Posted on 07/01/2010 2:21:03 PM PDT by IbJensen
The chummy, Happy Jack Squirrel time atmosphere of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing is a little hard to take. Yes, she is "likable enough," to borrow Barack Obama's phrase about Hillary Clinton, but that won't make her any less destructive on the Supreme Court. If anything, it will make her more so.
Though generally pleasant, she has seemed a bit cocky and dishonest at times during the hearing. Notice that she is quite the confident expert on conscientious judging for someone who has never done any. And somehow Thurgood Marshall's doting pupil has suddenly become an "originalist."
She offered up several apple-polishing disclaimers about judicial restraint to a few skeptical senators, but she never actually repudiated her staggeringly inane tribute to Thurgood Marshall in the Texas Law Review. "Our modern constitution is his," she burbled with approval in that article. It is a "thing of glory."
Even in the hearing on Tuesday, where she was clearly working hard to fog up fundamental issues as much as possible, she asserted that the meaning of the Constitution can change "outside" of the amendment process. In other words, activist judges can change it. To the extent that she articulated her understanding of "originalism," it sounded very slippery: not fidelity to the meaning of the Constitution, but to the "intent" of it.
What, exactly, does "intent" mean? Anything Thurgoodian justices want it to mean. True, she said that judges are bound by the specific requirements that the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution, such as the Senate's age requirement of 30 (yet one wonders: Isn't 30 the new 20? Shouldn't that requirement "evolve" too under the superior understanding of modern justices?).
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
A person that bloated with licentious sanctimonious pretentiousness is almost certain to spontaneously explode without warning.
A generally decadent citizenry that sends dirtbags to Congress, that elects a Marxist Muslim President cannot expect enlightened Constitutionalism from the Supreme Court.
It’s happened before, to drummers....
“It’s not widely reported, you know.” And bizarre gardening accidents.
Obligatory “Carpet Muncher” Alert!
(See Tagline)
As far back as 2006 and 2007, four different Harvard Law Students confirmed that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was Lesbian. Why now is the Obama Administration ashamed to admit her homosexual orientation? Why stay “in the closet” to the American public, when Kagan is openly-gay among her friends?
In January 2006, The Harvard Law Review Epinions openly advertised Kagan’s Lesbian qualifications as a reason to attract new students:
Harvard Student #1) “HLS has changed over the years, and the newest, high-energy dean is Elena Kagan, a lesbian professor who has revitalized the community...I actually attended HLS. And I did so RECENTLY to boot, not 10 years ago.”
In December 2007, three more Harvard Law Students confirmed Elena Kagan is a Lesbian while writing on the Harvard Law School Admissions Discussion Board, posting under the topic “Is Elena Kagan married?” Their comments all agree:
Date: December 16th, 2007 2:16 PM
Author: 2nd Year Biglaw Litigator
Harvard Student #2) Isn’t she known to be a lesbian?
Date: December 16th, 2007 3:10 PM
Author: anonprestigiousguy
Harvard Student #3) well she is in ma.
Date: December 16th, 2007 2:10 PM
Author: notatooliswear
Harvard Student #4) pretty sure she’s with a female former partner of another leading legal academic.
In my combative FoxNews Radio interview with Alan Colmes last month, I read how AOLnews.com confirmed our report, saying “Kagan Gay Rumors Didn’t Start on the Right” and referencing pro-homosexual web-sites that claimed Kagan was Lesbian back in 2009, including Queerty, PinkNews, and Gawker. They brag about her...
http://www.prayinjesusname.org/kagan
I kept wondering if the shemale sitting behind her at the hearings was her current amour.
“The Banality of Elena...”
“But you should have seen her in her UNIFORM!” - Obscure Eichmann reference.
GRAHAM: Now, as we move forward and deal with law of war issues, Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day?
KAGAN: Senator Graham, that is an undecided legal issue, which — the — well, I suppose I should ask exactly what you mean by that. I’m assuming that the question you mean is whether a person who is apprehended in the United States is...
GRAHAM: No, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas.
KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.
I haven’t seen much of the hearings - on purpose - but I did see this and I don’t know if was a new blurb or the real thing but it should have told everyone listening that this dame (?) is ready to throw words out regardless of what the question is. Kinda like the guy who appointed her!
And Graham really did say “where you were AT”.....I heard someone say on the radio that she always responds with the Senator’s name as that gives her more time to process her answer. I guess she hasn’t figured out that that tactic really doesn’t work. Oh! it will for those who intend to vote for her anyway regardless of her answers.
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.