Skip to comments.Why Do They Hate Elena Kagan?
Posted on 05/11/2010 5:12:58 PM PDT by george76
The left-wing blogosphere hates Elena Kagan. Really. The venom percolating up from the depths of the nutroots is getting pretty toxic.
For the most part, the right-wing blogosphere is sitting back and enjoying how people like Glenn Greenwald are tripping all over themselves to attack Kagan before right-wingers get a chance to do so:
Digby examines what a Kagan selection would reveal about Obama, and she particularly focuses on Kagan's relationship to Goldman Sachs...
But by far the most noxious attack on Kagan is the charge that Kagan was not committed to diversity because she did not hire a single tenured or tenure-track minority law professor.
Why all the hate from the left? True hostility, or simply bait so that Kagan will appear more moderate?
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.blogspot.com ...
Who said we hate her? We just don’t think she’s qualified to be a Supreme. Lots of people are in that category.
The senate will be voting on CO2 Cap and Trade tomorrow 5-12-10
Tell your senators to vote no.
Read about the bill at http://wattsupwiththat.com
BINGO...been saying that since her name was mentioned......there was no hint of a problem from the bots......now when she is to go under questioning, all of a sudden they get the fleas
Bait. It allows them to sell her as a “moderate”.
They’ll hit her from the Left, and then they’ll play games in the press about her sexuality, and make it look like its “us” going after her on that score.
They’ll make her into a middle-of-the-roader and into a victim at the same time.
None of it matters. The only question should be, is she a constitutionalist. And, of course, if she was, the O would never have nominated her in the first place. She hates the military, she hates the cross, she hates conservatives, she hates free speech. She has no business sitting on any court which is fortunate because, until now, she never has. Until now.
Democrats should be embarrassed of her, but they won’t be. Most are going to be thrilled at whatever misfit Obama nominates.
Well, the article is centered on the curious claim that it's the left that "hates" her.
Personally, I find that claim to be suspicious. As far as I can tell, she's a perfect fit for the left.
I don’t hate her.
I hate the communist ideology that she embraces, that Obammie the Commie embraces, and that she will support as a USSC justice if she is seated.
This article is about the left hating her.
And I don’t think the left hates her...this is just an attempt to get her to seem more moderate than she really is.
Unable to post at the site of the article so I’ll do it here.
Eventhough both Kagan and Obama had an almost non-existent legal writing trail to look at, look where Obama is now.
Kagan is an Chicago Law School Obama-lite legal lapdog, who is anti-military, pro-feminism, is for selective diversity when it suits her, and like Sotomayor, has said that she will use personal feelings and experiences as guides for her decisions instead of rational legal reasoning and legal precedence.
In the words of the late Gene Siskel, “I give her two thumbs down” because if elected, she will be in a lifetime untouchable position to do great harm to America.
Let her go wreck another law school or get bitchslapped again by the Supreme Court (8-0 is not something you put on your job resume’).
OReilly claims she will be just fine and for everyone to calm down.
THAT consoles me.
p.s. : WTH happened to O’Reilly? He used to be an actual “real” person. With common sense.
Why all the hate from the left? True hostility, or simply bait so that Kagan will appear more moderate?
and I got my answer.
Several reasons why the nutroots hate her:
(1) The primary “thought process” in the nutroots is groupthink. The site owners and a few others set the tone based on Dem talking points, then the groupthinkers pile on.
Why would the Dem talking point be against her? Simple rope-a-dope of the American public. But the resulting hate is the nutroots is probably very real. They’re playing with fire here.
(2) She has little record and no judicial record (because she’s never been a judge). She’s a blank slate that the nutroots can project whatever they want on. That makes (1) above particularly easy.
(3) The primary emotion in the nutroots is hate. Foaming at the mouth bashing the keyboard with their faces hate comes naturally to them. That also makes (1) above particularly easy.
There are probably more, but those are the major ones.
The list, ping
She used to be a dean. As an honest academician, I find that reason enough to object to her. (^_^)
(And see how multicultural I am: I use East Asian style smilies. (^_^) )
BTW, before some zot-bait shows up to say we engage in groupthink here, I say to them, “Don’t waste your time.” Sure, Mr. Robinson makes it very clear that this is a conservative site and lays down some broad boundaries. But within those boundaries, we argue pretty vehemently. Just go on a religious (open) or Palin thread to see some prime examples.
You will see NOTHING like that in the nutroots. Just not permitted.
Yeah, that is the kind of thing the leftists say to persuade you that she’s not one of them, so that you’ll take the head fake.
I don’t know about all that, but I do know I happened to listen to the full CSPAN coverage of the Supreme Court hearing about the McCain Feingold corporate donations to political campaigns some months ago.
Only today realized it was Kagan who was up there with the guy who’s wife died on 9/11 Ted Olsen, the former Bush solicitor general?
Kagan’s arguments were nearly all shown up by the Justices as faulty.
It was kind of boring, but I think anyone who wants to know how Kagan thinks should listen to this broadcast. She spoke with that ‘professorial” authority that one would hear from “guest lecturers” in school — who know a little about a little but don’t have the big picture. (And so in a perfect world at least, they remain substitute teachers and guest lecturers.) And yet what she was claiming was all pretty bogus by the Court’s reaction to her and I think she lost the case.
