Much to my surprise, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve Elena Kagan’s nomination for the Supreme Court. From here, Kagan moves on to be confirmed by the Senate.
Ban the books; and Lindsey Graham
Where do these people get off? How can Republican Senator Lindsey Graham justify voting for this woman? She’s shown throughout her career that she’s got some radical views that aren’t in line with the American standard. She’s even told Senator Sphincter (Spector) that it was “a little bit difficult to take off the advocate’s hat and put on the judge’s hat.” Aside from the fact that that’s a stupid metaphor, it’s scary to think that someone who has argued in favor of such radical things as banning books/movies in certain situations could soon be among our Judicial System.
Anti-Military, Pro Sharia?
Even scarier is the fact that, while she wouldn’t allow military recruiters onto the Harvard Law campus during her time as Dean (apparently because the military couldn’t enlist homosexuals), she allowed Saudi’s promoting Sharia Law (which calls for killing homosexuals, among other things) onto campus with no problem. I’m not at all saying that Kagan is going to invoke Sharia law on the U.S., or that she supports it, I’m just pointing out the sharp hypocrisy she displayed over this issue.
Bratty Know-It-All
Another big issue, to me at least, is Kagan’s attitude. She’s just a punk that clearly thinks she’s above people she deems as lesser than herself. Take for example her exchange with Senator Coburn during her hearing. He asked her, hypothetically, if creating a law saying that America’s had to consume 3 vegetables daily would violate the Constitution. Mrs. Kagan elegantly responded with “Sounds like a dumb law”. Brilliant Mrs. Kagan; my hat (my advocate’s hat or my judge’s hat; take your pick) goes off to you. The question should have been a softball, but Kagan couldn’t even answer it. As a whole, her hearing revealed nothing but the fact that she isn’t half as funny as she thinks she is.
July Giveaway Comment Bonus #3: Leave a comment or e-mail us with another (legitmate) problem with Mrs. Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice and we’ll put it on the home page and give you 5 free entries in the July iPad Giveaway.
What do you think of Mrs. Kagan? Do you think she should be confirmed? Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to theconservativejournal@gmail.com. Don’t forget to bookmark The Conservative Journal and sign up for the RSS Feed and the daily e-mail newsletter.
Also, Deluxe Membership is now available, click here to join for free. View the results of the “Best of 2009″ by clicking here. To enter to win a 16 Gigabyte Apple iPad from The Conservative Journal, click HERE.
Thanks for reading!
Rick
Related Posts - The Conservative Journal 2.0: Keep the Changes Rolling!
- April Giveaway: 16 Gigabyte Apple iPad
- Bring Back Shirley Sherrod! Glenn Beck to the Rescue?
- The Conservative Journal Deluxe: Sign Up Now!
- March Giveaway: TWO 32 Gigabyte Apple iPad 2's
Related Websites - Choosing your Shotgun
- You Can Become An Expert On 5 New List Building Ideas After Reading This
- Turning Blog Visitors into Blog Readers
Her lack of experience is a problem as well – she has never sat on the bench as a judge so what makes her qualified to become a judge of the Supreme Court.
Great point, Erika! She has about as much experience to be a Justice as Barack had to be President. Look how that turned out.
Thanks for the comment, I’ve added your bonus entries!
Rick
Those had better of been 3 months of being a hardcore lawyer!!! With this administration you need no experience. The Obama’s personal chef (not the white house chef) became a senior advisor and health food czar…Somewhere along the line we woke up in the freaking twilight zone.
Bill Mears CNN reported on 06-18- 2010 Kagan notes label KKK and NRA as ‘bad guy’ organizations! I guess we know what her stance will be about gun control as it comes up before the Supreme Court.
I mean, the KKK obviously but the NRA too? That’s ridiculous. I hadn’t seen this Steve, thanks for filling us in.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, hope to see you again!
Rick
Yes, I agree about not sitting on a bench…you would think that would be a prerequisite.
As I have been reading more info about Elena, I find that I still don’t know her view on many major issues – she is very wishy washy and seems to not be able to commit!
She is a joke, just like much of the annoited one’s cabinet. She’ll probably be appointed and go down as the worst supreme court judge in history. Her lack of respect for our first and second ammendments mean she has an adgenda to be an activist (which should NOT be tolerated on the supreme court). As for Lindsey Graham, until he comes out of the closet, he’ll be beholden to those who will out him, just like 75% of the Washington politicos who have something hanging over their heads.
She is smoke and mirrors, man. I can’t find anything concrete about her, really. I’m wondering if she’ll keep her head down and crack jokes or (God Help Us!) decide she really is a constitutional pundit. WE NEED REAL CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS IF WE CAN’T HAVE REAL JUDGES for a change, damnit. Not what we are getting here. I personally think this was a sop to jewish voters and nothing more…sounds like something Emanuel would think up in time for fund raising.Obama is still getting bad advice…he isn’t nearly as smart as he thinks he is. No legal rep whatsoever, no experience and no profundity…the biggest
problem is that as a justice she has absolutely nothing to offer the American people.
The smell? Just kidding. She summed up (and was quoted a lot for doing so) the biggest problem with nominees and the confirmation process. It’s all water. It’s a dance that doesn’t really add to anyone’s understanding of the issues or the candidate’s position.
I don’t mind that she’s never sat as a judge before – there’s precedent for that (I know Rehnquist and Warren, but there were also others).
What I do mind though is that she’s sort of “milquetoast” – inoffensive enough to either side, to be able to be confirmed. THAT bothers me. Since when it did stop being about nominating the best person for the job, one who can provide guidance, leadership and a strong voice (regardless of what side of the argument they fall on)?