RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama to name SCOTUS pick
President Obama plans to name Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 50, to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, according to various news sources.
The Senate, with seven Republicans in support, voted to confirm Kagan for the solicitor general position a little over a year ago. If confirmed to be a justice, she will be the third woman on the court. Because she has never served as a judge – the solicitor general argues cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government – very little is known about how she might rule on cases and her judicial philosophy. Her lack of judicial record is sure to arouse concerns, but it also makes her confirmation more likely.
As dean of Harvard Law School, she did argue strenuously against the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, which may be the most controversial position you hear about.
back to top87 Comments to “Obama to name SCOTUS pick”
Her opposition to DADT wasn’t nearly as bad as banning military recruiters from a campus that accepts government funds.
Report comment to moderator
Obama will nominate pro-abortion activist Elena Kagan this morning to become the next Supreme Court justice. Sign the
LifeNews.com/Students for Life petition to tell your U.S. senators you oppose her nomination.
http://www.iopposekagan.com
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Louise. But she was slapped down 8-0 on the banning of military recruiters. Very little is known, but much can be inferred by that one alone.
What’s that growling sound Lurch makes?
Report comment to moderator
Another unmarried lawyer out of Harvard. How many justices do we need from the northeast out of the Ivy leagues? Hello, Washington, we’ve got a lot of good schools and smart people out here in the west!
Report comment to moderator
#1, 3: My understanding is that she opposed recruiters on campus because of the military’s DADT policy.
Report comment to moderator
I personally don’t care why she opposed the recuiters. Opposing them is enough. The people who go to Harvard Law School are not slouches. They are adults who can make up their own minds. Who is she to deny them the right to meet with a recruiter for the military as they would recruiters for other job opportunities. The People don’t deserve HLS grads in JAG?
This woman’s political agenda is clear to me. I already feel I would not get a fair hearing from her.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Steve. I’ll be reading about this at Lifenews.com
Report comment to moderator
Her political agenda is plenty to oppose her (pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc), however it is her lack of bench experience that I would oppose. She quite obviously makes a great law school professor and dean but she has ZERO years experience as a judge. That means she has TONS of experience as an ACTIVIST and that is what she would be on the bench.
Report comment to moderator
Dean Kagan allowed the military to return and recruit at the law school. She didn’t have to do that. NJLAWYER misstates the facts by suggesting that SCOTUS ordered Kagan to allow recruiters back.
Obama picked Kagan to improve the legal education of Justice Kennedy and of the public at large. Instead, I’m afraid Scalia will persuade her to invest POTUS with dictatorial powers.
Report comment to moderator
“We are five days from a fundamental change in America.”
Report comment to moderator
Not true as usual Scroop…..she did not ALLOW the military to return until after the Pentagon sent a letter informing Harvard that they were removing their funding. The problem with this is that she was all too willing to accept their MONEY but was not willing to accept their presence unless they did what she wanted them to do and that was to lift DADT.
ACTIVISM is not JUDGING impartially.
Report comment to moderator
Elections have consequences.
Report comment to moderator
How could DADT be the most controversial issue? Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed services is supported by nearly 70% of the country and a majority of Republicans. It’s a noncontroversial issue. On the subject of DADT, you should read this letter to president Obama from a lesbian repeatedly blackmailed and raped during her service in the Army because of DADT.
What’s deplorable about the Kagan nomination is the GOP’s reaction thus far. They are attacking he for a piece she wrote praising Thurgood Marshall, and attacking Marshall’s legacy because he had the common sense to point out that the original raft of the constitution was defective and classified some citizens and 3/5 of others! Is this racist attack on the constitution how you all want your party behaving? The modern day GOP is sick.
Report comment to moderator
She could have well afforded to say no. The law school didn’t have to accept the government’s money. Dean Kagan was raising contributions far in excess of goals. She wasn’t ordered to allow recruiters, and I would hope that all Americans would defend a school’s right.
In the long run, everyone will realize Dean Kagan helped the military by saying no — temporarily — to recruiters.
It’s unfortunate that SCOTUS ruled the government had the power to withhold funds from schools that objected to DADT.
Report comment to moderator
“The people who go to Harvard Law School are not slouches. They are adults who can make up their own minds. Who is she to deny them the right to meet with a recruiter for the military as they would recruiters for other job opportunities”.
