Posted on 10/22/2012 8:28:21 AM PDT by maggief
(CNSNews.com) -- Justice Elena Kagan said she was “not sure” if she would have received the nomination for Supreme Court Justice from President Obama if she was not a woman.
During a talk before law students on Friday at the University of Tennessee Law School, Kagan said, “And to tell you the truth, there were also things that I got because I was a woman. I mean I'm not sure I'd be sitting here.”
“I'm not sure that I would've been President Obama's nominee if I weren't a woman,” she said. “And if he wasn't as committed as he was to ensuring that there was diversity on the Supreme Court.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Kagan was put on the court to make sotomayor the second ugliest.
The problem with affirmative action and “diversity” quotas
Unless you are a white male, you will know know if it was your talents/merit that got you your job.
Speaking of which - If a “Justice Elena Kagan” young daughter (or even herself) got sick with a life threatening injury/disease...
Would she choose an affirmative action doctor to treat her?
What a bunch of “bull”. She got the appointment because she has the correct Leftist worldview. She is more male than “female”-—zero, like all muslims/homosexuals, can’t stand beautiful, feminine women. They threaten their worldview which has to see boys and men as the object of lust. They like to view their evil lust as “normal” and “good”.
So creepy!!!
That Barcky gave us Mamma Cass and the Unwise Housekeeper is a travesty. Notice how he surrounds himself with so many lieberal, incompetent, hack women he can hide behind. He’s a disgrace of a president.
Let me put your mind at rest. You wouldn’t have been.
Me too
Yep, that is what happens with Affirmative Action. Even the recipients aren’t sure how they got to where they are, so they will eventually fail in a spectactular fashion! She did (as did other justices), however it is a shame that those justices will not have to live with the results of their failure!
I have read that the curriculum is revised at Harvard Law School every five years (I think); when she was the head, she had the opportunity to require either first year law students or as a condition for graduation, that a course in the US Constitution be mandated. She balked; put in courses in international law instead.
“Kagan: Not Sure ‘I Would’ve Been President Obama’s Nominee if I Weren’t a Woman’”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ALWAYS look for Obama Adm to kill several birds with one stone, but the principle reason why Kagan was appointed is because
1) CHIEFLY, she could be counted on to be a Obot shill for ObamaCare; not a doubt in my mind about this! This was the single most important reason.
2) A corollary to point #1 is that she has the personality weakness/psychological profile of a gushing high-school cheerleader at one with Obama’s ideology and is, therefore, malleable and compliant
3) A corollary to point #2 is that she is a proud (and gullible) woman with a very (very) open mind
Critical as I am of Kagan, I harbor a hope that, as she matures, the weight of her SCOTUS responsibility might bear down and eventually influence her conscience and arouse her powers of reason. Maybe, maybe not, but probably not to be expected in the next decade.
Basically, under Kagan’s direction the Freshman required courses were changed from Common Law—the basic legal principles coming down to us at least since the days of Magna Carta, and underlying our American Constitutional law—to what is called Positive Law.
Common Law is what has been thought to be just for centuries. Positive Law is the idea that you can pass any damn laws you want, and forget civilized tradition. The second appeals to those who hate traditional western civilization and what to change it to some sort of Communist ideal. Gay marriage is a typical example of this new sort of law. “Whatever I say, goes.”
In other words, she pulled the rug out from under a thousand years and more of legal tradition, and substituted game-changing political correctness instead.
This is especially disastrous since Harvard has often set the model for all the other law school curricula in the country.
How can this woman or any Harvard Law graduate ever be confirmed by the US Senate to the USSC if they are not required to be steeped in Constitutional law, which is supposed to be the bedrock of our society?
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.