For The Left, The Best Belief Is Unbelief: Why Kagan Would Never Be Dumped As Nominee
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
Last week, I had a thought-provoking discussion with S.E. Cupp about how liberals want to take God out of public discourse. She said something that’s had me thinking: “Liberals are not comfortable with fixed value systems.”
That discussion got me thinking about Elena Kagan and some complaints from the left about her. They all ring hollow because we all know, at the end of the day, she will be supported pretty much no matter what, by Democrats and leftists.
In my Pajamas Media column today, I discuss why that is:
The political left and the pretenders at centrism enter the Elena Kagan fray kvetching about her … ambiguity.
First, there’s the New York Times editorial ominously titled “Searching for Elena Kagan”:
But where, precisely, has Ms. Kagan been during the legal whirlwinds of the last few years, as issues like executive power, same-sex marriage, the rights of the accused and proper application of the death penalty have raged through the courts? As dean of the Harvard Law School, she spoke out against the military’s discrimination against gay and lesbian soldiers, but many students and professors there have expressed chagrin that she did not take a more forceful stance. And she has stated that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” Her positions on other current issues are either unclear – or possibly to the right of Justice Stevens.
Translation: We can’t tell if she’s liberal enough. That’s so frustrating!
And then there’s the pretenders Brooks and Frum. Is it safe to dislike something the president is doing or being? The New York Times doesn’t like the president’s actions? Whew! It’s safe to have a “dissenting opinion.”
First, David Brooks, since we’re at the New York Times:
Tom Goldstein, the publisher of the highly influential SCOTUSblog, has described Kagan as “extraordinarily – almost artistically – careful. I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade.”
Her publication record is scant and carefully nonideological. She has published five scholarly review articles, mostly on administrative law and the First Amendment. These articles were mostly on technical and procedural issues.
Around the end of the piece, I conclude this:
It is unimaginable that the left would ever push back against their own president, as the right did against President Bush over Harriet Miers. Wouldn’t happen. Won’t happen. They’ll complain and then they’ll submit, because ultimately, they know that the key factor for any leftist is to not believe anything.
And on that score, Kagan seems perfect. A leftist, first and foremost, must have an unfixed value system. There is no question, after her argument before the Supreme Court, that she views the Constitution and precedent to mean whatever she believes it means.
Elena Kagan will look at each case through her own lens. She will not contemplate the founders or other judges or what’s gone before. She will contemplate each case from her own perspective. The world according to Elena Kagan – whatever that means.
Liberals shouldn’t complain that they don’t know what Elena Kagan believes. With their worldview, that’s a perk not a problem. It’s a perfect situation for President Obama – if she doesn’t deliver, he’ll just shrug and claim ignorance. And the incurious press and codependent left won’t have anyone to blame either. They feign interest because they must, but it’s all empty naval-gazing.
Elena Kagan will not be blocked by worried Democrats. She’ll scarcely be questioned by them. Elena Kagan will be confirmed just as President Obama got elected – ambiguous and amorphous. That’s the way leftists like it.
The peril in having an unfixed value system, is that each liberal has his own value system. Now, they all end up believing the same way because their unbelief will bring a person to the same conclusions–whatever is perceived to benefit the “whole”, i.e. political friends who agree.
So the belief system isn’t global or fixed, it’s tribal and malleable and utilitarian and relativistic. That’s why liberals are so dangerous on the Supreme Court or anywhere. Founding documents or the Bible or the objective facts means whatever they think it means.
It also explains why they won’t ever give one of their own trouble over a Supreme Court pick. They are all working for the “greater good” and the highest value in this valueless system is to make the President look good.
More at Pajamas Media.
Also, check out these related posts:
Elena Kagan is not just another pretty face.
On Kagan’s sexuality. [Ben Smith of Politico confirms that she’s straight. Andrew Sullivan disbelieves.]
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