Oh please NJL, give me a break. How in the world could Kagan deny the right of students to meet with recruiters? You are saying the students are no slouches, but suggesting that the students are too stupid to find out about military career opportunities without recruiters visiting them on campus. Did Kagan confine them to campus? Did Kagan intercept and censor her student’s communications? No, of course not.
Your letting your hyper partisanship cloud your ability to reason. Please think about what you’re saying before you embarrass yourself further.
Report comment to moderator
If a recruiter is not on campus — out of sight, out of mind.
The ruling was 8-0.
Report comment to moderator
In 2009, Kagan and Kathleen Sullivan were listed as potential SCOTUS nominees who could be big wins for LGBT rights.
“…the degree to which personal experience can nurture a jurist’s zest for social justice. The mere experience of living as a woman, racial minority, LGBT person can make someone more sensitive, more progressive, and, thus, a better justice.”
“Kagan has shown her commitment to advocating for LGBR rights, and it seems clear that Kagan’s experience battling Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on campus demonstrates she understands the needs of Harvard Law’s gay and lesbian community.”
Report comment to moderator
Link for above and below quotes.
http://www.campusprogress.org/opinions/3984/a-more-gay-friendly-supreme-court
“As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the legislation so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard.
When a federal appeals court ruled the Pentagon could not withhold funds, she banned the military from Harvard’s campus once again. The case was challenged in the Supreme Court, which ruled the military could indeed require schools to allow recruiters if they wanted to receive federal money.
Kagan, though she allowed the military back, simultaneously urged students to demonstrate against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Throughout the controversy, Kagan maintained contact with Harvard Law School’s LGBT community. She attended a meeting of the student group Lambda and spoke with its leaders.”
Report comment to moderator
NJL, you and others are not telling the truth about Kagan’s record.
The ruling was not 8-0 on the “common sense” premise that a law school has to accept military recruiters if it takes government money. It was 8-0 on the constitutionality of a law passed by congress that tied federal money to recruiter access. You’re erasing Congress’s hand in the matter to make Kagan look more radical than she is by implying that what the law schools in that case (which were lead not by Harvard but by CSU Hastings in San Francisco) were challenging a more “fundamental” assertion than they really were.
The ban of military recruiters from Harvard’s career service’s center also predated Kagan’s tenure there by an order of several decades (since 1979).
Harvard had even relented to the stricter Solomon Amendment requirements BEFORE Kagan’s tenure started. The description that she was ordered by the court to readmit the recruiters is an ignorant fabrication. Kagan defied faculty and student pressure by keeping the policy of access for the military. She has never taken a single administrative step to bar military recruiters, and she didn’t even join a petition encouraging Summers to bar the military when she was part of the faculty.
Stop lying. You’re supposed to be employed in a RESEARCH heavy field! Try Googling something once in a while.
Report comment to moderator
Kagan joined others in an amicus brief. Congress had nothing to do with that. Was she ordered by the Court? No, she signed on as an amicus, a friend. Her sympathies did not lie with the military recruiters — so no, I am not making her radical. She made herself radical.
Report comment to moderator
And the comment regarding her lack of judicial experience is also well-founded. The Supreme Court is the last place for a radical. The purpose of the Supreme Court was to temper the Congress and the Executive. So, if anyone should be doing some research, Mynock, it should be you. Let’s hope you consult original sources and not one of those lefty liberal texts used by the kids today.
Report comment to moderator
And I also hope that those Republicans who voted for her for Solicitor General read that same history and don’t vote for her this time considering the permanent nature of the job.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, be more careful with your accusations of lying. To varying degrees, we all choose the facts to support our arguments. Readers get to meld both sides and make up their minds. As for lying by omission, you’d better search your own soul.
Report comment to moderator
“Kagan joined others in an amicus brief.”
And that’s the first time in 20 comments that you have managed an accurate description! That’s one heck of a record.
You should all be worried that the GOP opposition to Kagan is as scattered as NJL’s inarticulate blather.
If the RNC has been pouring over Kagan’s record for the last year and their first salvo in the nomination battle is that Kagan joins nearly 70% of US Americans and the majority of Republicans in opposition to DADT (and one racist attack on Thurgood Marshall), we can all expect them to become increasing embarrassing and incoherent as the case progresses.
It’s one heck of a party y’all are throwing.
P.S. The policy you are all foaming at the moth to support and condemn Kagan for opposing as resulted in unchecked RAPE! >> http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-former-army-sgt.-tracey-l.-cooper-harris/
Report comment to moderator
In this day and age, almost ALL liberal judges are judicial activists. That is, they legislate from the bench and twist the Constitution at will to suit their agenda. From her record that we read being discussed here today, it is apparent that Kagan is another liberal activist in that mold.
We can be confident that her primary modus operandi will be to use judicial power to advance her political agenda. Indeed, that is why Obama is nominating her—their agendas and methods are identical. Along with Sotomayor, this nomination is another Obama step in the direction of fulfilling his political commitment to the homosexual community. It is part of Obama’s agenda for fundamentally changing America.
He has already told us that we are no longer a Christian nation. Under his leadership we are continually taking steps towards becoming a Muslim nation, a Marxist nation, and a homosexual nation. That is the agenda of Obama and today’s Democratic party—the U.S. Constitution has been, and continues to be, subverted to that end.
Report comment to moderator
Well, maybe Mynock doesn’t understand what an amicus brief is.
Report comment to moderator
“And the comment regarding her lack of judicial experience is also well-founded … So, if anyone should be doing some research, Mynock, it should be you.”
You mean I should do some research and dig up the names of all the Supreme Court Justice we have appointed in this country who had no previous experience as judges?
Okay that sounds like a fun game, here goes…
John Marshall
Earl Warren
William Rehnquist
Felix Frankfurter
Louis Brandeis
Lewis Powell
Abe Fortas
According to Christian Science Monitor…there are 34 others we could name. I’ll work on digging them up later if you’d like!
Report comment to moderator
“Well, maybe Mynock doesn’t understand what an amicus brief is.”
Or maybe what I do understand is the difference between signing onto a brief that says the Solomon Amendment inappropriately restricts the policy freedoms of law schools and administratively/illegally banning the military from the school. One Kagan did and one she didn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle — when you posted above, were you aware that if Kagan is confirmed that all Supreme Court justices will be Harvard or Yale graduates?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Mynock, briefs hang their hats on a clause in the Constitution in an effort to get the political point through.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, NJL, that political point is shared by nearly 70% of US Americans and a majority of Republicans, because they don’t like policies that cause people to get raped >> http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-former-army-sgt.-tracey-l.-cooper-harris/
You’re going to have trouble painting her as a radical if you focus on her anti-rape position!
Report comment to moderator
Rape has nothing to do with recruiters, and that’s what I have been talking about.
I won’t have any trouble painting her as a radical. She is who she is.
Report comment to moderator
The most activist members of SCOTUS belong to the conservative wing. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Report comment to moderator
Ha! What’s activist about Sam Alito?
Report comment to moderator
Or are you just spouting what you’ve been told by the Leftist elite?
Report comment to moderator
Wow, the liberals are out in full force with the Organizing for America talking points. “Anyone who says otherwise is a liar”. “focus on her anti-rape position!”, etc, etc, etc.
I am opposed to her for one simple reason…..she is the choice of the Marxist in the White House to further his Marxist idealogy. Period!
Report comment to moderator
Reason enough, Atlas. But he has to choose someone. I’d rather have a paper trail to look at.
Report comment to moderator
“Or maybe what I do understand is the difference between signing onto a brief that says the Solomon Amendment inappropriately restricts the policy freedoms of law schools and administratively/illegally banning the military from the school. One Kagan did and one she didn’t.”
She both signed onto the brief and administratively blocked direct recruitment activity. The military wasn’t actually “banned from the school,” as put in Mynock’s clumsy locution. But Elena Kagan did administratively prevent military recruiters direct access to the Law school students.
In her own words: “I reinstated the application of our anti-discrimination policy to the military (after appropriate consultation with University officials) in the wake of the Third Circuit’s decision; as a result, the military did not receive OCS assistance during our spring 2005 recruiting season.”
