Rant Alert: Elena Kagan Should Be Given A Broom And Instructed To Do Something Useful

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Stacy may be setting up a google bomb based upon Elena Kagan’s after-hours interests. $3.50 and my interest in the sexuality of others (modulo my wife) will get you a beverage at Starbucks. I wouldn’t even afford Kagan the notice of an Uncle Jimbo cheap shot.

This Newsmax article understates the source of my irritation nicely:

Kagan’s opposition to treating military recruiters the same way corporate and legal recruiters were treated is emerging as one of the most controversial aspects of her background.

Military recruiters are not recruiting for just any old outfit. They’re recruiting for the people who support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

The First Amendment is a beautiful thing. While hating the military that preserves the country is as sensible as, oh, your body hating its immune system, one can respect genuine pacifists like the Amish. Also gently ignore the godforsaken ignoramus who would systematically denigrate the military. Proverbs 25:21-22 applies:

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

Make no mistake: I consider all of these modern liberal “Have you deconstructed the Constitution today?” knobs as sufferable, but inimical to the long term survival of the country.

Why?

Their behavior pattern over the last century seems to indicate that nothing less than the gradual destruction of the Constitution will suffice.

The Supreme Court’s deference to Congress has been nothing short of an abdication of the responsibility to keep the Federal Government “federal”. The Volokh link above notes:

The Supreme Court is supposed to defer to Congress and uphold any law it enacts so long as the justices can imagine a possible reason why Congress might have enacted a law. If the Supreme Court does anything else, it is “judicial activism.”

As far as I’m concerned, the national debt is roughly the cost of judicial inactivism in the case of entitlements. Welfare state, judicial activism, welfare state, judicial activism. . .history is invariant, but FDR is fortunate there was no Internet to gather a Tea Party to tell him where and how far he could shove his anti-Federal, Socialist ideas.

Elena Kagan will contribute to the reversal of this situation? How, exactly? She seems to hate the existence of the very warriors who will physically defend the Constitution, in the same way a Supreme Court Justice purportedly defends the document in the theoretical realm. She loves the Federalist Society, but they are not her people. Warriors? Does she even consider them fully human?

It’s a screaming insult and a slap in the face of anyone who’s ever served the country to elevate Elena Kagan, to reward the woman, for her conduct at Hahvuhd. Irrespective of whether a court of law would find the action criminal, this blog is willing to shout that the court of public opinion finds the action a (professionally) shootin’ offense. Elena should shoot off her mouth somewhere else than the bench of the Supreme Court.

Am I sounding too calm for you?

BHO might as well nominate Joan Baez, or even Hanoi Jane, as this Helena Kagan person. I predict that the lady is going to sit in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, offer the usual Progressive Taqiyya concerning her views, and then set about making JP Stevens look a right wing reactionary.

McConnell hasn’t ruled out the filibuster. I submit that a strong, positive, Constitutional signal needs to be sent to the judiciary that denigrating the Constitution and its defenders will not be rewarded with a lifetime appointment.

Get bent, lady.

Update:Ilya splits a fine hair:

In sum, Kagan’s support of a ban on military recruiters is legitimately subject to severe criticism. Senators should certainly question her about it. But I don’t see any reason to believe that it reflects a general hostility towards the armed forces.

In addition to zooming in to look at the fine detail of a point, which lawyers do so well, it’s wise to step back and ask the common-sense question: what has all this got us?

Elena seems mired in the intellectual tradition of those that are wrecking the country. Progressivism wrecks us by inches.

Update II: Senator Sessions is onboard.

60 comments

  1. I have been looking around on some leftie sites, they are none too pleased with her.

    Do you really think that Graham will stay on board with a fillibuster? I certainly don’t. I also can’t see Collins and Snow voting against her either. That would mean they would have to lose four dems – not a likely scenario.

  2. I have been looking around on some leftie sites, they are none too pleased with her.

    Do you really think that Graham will stay on board with a fillibuster? I certainly don’t. I also can’t see Collins and Snow voting against her either. That would mean they would have to lose four dems – not a likely scenario.

  3. She did not like military recruiters because their bosses (like Bill Clinton) had this “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Now it is okay to disagree with that. But you would presume Harvard kids (not exactly a hot bed for military recruiting since the war between the states) could decide whether to join the military on their own.

    I presume Japanese Americans had problems with many of their families ending up in interment camps in Idaho and Utah–yet many of them joined Army units heading to Italy. Go check WWII medal of honor winners–a heck of a lot of them have good WASPy names like Munemori, Hasemoto, Hayashi, Inouye (currently a senator), Kuroda, Mota, Miranaga, Nakane, Nakamine, Nakamura, Nishimoto, Ohata, Okustu, Ono, Otani, Sakato, and Tanouye. Funny how in the face of discrimination, those individuals reacted by joining the Army to show their loyalty and then peformed overall amazingly.

