Obama's Pick To Join The Supremes

I started a lengthy post Monday about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the now-90-year-old who was picked by President Gerald Ford for the post and who has held it for the past 35 years, turning ever more liberal with each passing year.

I just couldn't get excited about the topic, though...

It's just too analogous to one seeing headlines that read, "MSNBC Supports Democrat Agenda" or "Obama Is A Liberal."

Certainly no "Man Bites Dog" story, that's for sure.  Move along, people, nothing to see here.  Liberal President appoints liberal woman to replace retiring liberal on the Supreme Court.

Yet...

There are a couple of interesting backstories.

Elena Kagan has NO judicial experience; no wealth of judicial opinions from which to draw conclusions about her philosophy, or any possible future tendency to legislate from the bench.  Perhaps this, alone, was the main reason that she was selected.  After the Democrats' audacious and contentious push for, and passage of, so-called healthcare "reform" and, this being an election year in which the Democrats are almost certain to lose their majorities in both Houses of Congress, there seems to be little, if any political appetite on their part for yet another partisan battle on Capitol Hill, particularly over something like a Supreme Court nomination.  Especially when the Democrats, trying to enact as much of their socialist agenda as they can in the brief time they have left as the majority party, STILL want to push their Cap and Trade -- er, Cap and Tax -- bill and somehow try to grant amnesty to what they hope will become millions of grateful and thus obedient new little Democrat voters with enactment of their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" before this year's elections.

Since Kagan has no history (well some, but it's all political, not judicial...), maybe the Obami figure that pushing for quick Senate approval of their candidate for this lifetime position will be a cakewalk?  Even if hers is a "stealth" appointment of what may become the most liberal Justice in the history of the Republic, is it likely that she will sway -- indeed, induce the Court's four conservative members to change their minds on issues?  Rhetorical answer to rhetorical question:  No.

Any danger in her appointment lies not now, but in the future.  At 50 years of age, Kagan will become the youngest Justice on a bench with an average age just under 69 years, and may well be on the court for decades to come.  Should Obama get the opportunity to replace a conservative Justice with yet another activist liberal (in the vein of Sonia Sotomayor, for example), then the true impact of the Kagan appointment will be felt.


Then, there was there was her preposterous decision when she was Dean of Harvard Law School to ban military recruiters from Harvard because of the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military. The Pentagon took issue with her decision and challenged it by invoking the Solomon Amendment  (a 1996 law that requires universities that receive public funding to grant the military the same access to their campuses that they grant other organizations).

Kagan lost.

With Harvard's $400 MILLION in annual Federal grants at stake, Kagan was forced to capitulate.

(Question for another day: Why, on God's green Earth, does Harvard University, a private university that is charging (as of 2009) a base annual tuition of $33,696 for each student receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in "grants" each year? Ahhh, but I digress...)

Back on point --

Even though she was forced to cave in to the Pentagon after its invocation of the Solomon Amendment, which had been signed into law by a Democrat President (Clinton), she continued to fight. She, and 39 other Harvard Law professors, signed an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to invalidate Solomon. When the case ultimately wound up before the same Supreme Court that she's now been nominated to join, the Justices (including the four-member liberal bloc) were not impressed, issuing a unanimous (8-0) decision against Kagan and Harvard Law School in March, 2006. Despite the legal setback, Kagan has continued to advocate for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," saying, "I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy," going on to describe it as a “moral injustice of the first order."

Which allows me to seamlessly segue into...


The question of Kagan's sexuality.  Kagan may be the stuff that Rachel Maddow's dreams are made of, but I really don't care.  Still... the question makes interesting fodder for both the masses and the media alike.  CBS reported in a blog that, if confirmed, Kagan would become the first "openly 'gay'" Supreme Court justice.  The White House went nuts, attacking CBS and proclaiming through a spokesman that Kagan is "straight" (Lord forgive me, but for details, I am linking to the wretched Huffington Post -- story here).  CBS was pressured into removing the piece.  This disavowal of Kagan's homosexuality didn't set well with a prime Democrat support group -- the homosexuals, who saw the Obami's denial as sort of a "reverse homophobia," so the White House moved to tone down the rhetoric.  Pass the popcorn.


The bottom line?  The Republicans need to pick their battles, and opposing Kagan is not one of them.  If they fight the Kagan nomination because of politics alone, the left-wing, so-called "mainstream" media will use the fact to further brand Republicans as "the party of no."  The Republicans are poised to throw the socialists er... Democrats out of power this coming November unless they do what only they seem to be able to do so well...

...only if, through their own collective ineptitude, they once again manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Skip