For complete letter see: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2005/09/20_recruiting.php
Not sure where Mynock is getting his statistics, but it would be simple enough if the support was that strong for congress to change the law that proscribes active and overt homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. DADT is merely an executive order instructing the Defense Department to ignore that law unless their nose is rubbed in it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s been 38 years since someone was appointed and not a judge prior to it.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0510/kagan_blemish_gahr.php3
“True, Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, would be the first person without judicial experience appointed to the Supreme Court since William Rehnquist in 1972, doesn’t have much of a paper trail.”
“But Kagan does have an identifiable, though overlooked, track record on one matter and it’s a telling one. As Dean of Harvard Law School in 2004 and 2005 she treated two liberal law professors with kid gloves when they were busted for plagiarism. Her chicanery was so blatant that even a leftist academic said she should be fired for her “whitewash.”
“But the way she handled professors Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree, when they both were caught swiping the words of others, seems to violate basic principles of fairness.
She let the professors off easy for the kind of offense that for which any Harvard undergraduate or law school would have been suspended if not expelled.”
“It also could say a lot about Kagan would behave on the bench. Through inaction and disingenuous statements that disregarded Harvard’s own disciplinary policy Kagan exonerated Tribe and Ogletree of any malfeasance.
In other words, like a good liberal activist judge, she ignored precedent and the plain meaning of relevant texts to create an outcome that struck her fancy.”
Report comment to moderator
More, I don’t think some of the other Justices’s are very impressed at all.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/10/when-elena-met-antonin-and-anthony/
“Kagan didn’t do her homework before arguing the Citizens United case on behalf of the Obama administration and the FEC — which her probably-soon-to-be colleagues on the Supreme Court wasted no time in pointing out. It came at the very beginning of her oral argument, when one might expect a Solicitor General to attempt to impress the panel with her grasp of law and precedent:”
“In fact, the crux of the case was the issue of limiting expenditures as an expression of political speech, not contributions. Kagan started off her argument by misconstruing the issue and then offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent. Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didn’t pay much attention to them.”
Report comment to moderator
Ha! What’s activist about Sam Alito?
You’re joking, NJLAWYER.
1.) In Citizens United, he overturned Congressionally-enacted limitations on corporate political spending.
2.) Then, he moved his lips egregiously on national TV, like he was a White man in D.W Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, when he was just supposed to sit impassively storing up his thoughts about the law.
The ABA Journal periodically measures the judicial activism of the justices. Scalia and Thomas are always the most activist, Justice Kennedy rather neutral, and Justice Breyer the most restrained.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/study_labels_thomas_most_partisan_justice_scalia_most_activist/
Report comment to moderator
1) Citizens United shows Alito know what the word “NO” means in the First Amendment, something leftists can’t abide.
2) All he said was that Obama misconstrued the opinion — and he did, something Leftists don’t want to admit.
So, no, I am not joking.
Report comment to moderator
Comment on the topic, not the other commenters.
Report comment to moderator
Reportedly, on her Senate questionnaire for confrimation as Solicitor General, she stated that there was no right in our Constitution for homosexuals of the same sex marrying each other.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been listening to her oral argument in Citizens United. Her responses to the justices were not impressive and lacked any discernible power of persuasion.
Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion wrote that there is no principled way to distinguish between media corporations and others and that the dissent’s theory would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, on tv news programs, in books and on blogs!
Report comment to moderator
I’ve heard that before, Louise, that she just ignored them and went ahead where she wanted to go.
Report comment to moderator
So, I want a senator to ask her if she believes that, under the Commerce Clause, the government can force a citizen to buy a product from a private company under penalty of law.
Report comment to moderator
Louise!
Report comment to moderator
Very good, Louise! I don’t see how they can approve someone who has NO judicial experience anyway–especially these days when justices are actually MAKING law. We should be at least allowed to see what kind of law she’d make.
Report comment to moderator
Kagan has reportedly been ‘out’ for at least a year according to a number of news reports. It’s not a good idea to be nominating an openly gay/lesbian justice right now when the left is pushing hard (and winning in many places) for homosexual marriage. I would take note of which Repubs vote for her–they should be on their way out next election.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/elena-kagan-gay-rumors-didnt-start-with-conservatives/19471930
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, if this becomes a cause for homosexual activists they will regret it. But it might be interesting watching how the MSNBC stable of infotainers will slide it in.