    So why not give those gay Harvard students (or even those Harvard students who are straight but disagree with the policy) the opportunity to show their loyalty?

  4. She did not like military recruiters because their bosses (like Bill Clinton) had this “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Now it is okay to disagree with that. But you would presume Harvard kids (not exactly a hot bed for military recruiting since the war between the states) could decide whether to join the military on their own.

    I presume Japanese Americans had problems with many of their families ending up in interment camps in Idaho and Utah–yet many of them joined Army units heading to Italy. Go check WWII medal of honor winners–a heck of a lot of them have good WASPy names like Munemori, Hasemoto, Hayashi, Inouye (currently a senator), Kuroda, Mota, Miranaga, Nakane, Nakamine, Nakamura, Nishimoto, Ohata, Okustu, Ono, Otani, Sakato, and Tanouye. Funny how in the face of discrimination, those individuals reacted by joining the Army to show their loyalty and then peformed overall amazingly.

    So why not give those gay Harvard students (or even those Harvard students who are straight but disagree with the policy) the opportunity to show their loyalty?

  5. You do not want to filibuster a SCOTUS pick unless there is something extreme (especially when you lack the votes to vote her down, only to stall). Of course Kagan sucks. But there are candidates in the wings who suck even more. I assume the worse about Kagan. I also assume Diane Wood is equally bad and likely far worse.

    I would go with Janet Napolitano because she is completely incompetent but even Obama is smart enough not to go there.

  6. You do not want to filibuster a SCOTUS pick unless there is something extreme (especially when you lack the votes to vote her down, only to stall). Of course Kagan sucks. But there are candidates in the wings who suck even more. I assume the worse about Kagan. I also assume Diane Wood is equally bad and likely far worse.

    I would go with Janet Napolitano because she is completely incompetent but even Obama is smart enough not to go there.

  7. Yeah, Cons can just suck it on this one.On the one hand, she’ll get confirmed despite the tantrums and conspiracy theories.On the other hand you bigots can have someones “gayness” to make fun of for the rest of your lives.
    “She seems to hate the existence of the very warriors who will physically defend the Constitution”
    Right Smitty, she hates our troops.Nay, she hates their very existence! Quite a leap from what her views are as per the issue at hand,eh? But don’t let that pesky intellectual honesty thing get in the way of a rhetorical firecracker when the opportunity presents itself.
    Hey, you tried really hard with Sotomayor. No surprise you’ll try just as hard with the non-Protestant Lesbian. Oh wait, you don’t care about her sexuality–wink wink!
    The only way Cons would support an Obama nominee is if it were a male Right Wing WASP that loves NASCAR and hates Muslims.
    In other words, your whining is meaningless. Whine away if it makes you feel better…

  8. Yeah, Cons can just suck it on this one.On the one hand, she’ll get confirmed despite the tantrums and conspiracy theories.On the other hand you bigots can have someones “gayness” to make fun of for the rest of your lives.
    “She seems to hate the existence of the very warriors who will physically defend the Constitution”
    Right Smitty, she hates our troops.Nay, she hates their very existence! Quite a leap from what her views are as per the issue at hand,eh? But don’t let that pesky intellectual honesty thing get in the way of a rhetorical firecracker when the opportunity presents itself.
    Hey, you tried really hard with Sotomayor. No surprise you’ll try just as hard with the non-Protestant Lesbian. Oh wait, you don’t care about her sexuality–wink wink!
    The only way Cons would support an Obama nominee is if it were a male Right Wing WASP that loves NASCAR and hates Muslims.
    In other words, your whining is meaningless. Whine away if it makes you feel better…

  9. Kagan’s nomination should be filibustered as a point of honor. I see no reason why the Supreme Court can’t muddle through with eight justices till 2013. If the Social Democrats are concerned about the possibility of “tie” votes they could always prevail on Ginsberg to resign.
    As for making fun of someones gayness, it has none of the entertainment value that laughing at silly bolsheviks provides. As for redeeming qualities Supreme Court justices need not be Wasps or hate NASCAR.
    Given that Kagan could be on the bench for 30 or 40 years she needs to be stopped if at all possible. After Obama is gone, we can send people out with mallet’s and chisels to remove his name from the obelisks but 40 years is a long time to put up with two of Obama’s idea of justice.

  10. Kagan’s nomination should be filibustered as a point of honor. I see no reason why the Supreme Court can’t muddle through with eight justices till 2013. If the Social Democrats are concerned about the possibility of “tie” votes they could always prevail on Ginsberg to resign.
    As for making fun of someones gayness, it has none of the entertainment value that laughing at silly bolsheviks provides. As for redeeming qualities Supreme Court justices need not be Wasps or hate NASCAR.
    Given that Kagan could be on the bench for 30 or 40 years she needs to be stopped if at all possible. After Obama is gone, we can send people out with mallet’s and chisels to remove his name from the obelisks but 40 years is a long time to put up with two of Obama’s idea of justice.

  11. Dude. Get real.

    Ditto Joe @ #3 – Kagan sucks, but look at all the others on the short list. They are all much worse. She may turn out to be as bad as we KNOW they are, or not.

    Face facts: AT MOST, we will be able to hold a filibuster together on ONE Obama SCOTUS pick (and he will surely get another pick as Ginsburg will retire before he leaves office). Save it for the one that really counts.

    Look at the list. Maybe Garland wouldn’t be as bad, Sunstein has a better intellect but would still suck as a Justice, the rest are pure lefty activists.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Solicitor General Elena Kagan; Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court in Chicago; Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; Harvard Law School dean Martha Minow, who was once the president’s professor; and Judge Sidney Thomas of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in San Francisco.

    There are others not on the short list whom the president might consider, including White House official Cass Sunstein, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., is being pushed by some on Capitol Hill, sources said.

  12. Dude. Get real.

    Ditto Joe @ #3 – Kagan sucks, but look at all the others on the short list. They are all much worse. She may turn out to be as bad as we KNOW they are, or not.

    Face facts: AT MOST, we will be able to hold a filibuster together on ONE Obama SCOTUS pick (and he will surely get another pick as Ginsburg will retire before he leaves office). Save it for the one that really counts.

    Look at the list. Maybe Garland wouldn’t be as bad, Sunstein has a better intellect but would still suck as a Justice, the rest are pure lefty activists.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Solicitor General Elena Kagan; Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court in Chicago; Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; Harvard Law School dean Martha Minow, who was once the president’s professor; and Judge Sidney Thomas of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in San Francisco.

    There are others not on the short list whom the president might consider, including White House official Cass Sunstein, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., is being pushed by some on Capitol Hill, sources said.

  13. Yeah, specifically it’s her business if she’s gay of course… but it fits the pattern of embittered, bad-childhood outsiders out for revenge against anybody they saw “suppressing” them and those like them in traditional America… i.e. church, corporate America, and military.

    So you can count on her doing all she can to destroy the things that made this country great… because she detests them.

  14. Yeah, specifically it’s her business if she’s gay of course… but it fits the pattern of embittered, bad-childhood outsiders out for revenge against anybody they saw “suppressing” them and those like them in traditional America… i.e. church, corporate America, and military.

    So you can count on her doing all she can to destroy the things that made this country great… because she detests them.

  21. Elena Kagen is an Ivy-Inbred Harvardite, this alone is whorer-fying.

    Those Ivy-Inbreds living in Obama’s 57th State are creepy no matter what kind of sex they have in their bedrooms.

  22. Elena Kagen is an Ivy-Inbred Harvardite, this alone is whorer-fying.

    Those Ivy-Inbreds living in Obama’s 57th State are creepy no matter what kind of sex they have in their bedrooms.

  24. I won’t make a distinction about whether you find Kagan too liberal or too conservative, nor even too possibly-gay … but
    “Elena Kagan Should Be Given A Broom And Instructed To Do Something Useful” ?

    Really?!

    Perhaps you should don a tool belt and a rational-thought hat and write something useful. Or at least less antediluvian.

    Even were the title speciously composed to attract more hits and responses, both the implication and intent are deplorable.

  25. I won’t make a distinction about whether you find Kagan too liberal or too conservative, nor even too possibly-gay … but
    “Elena Kagan Should Be Given A Broom And Instructed To Do Something Useful” ?

    Really?!

    Perhaps you should don a tool belt and a rational-thought hat and write something useful. Or at least less antediluvian.

    Even were the title speciously composed to attract more hits and responses, both the implication and intent are deplorable.

  26. Elena Kagan, wrong for SCOTUS, and wrong for America…

    And speaking of following the law, let’s talk about the Solomon Amendment. Elena Kagan completely disregarded the clear meaning of the law when she refused to grant military recruiters at Harvard Law School the same rights as corporate and legal recru…

  33. Wow, I put Elena in the same sentence as Hanoi Jane, and ripped the SCOTUS for the last century, and you thought I was being calm? I may require a sequel.

  34. Wow, I put Elena in the same sentence as Hanoi Jane, and ripped the SCOTUS for the last century, and you thought I was being calm? I may require a sequel.

  36. Okay, I have this mental image of her astride an O-Cedar, standing on a taxiway at Reagan National, holding for takeoff.

  37. Okay, I have this mental image of her astride an O-Cedar, standing on a taxiway at Reagan National, holding for takeoff.

  38. While true that our Armed Forces are sworn regarding the Constitution just as you say, and have carried out that duty in the past, they aren’t now. You argue, with force and justification in my opinion, that SCOTUS has not performed its duty for a century. Well, now neither are our Armed Forces. The greatest domestic threat the Constitution has ever faced is their current C-i-C and sycophants, yet the Senior and Mid-Level Officer and NCO Corps sit on their hands, focusing on daily duties to avoid facing the demands of their Oaths.

    The USA is toast, it IS a Mohammedan nation now, the C-i-C is right about that. 11SEP01 was not an attack, it was a victory lap. Now to the extent US Armed Forces are fighting “terrorists,” they are merely tools for one Caliph claimant rousting other Caliph claimants (e.g., Taliban).

    US Armed Forces aren’t fighting terrorists, they’re working for them — well, one group of them against others. And when the ICC gets jurisdiction over them no matter where they are? Coming in the Senate. USA is toast. It’s Ummah States of America now.

    Now, that’s a rant! Get down to it, son, or stop trying.

  39. While true that our Armed Forces are sworn regarding the Constitution just as you say, and have carried out that duty in the past, they aren’t now. You argue, with force and justification in my opinion, that SCOTUS has not performed its duty for a century. Well, now neither are our Armed Forces. The greatest domestic threat the Constitution has ever faced is their current C-i-C and sycophants, yet the Senior and Mid-Level Officer and NCO Corps sit on their hands, focusing on daily duties to avoid facing the demands of their Oaths.

    The USA is toast, it IS a Mohammedan nation now, the C-i-C is right about that. 11SEP01 was not an attack, it was a victory lap. Now to the extent US Armed Forces are fighting “terrorists,” they are merely tools for one Caliph claimant rousting other Caliph claimants (e.g., Taliban).

    US Armed Forces aren’t fighting terrorists, they’re working for them — well, one group of them against others. And when the ICC gets jurisdiction over them no matter where they are? Coming in the Senate. USA is toast. It’s Ummah States of America now.

    Now, that’s a rant! Get down to it, son, or stop trying.

  40. Sullivan comments on Obama’s Rope-A-Dope on Kagan:

    The president can say, appealing to the middle, that he respects privacy and has reluctantly allowed Kagan to come out under despicable pressure from people like me. Then he dares the Christianist right to vote against her merely because she is a discreet lesbian. And so his jujitsu becomes a triumph for gay rights, and his nominee, who I suspect is far more left-liberal than anyone now believes, helps shape the court for a generation.

    Where’s that rope again?

    I am sure Kagan is uber-liberal. Crazy liberal. Her sexual orienation is not the issue. The question is whether attempting to block her even makes sense given the other candidates Obama might field.

    The Senate hearings are important for flushing her out on her political orientation.

  41. Sullivan comments on Obama’s Rope-A-Dope on Kagan:

    The president can say, appealing to the middle, that he respects privacy and has reluctantly allowed Kagan to come out under despicable pressure from people like me. Then he dares the Christianist right to vote against her merely because she is a discreet lesbian. And so his jujitsu becomes a triumph for gay rights, and his nominee, who I suspect is far more left-liberal than anyone now believes, helps shape the court for a generation.

    Where’s that rope again?

    I am sure Kagan is uber-liberal. Crazy liberal. Her sexual orienation is not the issue. The question is whether attempting to block her even makes sense given the other candidates Obama might field.

    The Senate hearings are important for flushing her out on her political orientation.

  42. Is she the youngest of the other possible candidates? I believe that “the others are much worse than Kagan” only because we have less info to go on. Was Mao really worse than Stalin merely because he killed more?
    As for “getting real” while I don’t actually expect leaders to “charge the guns” or fall on their swords just to make a point (well maybe) I do believe that a pointless ultra partisan filibuster right about now is just what the Doctor ordered.

  43. Is she the youngest of the other possible candidates? I believe that “the others are much worse than Kagan” only because we have less info to go on. Was Mao really worse than Stalin merely because he killed more?
    As for “getting real” while I don’t actually expect leaders to “charge the guns” or fall on their swords just to make a point (well maybe) I do believe that a pointless ultra partisan filibuster right about now is just what the Doctor ordered.

  44. Kagan is just another Marxist who is prepared to shred the Constitutuion in place of something more acceptable to members of the politburo.

  45. Kagan is just another Marxist who is prepared to shred the Constitutuion in place of something more acceptable to members of the politburo.

  46. Is it wrong that I saw the comment about the broom and thought she should fly home on it? I associate sweeping with hockey and just don’t see her as a fan.

  47. Is it wrong that I saw the comment about the broom and thought she should fly home on it? I associate sweeping with hockey and just don’t see her as a fan.

Comments are closed.