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

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich: Elena Kagan ‘Should Be Disqualified From the Very Beginning.’
National Review ^ | May 15th 2010 | Jim Geraghty

Posted on 05/15/2010 7:10:40 PM PDT by Steelfish

Newt Gingrich: Elena Kagan ‘Should Be Disqualified From the Very Beginning.’ May 15, 2010

By Jim Geraghty Newt Gingrich instantly became one of the most prominent opponents to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice when he tweeted, “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman’ new racism is no better than old racism.”

Tonight at the NRA Convention, he offered a similarly bold and uncompromising criticism of Elena Kagan: “For a potential Supreme Court nominee to attempt to bar military recruiters from campus during a time of war, she should be disqualified from the very beginning… Mr. President, you’re entitled to nominate a liberal. But can’t you nominate a liberal who respects and works for our military, not someone who has contempt for them and opposes them?”

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gingrich; kagan; military; obama; scotus

1 posted on 05/15/2010 7:10:40 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Bork Kagan II

Get it here
2 posted on 05/15/2010 7:13:05 PM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Silly Newt: there’s no such thing as a pro-military liberal. Unless you’re talking about the military of Iraq, of course.


3 posted on 05/15/2010 7:13:56 PM PDT by sthguard (The DNC theme song: "All You Need is Guv")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sthguard

I think Lieberman would probably qualify.


4 posted on 05/15/2010 7:17:13 PM PDT by txrangerette ("Question with boldness. Hold to the truth. Speak without fear". - Glenn Beck -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Shouldn't she be disqualified from consideration for the highest judicial position in the country simply based on the fact that she HAS NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE!!!???

I fully expect senators from all sides to do their jobs of 'advise and consent' and to tell Pres. Obama do come back when he has a qualified candidate. A "law degree" from Haaavaaard doesn't cut it!

5 posted on 05/15/2010 7:17:59 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

in for the obligatory post of:

“go away, Newt”


6 posted on 05/15/2010 7:21:46 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
For a potential Supreme Court nominee to attempt to bar military recruiters from campus during a time of war, she should be disqualified from the very beginning...

I hope someone asks her how she would have rules on that case (since it is done, she can comment.) She would have either rules against herself, or ruled against EVERY sitting justice (even the most leftie ones.)

She should have to explain why she thinks she is smarter that ALL of the current justices.

7 posted on 05/15/2010 7:24:52 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

If Newt were a current Senator he would spout the standard RINO talking points, then make a deal and if he had to vote for her. He and his like are as responsible for what is wrong with this country as any group of liberal or progressive Democrats. He repulses me.


8 posted on 05/15/2010 7:27:58 PM PDT by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

What was it that candidate Obama said about putting lipstick on a pig?


9 posted on 05/15/2010 7:28:59 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I’ll have to agree with Newt here, 100%. No communists for the SC.


10 posted on 05/15/2010 7:32:26 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
But can’t you nominate a liberal who respects and works for our military, not someone who has contempt for them and opposes them?

A liberal who respects our military? No such thing.
11 posted on 05/15/2010 7:34:30 PM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

The chief problem...which she will have to come to admit...is that any Goldman Sachs case that arrives at the Supreme Court...she has to step aside for each of cases that come up. Then there’s the cases she worked on for the administration...which she’d have to step aside for those as well. So in two years...figure at least twenty cases which she might have to step aside on, and just let the eight judges render judgement. You can see the issues involved here.

If they had picked a plain old judge, then there’s no connection to companies or the build-up of cases...but then this isn’t the smartest crowd in the world...or they simply won’t accept the idea of her stepping to the side for any case whatsoever.


12 posted on 05/15/2010 7:34:31 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Newt Gingrich: Elena Kagan ‘Should Be Disqualified From the Very Beginning.’

Looks like he's been reading this website. WTG Newt. Maybe you'll come around once again.

13 posted on 05/15/2010 7:43:40 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Steelfish

Hold off Newt. This administration has good reasons to belittle the need for “qualifications” for office.


15 posted on 05/15/2010 7:50:55 PM PDT by motor_racer (That which you manifest is before you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Hmm.. Your search for “a liberal who respects and works for our military” does not match any documents.


16 posted on 05/15/2010 7:54:19 PM PDT by random_user_827
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander

I wish the Republicans had brass ones; but they seem to be in cahoots with the libs. I guess they all have invested in the scam.


17 posted on 05/15/2010 8:12:39 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Something is strange in Denmark when I find myself agreeing with Newton Gingrich.