Maybe something like Obama preaching against being distracted by information we get from video games. Pathetic.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, I haven’t read or heard any of what you accuse Kagan of in 51. Please give me some links or elaborate with attributions.
Report comment to moderator
I hope that no homosexual activist ever serves on the Supreme Court at any time. I am aware that some Christians do not believe that government should be involved in marriage at all—and there is some merit to that argument. But right now the government is involved.
The homosexual lobby has been very active in the past few years. Anyone who is concerned that homosexual marriage NOT become the law of the land, should make their position known to their Senators NOW. Putting an untried jurist who has made no secret of her homosexual activism on the Supreme Court is a bad idea AT ANY TIME. It’s a worse idea when it comes at a time of vulnerability, such as when activists have successfully pushed homosexual marriage through the courts in so many states, including mine.
I have already contacted my senators, but they are part of the problem. Hopefully, some of you have senators who won’t be.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (6): The people who go to Harvard Law School are not slouches. They are adults who can make up their own minds.
Frank: So do you think they know how to find the nearest recruiting station if they are considering military service?
Report comment to moderator
Salon writer (and open homosexual) Glenn Greenwald’s “case against Elena Kagan”:
I didn’t know that Glenn Greenwald is an open homosexual. He was on tv tonight complaining that Kagan is a blank slate. Maybe this will be the source of the push either for or against her confirmation depending on how the homosexuals feel. You think?
Report comment to moderator
Except that I don’t perceive Greenwald as a “homosexual activist.” (Although I could be wrong.)
There are many homosexuals who are not “homosexual activists,” constantly promoting the homosexual agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Well, at least Obama is consistent. He insists on surrounding himself with the least competent people he can find. It is as if he goes out of his way to find the perfect mismatch, like choosing a tax cheat to head the IRS or a pedophile sympathizer to head the Department of Education or a Marxist as job-czar or a pay czar who scammed 911 victims and so on.
Elena Kagan’s only claim to fame is her fight against the military and for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transvestites. Homosexual hate speech laws around the world are curtailing civil liberties and having Christians thrown in jail.
Kagan’s nomination is just one more step on the road to the fascism of the American left.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA I would take note of which Repubs vote for her–they should be on their way out next election.
That would be terrific.
Debra, be an angel and please would you promise to vote against any Republican who doesn’t filibuster.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, I’m relocating. I can’t even promise to vote at all this time around. Cheer yourself with that thought.
Report comment to moderator
XiON or a pedophile sympathizer to head the Department of Education
What sort of millstone are you hanging about Arne Duncan’s neck, XION?
Report comment to moderator
#62 I was referring to Kevin Jennings, Obama’s czar of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education, who is a drug abuser who openly promotes homosexuality and praises Harry Hay of NAMBLA who promotes gay sex with children.
My point was that if you go down the list of Obama’s appointees, he chooses people who have the worst qualifications imaginable for a given job. It is as if he goes out of his way to poke the American people in the eye.
Report comment to moderator
And one of Kagan’s writings proposes to increase presidential power. She’s one of the reasons we have “czars.”
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t call her incompetent, Xion. She’s competent, and that’s what I’m afraid of.
Report comment to moderator
Does Elena Kagan Support Limited Government?
“…modern ‘constitutional law’ has allowed an all but unlimited federal government – nowhere more evident than in Ms. Kagan’s sponsor’s cardinal achievement to date, ObamaCare.
In this time of the Tea Party movement (witness this weekend’s developments in Utah), when the cry is “Give us back our Constitution,” the question, “Are there any longer any limits on federal power?”
Someone should ask her what she thinks they are. Then she should be asked again and again to compare several answers.
http://www.cato-at-liberty-.org/2010/05/10/does-elena-kagan-support-limited-government/
Report comment to moderator
You still haven’t said what you have against Arne Duncan, XION.
Since you were referring to Kevin Jennings, an assistant deputy secretary below a deputy secretary, why did you tell us he “heads the Department of Education”? That sounds like you have something against his boss, Arne Duncan. Do you?
Arne Duncan picked Kevin Jennings, so does that mean Arne Duncan sympathizes with pedophilia, too?
Why do you call an assistant deputy secretary at one of 20 subdivisions within the Department of Education a “czar”? Pederasty is scary enough, dude.
