Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Don't ask, don't tell.
1 posted on 05/10/2010 6:43:56 AM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: kristinn

The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart of all people has found a left-wing decision in her past that “conservatives will be right” to blast her over, and “liberals should concede the point”: her decision as Dean of Harvard Law School to oppose military recruiters on campus over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/19/potential-obama-court-pick-gays-in-the-military-more-important-than-military-recruitment/

“I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy,” wrote Kagan in 2003. It is “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order.”

So far, so good.

Not allowing openly gay and lesbian Americans into the military is a grave moral injustice and it is a disgrace that so many Republicans defend the policy to this day.

But the response that Kagan favored banning military recruiters from campus—was stupid and counterproductive.

I think it showed bad judgment.

The United States military is not Procter and Gamble. It is not just another employer.

It is the institution whose members risk their lives to protect the country.

You can disagree with the policies of the American military; you can even hate them, but you can’t alienate yourself from the institution without in a certain sense alienating yourself from the country.

Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag.

It’s more than a statement of criticism; it’s a statement of national estrangement.


128 posted on 05/10/2010 9:37:08 AM PDT by rosettasister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn; All
The Democrats will put the label of "homophobe" upon those who oppose her appointment. They will proclaim that... assailing her for her protest against "don't ask don't tell" is just anti-LGTB bigotry. Just more "conservative" and "Republican" bigotry.

Be ready to wade into it in a righteous way.

I wonder who will point out that if she is a lesbian, her actions at Harvard point out how that is corrupting her politics?

Any brave souls?

131 posted on 05/10/2010 10:08:42 AM PDT by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

I am going to assume that the Democrat strategy is to nominate someone for the Republicans to criticize, then withdraw that nomination and nominate someone who appears to be less socialist, but who is and who Obama really wanted in the 1st place.

I assume the strategy here is to nominate Kagan and let the Republicans expend all of their rapid opposition on her. Then Obama withdraws her name from nomination, citing that he disires bipartisan cooperation, even though he has the Senate and could install Kagan on the court.

Then he nominates who he really wanted all along, now that the Republicans have shot their wad opposing Kagan. If they oppose nominee #2, the media will brand them as nothing but obstructionist. So the Republicans will ultimately cave in and allow nominee #2 so they don’t look mean.

Meanwhile, Obama gets his 1st choice for SCOTUS with nominee #2. The ace in the hole is to select the right cannon fodder in case the Repulicans cave on nominee #1. So Kagan is someone Obama can live with, but his preferred nominee will come next, after having Kagan withdraw her name for family reasons or some such.


142 posted on 05/10/2010 1:03:53 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Bye bye Miss American Freedom. When did we vote for Communism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

Why are all liberal lesbians lacking in the looks dept and look like men?


147 posted on 05/10/2010 2:08:51 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

“One of the foremost legal scholars in the country. Supremely qualified,” said White House senior adviser David Axelrod.

Kagan had never argued a case in her life before winning confirmation last year as solicitor general, a job for which Kagan now argues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the U.S. government.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said, adding that Kagan would bring a “diversity of experience” to the Supreme Court.

“I am particularly pleased President Obama has chosen a nominee from outside the judicial monastery,” added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/10/kagans-judicial-inexperience-minor-hurdle-despite-early-criticism/

hahaha...its unbelievable what a law degree but never arguing a case prior to being a solicitor general, sucking up to your liberal buddies,...can eventually get you.

And our republican fungus reps in congress will roll over like a bloodhound stretching out in the sun on a Mississippi porch.


149 posted on 05/10/2010 2:31:59 PM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson