Translate

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Elena Kagan B.S.-ing the Senate


"Ms Kagan, what kind of sandwich are you eating?"

"Wabbit."


Let's be honest. Elena Kagan is going to be confirmed as the winner of the Dick Morris look-a-like contest, the Elmer Fudd sound-a-like contest, and next Supreme Court justice as well. She has the votes. The Democrat-dominated Judiciary Committee, chaired by Patrick Leahy (pictured below) is going to vote for her.



Kagan may as well stand up and tell us the truth. She is a liberal activist who is going to join the other liberals. She believes in interpreting the Consitution and the law the way ir will suit her philosophy. And according to her, we can use international law as a guide or resource or something in interpreting our own law and Constitution. Of course, we know that she has no judicial or trial experience, and some 1600 pages requested that dealt with her writings in the Clinton White House have not been released, but I guess that doesn't matter to the Senators.

But when she sits there and swears that she will "not be biased" in her decisions, I don't buy that. And what is she saying, "We are all originalists"? Stop it. If she were an originalist, Obama would not have chosen her. She was chosen because she is another liberal with a law degree who thinks the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can be changed (or interpreted) according to the perceived needs and issues of the day.

Why do you think she led the campaign to ban military recruiters from Harvard? Because she "reveres" the military as she said? Hardly. It was because she opposed the "Don't ask-don't tell" policy even though it was instituted under the Clinton administration under which she worked. Hers was the action of an activist.

But it's all academic. Even if Kagan were to confuse the Constitution with the DC phone book under questioning, she is going to be confirmed.

In spite of this....

"Courts would be wrong to strike down laws that are senseless just because they are senseless."


-Kagan today in answering a question on a hypothetical law that would dictate what people had to eat.

"Did you say 'eat'?"

18 comments:

Lance Christian Johnson said...

She was chosen because she is another liberal with a law degree who thinks the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can be changed (or interpreted) according to the perceived needs and issues of the day.

You're right, Gary! That's why black people are still only 3/5 of a person and women can't vote! The Constitution is unchanging! The values of the late 18th Century are completely in line with the values of the 21st Century! And don't believe those stories of Prohibition and then the repealing of Prohibition - all liberal lies!!!! Here's looking forward to Obama not just winning a second term, but a third and a fourth! After all, there's nothing in the Constitution saying that he can't! (Unless you're one of those morons who thinks that they somehow amended the Constitution!)

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

Who decided the blacks were only 3/5ths of a person? And how did that idea come up? Didn't someone decide that figure out of thin air?

The framers of the Constitution were indeed aware that times change. That's why they provided for amendments. Passing an amendment to the Const is not an easy, casual thing to do done on a whim by some judge who wants to interpret the Constitution in his or her own way.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Gary, my point is simply this:

You're criticizing Kagan for seeing the Constitution as a "living, breathing document". However, that's EXACTLY what it is. This is why it can be amended. Times change, and with those times, the Constitution must change.

As for "interpreting" the Constitution, that's the job of a judge. Everything is an interpretation! Sure, some things are much clearer than others in there, but it's all interpretation. Besides, you've made it clear that you don't care about activism so long as they're ruling the way you want them to rule.

Your whole post makes me wonder if you even understand the Constitution at a middle school level. I mean, you're asking me about the 3/5 of a person thing? It's in the Constitution! It's Article 1, Section 2 (later changed by the 14th Amendment). Yes, I had to look that up (the Constitution is online) but I remembered that it was in there from middle school.

Gary Fouse said...

And who changed the 3/5 part?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Are you arguing for my point now? You're the one claiming that there's something wrong with seeing the Constitution as a "living, breathing document". I'm proving to you that's exactly what it is.

Is your point that it wasn't a judge who changed the Constitution? If so, then I would agree with you that it would be wrong for a judge to rule that the Constitution says something that it definitely doesn't say. But where has Kegan ever said that it's okay to do so?

The thing is, I've figured out your whole way of thinking on this. "If I agree with the judge's ruling, then the judge was following the correct interpretation of the Constitution. If I disagree, then the judge is an activist judge."

Anonymous said...

Wow, I only had to wait a week to throw this back in your face. Thanks!

Remember, "judicial activism" is wrong wrong wrong! Well, unless you agree with the decision...

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

I think you are a week or two late on that argument. I think Lance threw that at me on another recent thread.

As for activist conservative judges, they are few and far between compared to activists left-wing judges. It'sd part of the liberal mantra. In fact, if you look at most of the crazy liberal ideas that have found their way into our law, it's been done from the bench-not by Congress. That's part of liberal activism on the courts-usurp the legislative and executive branches.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Do you have any specifics or just these vague generalities?

Anonymous said...

Last time I checked, the courts were a co-equal branch of the government. They're not below the congress or president.

Face it, you're a hypocrite about this.

Anonymous said...

Crazy liberal ideas like desegregating schools, for instance? Or did you have another example in mind?

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

"Crazy liberal ideas like desegregating schools, for instance? Or did you have another example in mind?"

If you are talking about the southern schools in the 50s like Central HS in Little Rock and the Univ of Mississippi etc., those were sound decisions, most of which made at the executive level or legislative level. If you are talking about bussing as a way to desegregate schools, those were courtesy of judges, and I would argue were and are a bad idea.