You ought to explain how Harry Hay “promotes sex with children,” being as how he died in 2002 at the age of 90. What a spokesperson!
What did Jennings say about Harry Hay, and when, XiON? Neither WIKI nor NYTimes tell us. I suspect that in the 90’s Jennings praised Hay’s role in the gay rights movement of the 1950’s. How would Jennings have learned if Hay “promoted sex with children” (if Hay really did)?
I’m all in favor of accusations, XION, but not slander-slinging. I realize that the former is hard work and really wish, for your sake, that it could be as much fun. However, big guys suck it up.
Report comment to moderator
Kevin Jennings has never promoted homosexuality, openly or covertly. He would be too smart to waste his time, since the promotion of homosexuality is handled adequately by hormones.
What drug abuse, XioN? Does he have more than two glasses of wine a day?
Report comment to moderator
For information on the creep, pervert, and abuser-facilitator known as Kevin Jennings (the piece of work who Obama and Scroop Moth and other various flacks and servants of the all-Powerful State want your children ‘handled’ by), see
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/education/2386-obamas-safe-schools-czar-kevin-jennings
Of course, Kevin Jennings is mild sauce compared to the collected supporters of child murder, bigots, anti-Constitutionalists, Statists, and haters which comprise Obama’s present wanna-be Politburo.
However – there is good news for Americans. Fortunately for the Republic, Obama’s supporters in the hinterland are dwindling fast – now mostly just despondent, depressed groups of leftists clinging to life in a few of the wackier East and West coast enclaves, looking for all the world like stressed herds of dejected and morose walruses, blowing in astonishment and dismay through their whiskers.
Waiting with mounting dread and trepidation for the sealers of November 2010 to come, you know.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah a blank slate. Kinda like Obama and his record. Sure there is one, but it’s hidden. So are the papers she published at Harvard available for review? Or like Obama’s are they off limits?
The first blank slate they dumped on us has become a nightmare for America. Why should I believe that this one, chosen by the first one, would turn out any different?
And Scroopy,
Seriously, you should try some new websites if you’re not aware of who, and what, Kevin Jennings is. Try this. All the info you need to know about the slimeball Jennings can be found here. Content warning big time.
http://biggovernment.com/?s=kevin+jennings
Report comment to moderator
And while there’s not much of a paper trail on Kagan, there is some. It’s just not very good.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/10/kagans-paper-trail/
“Her writings while a student at Princeton will also spark interest during her confirmation hearings. In November 1980, she authored a piece for the student newspaper called “Fear and Loathing in Brooklyn.” In it, Kagan said she “absorbed … liberal principles early,” and she lamented the political success the right was having. She wrote that she looked forward to a time when a “more leftist left will once again come to the fore.”
Her senior thesis at Princeton focused on the demise of the Socialist movement in the early 20th century. Kagan referred to it as “… a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.”
Her supporters say it was simply a college paper that examined, but did not condone socialism. The professor who oversaw her research for the piece went a step further, calling Kagan the “furthest thing from a socialist – period.”
However, with such an abbreviated record to parse, the writings are sure to attract attention in the weeks ahead.”
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
I rewrote #72 after an earlier attempt failed to post.
WorldMagBlog no longer lets us say the clinical name of the male organ containing the urethra. We can still say foreskin.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. George Reker’s cofounder of Family Research Council is James Dobson.
Report comment to moderator
If Kagan is gay, she will most likely be the second gay Supreme Court Judge after John Roberts, who:
1. Didn’t marry until he was 41, and when he did, he married a cold fish.
2. He has adopted instead of biological children. We have no proof that he and his wife have consummated their marriage.
3. His Harvard law advisor was an openly gay man.
4. He has had at least one openly gay clerk, probably more.
5. Roberts’ Harvard Classmate Eric Rofes, has referred to conservatives at Harvard as “queers on campus”.
6. Old photos of John Roberts, almost always with handsome guy buddies, will set off even the most rudimentary gaydar.
And perhaps most importantly,
7. He did pro bono work for gay activists friends, making him a gay activist himself.
Why is it that so very many conservative leaders turn out to be self loathing closeted gays?
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER (64): And one of Kagan’s writings proposes to increase presidential power.
