look at this from the government perspective, not the citizen perspective. They want a Constitution written that says what government can do for people, or in their case, to people. And this argument of theirs has many roots. But we can trace one of these roots to Cass Sunstein, who is now one of Obama's czars. This is from February 2001, nine years ago. He was a University of Chicago law professor where Obama wasn't even an adjunct, he was a lecturer. Elena Kagan was a law professor at the University of Chicago as well. Cass Sunstein had this to say about Internet equality nine years ago.
SUNSTEIN: Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites so that if you're reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site, and vice-versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views.
RUSH: Stop the tape, recue that. This is net neutrality. This is what the Supreme Court just said, you can't regulate the Internet. There is no law giving you the right to regulate the Internet. Net neutrality would force Internet providers to provide an equal percentage of, as he's saying here, conservative versus liberal links in a search engine or what have you. There's also some financial aspects to it, too, but this goes back to 2001. Net neutrality is the term for this now. But listen to the whole bite again because what you'll hear here is that the reason guys like Sunstein and Kagan and Obama and the rest want to control the Internet is because sometimes people just don't know what's best for our society.
Come one come all for the Great Obsolete Party!!!
And no, I am not advocating a 3rd party..... but if the Stupid Party continues on at this rate, we may be forced to send them the way of the Whigs and the Bull Moose.
All of these 'reach-across-the-aisle' and 'they're a good person' types are striving to demontrate the GOP's tent is large enough that we only have a one party system; marxist. Of course you get to choose between Marxist and Low Calorie Marxist (aka spineless complicit republican).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.