Sorry to be so dumb about all this stuff, I know that case was important, but listening to it you did get an excellent idea of Kagan’s take on the law.
At one point in the arguments, Olsen said that if this law was not overturned or if his side did not win, books could not be published regarding political candidates — it was a problem of free speech rights being infringed.
The legal assumptions Kagan made to the Court seemed to be called out by the Court — even Ginsberg — as just that — legal assumptions. She kept presuming that the Court in the past had made rulings that jived with her interpretation of the law that the Justices kept saying they had not made.
The even-handedness of the court on this issue (at least in my layman’s ears) was evident. Kagan reminded me of some Junior College professor stuck in the early 1980’s time of “feminists rights” and it seemed she kept being caught unprepared to argue along the same lines that the Court was thinking.
In other words, amateur hour. Her tone was strident, but her thinking was flawed. She is the left’s version of that weird woman that Bush wanted on the court, can’t remember her name. I also don’t fully understand what the political ramifications of that issue are on current elections, but I presume it is a big issue for the President?
Be your own judge, it’s probably still on a podcast somewhere from CSPAN. Wish I remembered it better.
But anyone who is going to make an assessment of Kagan needs to hear it because it is true record of how that woman thinks about the law.
I do remember thinking that Kagan’s overall approach to the court was that she knew things better than they did and yet at almost every turn, they had to deconstruct her arguments to show her thinking was flawed from the start.
Could be wrong. I think it was CSPAN 3 or something. It was a weird case because it seems to effect both corrupt Capitalists and corrupt Communists alike.
It was really about the potential for corruption, not the potential for one political group or another but the corruption issue itself. I am no lawyer, though, it was odd that it seemed to be neither a left nor right wing case and Olsen seemed very careful in his arguments to keep neutral. Kagan’s lecturing and unconscious hectoring tone was in contrast to Olsen. But the potential for corruption is not a left or right wing issue — it is a human issue — and this was made evident by the proceedings.
I recall Stevens was very good, too. Kagan was out of her league; it is funny how our personalities are betrayed by how we think and what we say and especially for lawyers — how they argue.
I think the left is just getting more and more miserable period. They got their Obamassiah, both houses of congress, and little else. The healthcare bill isn’t what they wanted. They don’t have Cap and Trade. Amnesty isn’t in the cards. Unemployment is steadily climbing, and all the world leaders who were supposed to love us [once we elected Obama] don’t. Plus there are these pesky acts of terrorism on our own soil that keep cropping up. Not to mention Gitmo and Iraq, etc. etc. They see November approaching, and it looks like it will all be for naught. The unthinkable might happen, and they could lose both houses and possibly even see healthcare repealed. Then they’d have the big donut. So they’re just in a pissy mood, and Kagan is a convenient target. Fwiw.
O’Reilly thinks it is still St. Paddy’s Day and is still celebrating.
Sometimes this guy, who has a good heart, forgets to have a good head.
I tend to think it is the latter. Kagan is a lifelong leftist ideologue, just like Obama. There is no way Obama would pick someone who doesn't share his view of politics and the law. She is someone Obama can count on to be a reliable liberal vote on the Court.
However, if her nomination is withdrawn, than if he nominates another lefty who actually is a judge with a record, people will somehow find it more acceptable. They win either way. If she is shoved down our throats than they have what they want and if they get another lefty -they have what they want.
There is a way to break that dual assault, but I seriously doubt the pubbies can arise from feckless mode long enough to do it. If the Senate Republicans were to go all out and make very public everything about the socilaist/societal engineering beliefs of this woman(?) and the people who would even bring such an insult to the Republic forward as a nominee, the democrats would back off of this smuck faster than a dog runnin’ from skunk stink.
Well, no matter what happens, Obama will be certain to nominate a leftist commie. That’s what he is and that’s the direction he wants to take the US Supreme Court. He doesn’t care about someone following the constitution, but only cares about advancing his leftist ideology, and having a Democrat Senate he is assured that whoever he picks pretty much will win confirmation.
If the American people decide that his agenda is what they want, we can't change it anyway. BUT, if the American people are awakened from their bread and circuses by a good old fashioned political knockdowwn drag out, then the Republic has a chance of surviving the commie prick and his stupid sycophants worshipping him as their suga pimp.
If We The People allow these bastards to take over and 'transform' the We The People Republic into a federal oligarchy where the nanny state rules, we don't deserve to be the sovereigns.
The left has waited a very long time to do this. They will only run if you have them by the balls. It is not merely going public. The conservatives have to get ready for a legal fistfight and bring on the pain. They have to attack their sources of money, they have to attack their media protectors, and they have to make sure that their union thugs realize that they have serious potential to spend quality time in club fed.
Which is why we conservatives must remember how they deconstructed our country, who specifically did what, and when they lose the justice dept. in the next presidential election we prosecute every one. If not, they get away with their plans anyway. We must prosecute them and drag their carcass to jail without mercy. We are talking about civil war here.
That’s why elections are important. We once again have a chance this November to kick the buggers out and in 2012, we will have the opportunity to kick out Obama. In the meantime we need to hang together and keep supporting conservatives who have a chance of winning, and we also have to work as advocates for conservatives causes.
Yes. The next election is critical. Fence sitting is no longer an option.
Which can be used against them. The union thugs already got a black eye for beating up old ladies.
I vote for bait.
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.