FRANK: … which seems to be precisely what Glenn Greenwald doesn’t like about her.
(Of course, when David Addington and John Yoo defended and/or proposed expanded presidential — and vice-presidential — power, my fellow conservatives were asleep at the switch. “Keep moving, nothing to see here … “)
Report comment to moderator
It will be interesting to learn which cases Kagan might have to be recused from in the short run. The lefties won’t like that!
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#68) writes:
“Kevin Jennings has never promoted homosexuality, openly or covertly.”
The links provided by Drill and AJ at 69 and 70 show your above statement to be absolutely false.
Jennings, like Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, is an aggressive homosexual activist. It is apparent that neither of them have any respect for current laws that in any way restrict or govern homosexual behavior. Their modus operandi is to either disregard or subvert current laws that they disagree with until they can gain enough political power to change the laws to their liking—all of this in total disregard for the views of the majority of Americans.
It is dangerous to put people into positions of power who’s disdain for the overwhelming majority of Americans is such that they are willing to subvert current laws and Constitutionally mandated processes in order to get their way.
Jennings should be removed from his position. Kagan should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court and she should be removed from her current position as Solicitor General. Both of these individuals appear to have priorities that place homosexuality at the top of their list; everything else, including respect for the law and other Americans, is somewhere much lower on their list of priorities.
Report comment to moderator
The James Dobson organization is an unreliable source of, information about homosexuals. The plain facts regarding his association with George Rekers cannot be stated on this website without being deleted by the moderator.
MICHAEL MARTIN’s comments fail to distinguish between promoting homosexuality (which is a phenomenon of nature) and promoting fair and humane treatment of homosexuals.
Kevin Jennings is a splendid American who is being subjected to Evangelical thuggery.
Report comment to moderator
KEN — Thank you for the useful information about the so-called “banning” of military recruitment at Harvard. Dean Kagan’s explanation is an eye-opener.
The information seems to contradict your statement that Elena Kagan did administratively prevent military recruiters direct access to the Law school students.
She did not. Kagan merely denied the sponsorship of Harvard’s career office while allowing military recruiters to be present in the same room with other recruiters, with direct access to students. Dean Kagan said, The military retained full access to our students (and vice versa) through the good offices of the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, which essentially took the place of OCS in enabling interviews to occur.
Dean Kagan comes off smelling like a rose. She defended the university’s right not to sponsor recruiters who refuse to sign a non-discrimination pledge, yet she allowed procedures that permitted the military to recruit there anyway. Balance and equity! When the US courts eventually gave the military the power to take away Harvard’s research money, she allowed the the career office to sponsor the military, in violation of university policy. Thus, Kagan preserved the university’s commitment to non-discrimination and made it clear that the recruitment was a violation. She didn’t give up Harvard’s imprimatur without being bullied. She dramatized the dishonesty of the military’s phony complaint about recruitment and the real issue of official sponsorship, which had to be compelled. Let’s hope the military eventually apologizes to Harvard for bullying, just for the sake of bullying, for no practical effect.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson,
Last comment is very well serving. Let’s not hoist up “consummating a marriage as proof someone is not gay” or any of your other silly standards. That’s usually the kind of thing that ends up getting teenagers who fear social stigma pregnant!
As an aside that a marriage is ever “consummated” or “not consummated” is a ridiculous anachronism.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I meant, NOT very well serving.
Report comment to moderator
Kagan’s activist LGBT agenda has far reaching implications for Christians as we have seen recently in England, where Christians are jailed for thought crimes.
So you see how a radical homosexual activist on the Supreme Court who places empathy and feelings over justice and the law is a threat to truth and justice and liberty.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, Kagan keeps saying that her problem was with the military’s discriminatory policy of DADT.
DADT is not a policy of the military, it was passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton and Kagan leveled her own peeve at the military which was only implementing the law.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#79) writes:
“MICHAEL MARTIN’s comments fail to distinguish between promoting homosexuality (which is a phenomenon of nature) and promoting fair and humane treatment of homosexuals.”
You write this Moth as if Jennings observes this distinction, which he does not.
Jennings obviously operates firing both barrels of his Queer shotgun at the same time. Your construct, in this particular case, is nothing more than a disingenuous quibble.