18 posted on 05/15/2010 8:52:25 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

It’s careerism, instead of constitutionalism. It will destroy the American people, and they will never know what hit them.


19 posted on 05/15/2010 8:53:16 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rsobin

Absolutely, you are right. It’s all about their careerism. And the American people don’t have the intelligence to understand. They have been “dumbed down” for decades.


20 posted on 05/15/2010 8:54:56 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Newt is right.

I don't understand what it is that qualifies Kagan in the first place. Never been a judge. No legal scholarship. So she's what? The first lesbian on the court?

Surely there is someone more qualified.

21 posted on 05/15/2010 11:16:24 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Setting aside personal feelings about Newt, he's right. Kagan isn't qualified from the word "go". Just because she attended the Ivy League colleges doesn't entitle her to sit on the USSC bench for the next 50 years. She's never prosecuted a case, she's never litigated one. She never even sat on the bench of a traffic court. All she's done was become Dean to one of the most liberal activist colleges in the nation.

Beyond the college thesis written back in 1980, there's no paper trail.  She's a blank slate.  She hasn't contributed to society beyond advancing a repugnant liberal and secular agenda.

She's a dope who is not qualified to spitshine the shoes of Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia.

22 posted on 05/15/2010 11:35:44 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (In 2012: The Rookie and The Wookie get booted from the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
CC: Olympia Snowe
Susie Collins

Forget this Kagan Commie. I am your man.

I have a ton of excellent, hands-on judicial experience. (Twice voted in as JP and I still have the robe) I am a Republican. I have never drowned anyone in my car. I am eminently qualified to join SCOTUS. And I am available with two weeks notice*.

*The other VFW barkeep is in durance vile on a DUI for the next six months, so I 'll have to find a replacement. I don't smoke. I went to state judge training for two weekends and since I wrote an article about it for the local paper, I am "Law Review." I also got a really high mark on my insurance agent exam, and am a "Natural Born Citizen of the US" I also qualify for Affirmative Action because I believe my grandmother was part Passamaquoddy Indian. (Well, she did have really black hair, anyway. And if my grnadfather was late for dinner, she went on the warpath.)

23 posted on 05/15/2010 11:52:52 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama. He'll bring back States' Rights. In the meantime, this ain't gonna be pretty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Why, because she isn’t as committed to stopping global warming as Newt is?


24 posted on 05/16/2010 12:41:22 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Even more disturbing than her lack of experience is her statement that the government should be able to ban speech that is deemed “anti government”.

This woman would do away with the first amendment if she could!

She should never be on the supreme court!


25 posted on 05/16/2010 5:20:46 AM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
There are no educational/positional requirements for a seat on the supreme court.

Those appointed should have a solid philosophical grasp of what the position entails.

I am of the opinion that those with a legal background should never exceed more than a simple majority of the total.

One final point, Newt Gingrich would be an excellent supreme court justice.

26 posted on 05/16/2010 9:20:11 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
....any Goldman Sachs case that arrives at the Supreme Court...she has to step aside for each of cases that come up. Then there’s the cases she worked on for the administration......

Where have you been? Those are exactly the cases Magic wants her for.

Samuel P. Chase sat in Lincoln's cabinet for most of the Civil War, an ardent Abolitionist and certified, card-carrying sectionalist (i.e. South-hater). Lincoln made him Chief Justice in 1864, and in five years he had the case Lincoln put him up there for, in which he wrote as the Court's opinion that secession had been illegal, all the acts of the People, the States, and their conventions and legislatures had been null and void -- because he said so.

He was sent up to deliver the goods for his political boss, and he did it.

27 posted on 05/16/2010 1:47:53 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Not necessarily. The late William Rehnquest, perhaps the best Chief Justice of the 20th. Century, had no judicial experience.


28 posted on 05/16/2010 8:21:42 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama's more worried about Israelis building houses than he is about Islamists building atomic bombs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Shouldn't she be disqualified from consideration for the highest judicial position in the country simply based on the fact that she HAS NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE!!!???

Disagree.  She should be disqualified because she doesn't cherish the U.S. Constitution that serves as a guide in deciding cases before the court.

The U.S. Constitution is a document that any member of the government, be they mayor of your town to the military on the battleground are to defend and protect.

Kagan is a Communist and her ideology should be the disqualifying mark.

Furthermore, disqualifying on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional because it violates federal statute.

29 posted on 05/17/2010 12:05:54 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (In 2012: The Rookie and The Wookie get booted from the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

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