Much like President Obama himself, his newest Supreme Court nominee has little experience for the task at hand. Current Solicitor General Elena Kagan has never been a judge before, and this fact alone I find a bit concerning. When it comes to the selection of a Supreme Court justice, the historical prerequisite has been the nominee's judicial record. Solicitor General Kagan does not have one. Anyone can say, "I can follow the law and rule accurately and impartially." Of course, the liberal spin-doctors have touted her thin record as an asset. As much as I disagreed with the nomination and subsequent confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, at least she resided on the bench for almost 20 years before her nomination.
A Supreme Court confirmation is nothing to take lightly. It is the highest judicial body in the United States and comes with lifetime tenure. Presidential legacies are built from these nominations and the Supreme Court literally shapes our government, as we know it. With the average length of service being 26 years, it is imperative that the wrong person is not chosen. Yes, there is an extensive vetting process and she will have to sit through numerous questions and interrogation from the Senate, but with a liberal majority, it really is just a technicality. Having two nominations so close together is a rare occurrence and I can't help but notice the blatant hypocrisy that the liberal media is bestowing upon us. For instance, Justice Sotomayor's extensive justice experience and legal publications were at the time touted as an asset, only months later, these same qualifications, or lack thereof in Kagan's case are downplayed and even considered a detriment.
In the first few days after word broke of her nomination, the only substantial profile that one internet savvy blogger could conjure up is that she was the first female dean of Harvard Law, she adamantly opposes the U.S. military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and she did everything in her power to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus. She continued with her anti-military stance by claiming that military recruitment taking place on her campus violates anti-discrimination policies. The issue was eventually litigated before the Supreme Court in conjunction with a number of other liberal educators. Thankfully, the group lost in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts who, ironically, was eventually confirmed to his spot on the Supreme Court after President Clinton had previously nominated Kagan for the same position before his departure from office. Obviously, Kagan was forced to comply with the decision. This process was performed under the veil of a backhanded complement by Kagan noting her respect and admiration for all the U.S. military does. When military recruiters go to Harvard Law, they obviously are not looking for gunnery sergeants. I can understand and even sympathize with the anti-war movement (for very different reasons), but to disallow our own military looking to recruit bright young minds for the JAG Corps is just plain wrong.
Elena Kagan is not a mainstream or even moderate democrat. As evident by her statement regarding the 1991 ban of using federal money for abortions, she is staunchly pro-choice. She said that the ban amounted to "government hostility towards some ideas." In addition to her prior statement regarding abortion, her nomination to the Supreme Court was recently endorsed by Planned Parenthood. She has also made her opinion known on the topic of gay rights. I previously mentioned her stance on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." She referred to this controversial policy as a "moral injustice of the first order." Furthermore, in a column written by Maggie Gallagher for the National Review, Gallagher writes, "a vote for Kagan is a vote for gay marriage." She has not shied away from her desires to create a more liberal America. Her senior thesis, while a student at Princeton, focused on the demise of the Socialist movement in the early 20th century. Kagan referred to the demise as "...a sad but also a chastening one for those who, for more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Her supporters claim it was just a college paper with the purpose of examining the socialist movement, but with quotes such as those, it is hard to make an argument that personal opinions didn't somehow make their way into her paper. Also while a student, she authored a piece for the student paper entitled "Fear and Loathing in Brooklyn." In her article, she claims to have effectively aligned her beliefs with liberal policies early in life, and blasted the current political success of the right. She was quoted as saying that she longed for a time when a "more leftist left will once again come to the fore." Unfortunately, her wish now has come to fruition and she is right smack dab in the middle of a perfect political storm. She has the support of both the White House and the Senate. No doubt, even with her non-existent judicial record, her confirmation will go through without a hitch.
Daniel Hawes
http://www.TheGenesisReport.com
No comments:
Post a Comment