Well, in the first place, she is a moonbat of the first order, who believes in activist law and international one-world law in place of the constitution. She is a flaming lesbian, although she is hiding it. She wouldn’t allow military recruitment on campus.
Not to speak of abortion and gay marriage.
In the second place, it is very poor political thinking to say, “Well, the next one will be worse.” No, the worst thing you can do is to roll over and let Obama do what he wants, which is pretty much what the Republican senators did with his first SCOTUS candidate. All that accomplishes is to put a lousy candidate on SCOTUS for life, and strengthen Obama’s hand for the next appointment.
Every time Obama is defeated, it strengthens us and weakens him. So you have to fight him every inch, ESPECIALLY when he has a truly ugly and extremist candidate like Kagan.
I’m not sure you’re correct regarding your first point. As a threshold matter, there is no such thing as “activist law”. Activist judges, sure, and Kagan may prove to be one. She’s very much been a company woman her whole life, however, so while she may (you might argue will) defy congress as a SCOTUS judge, IMO she’s less likely to than other possibilities.
There is nothing to support your contention regarding international law. She has written almost nothing on the subject and at her Solicitor General confirmation hearing stated:
“I do not believe that international law (assuming it has not been incorporated into domestic federal law) can prevent federal and state governments from broadening the application of the death penalty should they wish to do so. In a case like Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008) [finding use of the death penalty unconstitutional for rape], the appropriate question is whether the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the application of the death penalty to a particular kind of crime, not whether international law does so.”
I believe she’s a lesbian also. She insists she’s not, but I don’t wish to test her on that ;) And anyone who is nominated will be against DADT, for abortion, and pro-gay marriage. Again, all I’m asking for is realism.
Your second point is interesting—and I don’t think you’re wrong regarding giving the nomination a vocal fight. I do think it’s a case of be careful what you wish for. I think Kagan should receive structured and scrupulous vetting. I hope she will. But defeating this nominee is problematic, IMO. I don’t think there are many more moderate possibilities, so it might not be wise to shoot all of the political capital on this nominee to get backdoored with a Pam Karlan or Harold Koh. (Sorry, I’m a bit of a SCOTUS nerd.)