Yes, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of govt, but sometimes they forget that when they try to usurp the legislative or executive branch.

BTW, Mr Anonymous, are you capable of making your points without using insulting labels? I realize I also engage in that (e.g Leahy), but at least I sign my name to everything I write.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Calling somebody a hypocrite is not an "insulting label" when it's been established that the person is, indeed, being a hypocrite. It's accuracy in reporting.

Anonymous said...

You're addressing two different people, Gary. I am the second (non-name-calling) anonymous who brought up the desegregation of schools, not the first who called you a hypocrite (although I'd argue that "hypocrite" doesn't quite fit my definition of "name calling," esp. if the shoe fits...but I digress). I have a good reason for remaining anonymous, and it's not because I'm afraid to sign my name.

To the point, however, the notion that the courts were not instrumental in desegregating the schools in the south during the 50's is laughable. It's completely re-written history, and incredibly easy to refute. School desegregation happened DESPITE executive and legislative power, not because of it.

The Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka case in 1954 forced schools to integrate against the wishes of most local and state governments. Do you not recall Alabama governor George Wallace standing outside the schoolhouse gates, crowing about "segregation forever"? Without those "activist judges," it might have gone on that way.

As for your point about busing, I'll admit that it's a murkier point, legally. But if attempting to bring equality to the South through forced integration is the best "crazy liberal idea" you can come up with, you don't have much of an argument, wouldn't you say?

To another, broader point. Your original post seems to suggest that the Constitution is completely clear, set in stone, and cannot suffer "interpretation." Let's take one of the amendments that I presume, as a conservative, you're a big fan of: The 2nd Amendment.

It merely guarantees "the right to bear arms." Well, that's pretty broad, isn't it? Putting aside for a moment that "arms" in those days were single-shot muskets, there are clearly some other thorny issues.

Where are you allowed to bear arms? In your house? In public? At a school?

Who is allowed to bear them? Everyone? Legal citizens? Those with criminal records?

Lastly, what qualify as "arms"? That's a pretty vague term. Should you be allowed to carry grenades? Have a working mortar setup in your backyard? Tote a rocket launcher? Build a nuclear weapons silo?

Don't all these questions require judicial interpretation, common sense, and historical perspective? And what about the handgun laws that the courts just struck down? More "activist judges"? Or, since it's an application of the law that I'll bet you agree with, a correct legal decision?

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous # c2,

Yes, Brown vs Board of Education was an im portant legal decision. When Wallace stood in front of the school, was he not backed down by the Federal Govt.

To be honest, I'm not a big gun guy. I think in a society like ours, good people should be able to protect their home and family. Grenades and ak 47s? No at all.

"But if attempting to bring equality to the South through forced integration is the best "crazy liberal idea" you can come up with, you don't have much of an argument, wouldn't you say?"

I always supported the priniple that nobody should be excluded from attending the school in their neighborhood because of race. Racially segregated schools are no good.

But I don't support forced busing to integrate schools because the neighborhoods tend to be segregated (de facto). If we have social-economic parity, the neighborhoods will be integrated and the schools will be integrated. Busing, as you know has been used in non-Southern cities like LA and Boston not because they had racist laws separting the races, but because their neighborhoods were segregated (de facto). What has it done? Forced kids of all races to get up early and travel across town to attend another school. They still have to go home to their poor neighborhoods.

Anonymous said...

Yes, he was "backed down" by the federal government, which was using the legal authority granted to them by the Supreme Court. You act as if all these actions exist in a vacuum and aren't interconnected. Those troops were there to support a law, a law determined by judicial power, not the legislature nor voters. It seems as if you're trying to agree with the decision without seeing how that totally negates your point about "liberal activist judges" only existing to muck things up and abuse their power.

Your gun paragraph is another clear example of how you dodge the thrust of the argument. I brought up all those questions to elucidate the point that the Constitution is not a cut-and-dried, totally clear document that's easy to interpret. I didn't ask you your stance on gun control. I did it to refute your idea that the constitution is an easily-judged document that does not "live and breathe." That amendment alone shows how difficult our founding document can be to implement, particularly as technology evolves, does it not?

Again, I can see your point on the busing. I agree that legally, it's not the slam dunk that simply ending legal segregation was. My point was that regardless of how you see the issue, if that's the most egregious (and only) example of "liberal activist judges" you have, then there's really not much to get worked up about, is there? Are there other cases you can point to where liberal judges have clearly overstepped their bounds, because this one's debatable, and also done with the best intentions, as you yourself admit.

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

There is admittedly difficulty in interpreting the founding fathers' intent when they wrote a document in the 18th century. Yet a "living and breathing" Constitution is subject to activist judges twisting it to their own desires.

The constitution thus becomes nothing more than pizza dough.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

There is admittedly difficulty in interpreting the founding fathers' intent when they wrote a document in the 18th century. Yet a "living and breathing" Constitution is subject to activist judges twisting it to their own desires.

Wow. That's all I can say.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea how your first sentence and your second go together in any sort of cognitive way. You've just summarized the entire argument in a vague talking point.