Posted on 05/10/2010 7:56:23 PM PDT by fightinJAG
President Obama is about to nominate someone for the Supreme Court. . . . Ten minutes after that, liberals will rise en masse to defend the nominee as wise, brilliant and humane, a person who restores our faith in humankind. And the kabuki theater will continue like that all summer long.
I can’t blame my fellow liberals for playing along; if the other side fires, we have to fire back. But there’s one exception. If Solicitor General Elana Kagan gets the nod, conservatives will beat the hell out of her for opposing military recruitment on campus when she was dean of Harvard Law School. And liberals should concede the point; the conservatives will be right.
"I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy,” wrote Kagan in 2003. It is “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order.” So far, so good. Not allowing openly gay and lesbian Americans into the military is a grave moral injustice and it is a disgrace that so many Republicans defend the policy to this day. But the response that Kagan favored banning military recruiters from campus—was stupid and counterproductive. I think it showed bad judgment.
The United States military is not Procter and Gamble. It is not just another employer. It is the institution whose members risk their lives to protect the country. You can disagree with the policies of the American military; you can even hate them, but you can’t alienate yourself from the institution without in a certain sense alienating yourself from the country. Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag. It’s more than a statement of criticism; it’s a statement of national estrangement.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
I’ve seen some of her dissertation and other policy decisions which are at least troubling.
The prevailing accusations throughout the conservative blogosphere are that she is a “communist lesbian.”
Is there a rock-solid source of information that confirms these accusations?
Reputable links without heresay, please...
I hate to be the one to break it to you, Mr. Beinart, but "national estrangement" is what your "fellow liberals" live for.
There is nothing at all lost by fighting this nomination. Republicans holding together can only win and drive up both Democrat and Obama negatives by forcing them to resort to the same kind of in your face shove it down your throat politics. Most Americans aren’t going to be supportive of a fairly ugly woman who didn’t support our troops. There is absolutely nothing for Republicans to lose by fighting this. It will give them added credibility. I wish this was much closer to Nov. It would be a perfect catalyst to get every last conservative to the polls. If only we could drag this out till Nov 2. ;-)
Good grief.
Elena Kagan is an incompetant. As SG she couldn’t even argue the government’s case without screwing it up from the very start. Ted Olson ate her arguments for lunch.
She has been an academic and worked at Goldman Sachs, and what do those Ivory Towered-types know about the real world? Not much!
Her hatred for the military and ignorance of the centuries of experience demonstrating that homosexuality and military life do not mix at all add to the fact she is totally unacceptable as a Supreme Court Justice.
We need more than this to stop her. Most will agree that this reflects badly on her, but isn’t enough by itself to disqualify her.
Excellent!
Would that be that like so many (all?) of obama's appointees and obama himself, she has almost no relevant experience and is completely unqualified and ill-prepared for the post?
- Churchill
not that I am advocating for it, I just wanted to point out that your statement about the history of the matter was inaccurate.
Elena Kagan hates the US military for not being gay enough.
It will be interesting to see what Democrats think about her Goldman-Sachs connection.
What about her loss of Citizen’s United. That’s one of the reasons that fool loser in the WH wants her in. I am sick of his baby tantrums.
The practice of homosexuality in the Royal Navy was a hanging offence in the late 18th century - THAT I know for a fact.
And as much as I love Winston Churchill, I believe his statement was tongue in cheek.
Elena Kagan hates the US military for not being gay enough.
We must have it just about right then...
Regards,
GtG
I agree. I think anyone out there “warning” the Repubs that the — oooh!! — boogieman is going to jump out of the shadows and yell “BOO” if they oppose this nomination with all they got is nothing but a transparent political charlatan.
I don’t see most Americans having any sympathy for a dum bass who works overtime to keep military recruiters off a campus, particularly off Harvard. HELLO.
At least the following synapses fire when this info gets spread to the general public, in no particular order:
1. Who is this witch who is so anti-military, so loathing of our armed forces, that she doesn’t even want them on her campus possibly offering jobs, not to mention the opportunity for service to the nation, to adult students who can make up their own dang minds for whom they want to work?
2. Who made this witch God so that she gets to determine whether military service is or is not right for those oh-so-elite Harvard graduates?
3. Who is this witch who is so out-of-touch that she did everything in her power to keep the alleged intellectual elite at Harvard safe for Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, etc., and most definitely would never allow them to be exposed to — ugh — those buffoonish military officers whose job is, you know, to kill people and break things — AS IF?
4. Isn’t it liberals (or, as she calls herself in her thesis, radicals) who are always wailing that it’s the “poor” who “must” become “cannon fodder” in the U.S. military — yet this witch throws her body in front of the military staff car rather than allow “THOSE PEOPLE” (military recruiters) to set foot onto the high-and-mighty, non-poor, non-cannon-fodder Harvard campus?
I could go on.
And that doesn’t even get to the fact that Kagan’s motivation for this was something to do with . . . a sex act?
Please.
For starters, yes.
Kagan has been advising Obambi on Obamacare — certainly one of the biggest cases that will come before the Supreme Court in the next years.
Even if she recused herself . . . Hell’s Bells, why nominate someone who has to recuse herself from all the most important cases? Not only does that not make sense, it won’t work. Because she won’t recuse herself and no one will make her.
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.