The only thug in this discussion is Kevin Jennings—your distorted idea of a “splendid American.”
Report comment to moderator
As I understand it, “Queering” is: 1.) ruining the construction of engendered sexual difference, 2.) thwarting the sanctions of patriarchy, and 3.) desensitizing the language that’s used to disparage homosexuality. The “pro-homosexual” agenda (to use a bourgeois characterization of human liberation) protects sexual desire from shame, intimidation, and objectification by others.
Here’s your mission (should you choose to accept it):
“The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
“We believe that such an atmosphere engenders a positive sense of self, which is the basis of educational achievement and personal growth. Since homophobia and heterosexism undermine a healthy school climate, we work to educate teachers, students and the public at large about the damaging effects these forces have on youth and adults alike. We recognize that forces such as racism and sexism have similarly adverse impacts on communities and we support schools in seeking to redress all such inequities.
“GLSEN seeks to develop school climates where difference is valued for the positive contribution it makes in creating a more vibrant and diverse community. We welcome as members any and all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression or occupation, who are committed to seeing this philosophy realized in K-12 schools.”
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/about/history/index.html
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#86):
Before we get too far along on this Kevin Jennings “rabbit trail,” it is good to remember that this thread is about Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Jennings is relevant in that he and Kagan share the same agenda and methodology.
Agenda: The aggressive promotion of homosexuality as a normal and preferred lifestyle.
The mission statement that you quoted above is taken directly from the “Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network” (GLSEN) website and is deceptively tailored for mass public acceptance. As such, it does exactly what my quote at #85 describes: it misrepresents GLSEN as merely an advocate for the safety of homosexual students in our schools.
However, an examination of what GLSEN actually does, reveals the truth of their aggressive promotion of homosexuality in our schools. They are not just about keeping homosexual students safe from abuse by other students. They are about converting as many students as possible into homosexuals like themselves. They are now working throughout our schools from the grade school level through high school. All parents should be aware of this, but sadly, most are not.
In March of 2000, GLSEN held an instructional conference at Tufts University. The Massachusetts Department of Education bussed in hundreds of students from across the state to hear Jennings introduce the day’s events, most of which were graphic descriptions and promotions of homosexual sex acts.
Here are the details of what GLSEN actually does. Although the details are very disturbing, any parent who is genuinely interested in the safety of his/her child should use this link to see and hear what GLSEN is really doing in our public schools. Actual recordings were made at the event and it is telling that Jennings and GLSEN later attempted (unsuccessfully) to have the courts ban their airing. They did not want parents and the public at large to know what they were doing with students behind closed doors.
This brings me to my second point, the methodology of these people: lies and cover-up. Jennings’s deceit is clearly seen in the details of the Tuft’s incident, which he tried to hide. Similarly, red flags are going up everywhere over the obfuscation surrounding Kagan and her role in the controversy surrounding the banning of military recruiters at Harvard and the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Yet, the fact that the LGBT community is vigorously championing her for the Supreme Court as if she is one of their own, raises serious questions about her qualifications.
That community, of which Kagan may well be a part, is not know for the kind of truthful objectivity that is a requisite for the United States Supreme Court. Rather, the LGBT community is more known for a hell-bent advocacy of their lifestyle that doesn’t hesitate to stoop to the kind of lies and deceit that Jennings and GLSEN typify. Do we want that kind of a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court? I think not.
Kagan is described as being intensely private about her personal life. We know that she is not married. Yet she is unwilling to tell us anything more. Why? In better years gone by, such personal questions would indeed have been inappropriate. But not anymore. Given the mindset and unscrupulous behavior that is obviously rampant in the LGBT community, we cannot blindly entrust the power of one of the highest offices in the land to a person who may well be trying to gain that power in order to impose a hidden agenda upon the entire land.
America made that mistake with President Obama and his hidden Marxist/Muslim program to fundamentally change all of America. The groundswell against that is growing dramatically as more and more Americans are seeing the ugly realities of the Obama “manifesto” being forced down our throats.
Obama has pursued a similar course with Kevin Jennings, GLSEN and the homosexual transformation that they want to bring to America. Elena Kagan, in keeping with their deceitful methodology, is another and even more dangerous step in the same direction. She must not—absolutely must not—be allowed to take a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!