Obama’s SCOTUS Pick: A Military Hating Harriet Miers

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Obama’s SCOTUS Pick: A Military Hating Harriet Miers

Written By : John Hawkins

Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Elana Kagan, is like Harriet Miers in some respects. She’s a very accomplished woman, but she’s under-accomplished for a Supreme Court Justice. Kagan has never sat on the bench and she’d never even argued a case before the Supreme Court before she became Obama’s Solicitor General.

Worse yet, she has some ugly baggage. Hilariously, given the events of recent months, Kagan spent 3 years on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs. However, much more significantly, Kagan banned military recruiters from Harvard over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We’re at war and Obama’s picking a judge who’s hostile to the troops? For someone who supported and respected the troops, a nominee like Kagan would be a non-starter. The GOP should come back to that issue again and again during the confirmation hearings.

So, why did Obama take Kagan? He could have easily taken a less controversial nominee than a woman who received 31 Republican “no votes” for the Solicitor General position. Moreover, let’s be honest: Every liberal justice votes the same way Michael Moore would on any case that matters. Liberal political goals mean everything and the Constitution means nothing. So, they can talk about how wonderfully centrist she is (They say that about every liberal justice), but in the end, she’ll vote for anything near and dear to the heart of the Left. So, why Kagan? My best guess is that Obama figures Kagan is a two-fer: She’ll be another woman on the Supreme Court and the first lesbian as well. Yes, Kagan’s not technically out of the closet yet, but give it time.

Now, let’s get down to it: Should the GOP filibuster? Kagan doesn’t deserve to be on the Supreme Court, but strategically, it would be futile to filibuster an Obama Supreme Court pick unless the GOP intends to keep the logjam going through 2-3 nominees to force a moderate selection. The Democrats have shown that kind of discipline before. The GOP never has and after railing against the filibuster as unconstitutional, they’re unlikely to do so with Kagan. There are at least a half-dozen Republicans who will vote for pretty much any Democrat with a heartbeat and a law degree, despite the fact that the Dems won’t return the favor. Ultimately, that means any sort of political strategy is doomed and even if Kagan somehow goes down in flames, she’d be replaced with a liberal who’s just as bad next time around. That means there is no real point to filibustering her other than to deflect criticism. If the GOP had even 48 or 49 senators, I’d be calling for them to be just as ruthless as the Democrats. However, with 41 votes, it’s a no-win situation.

baoxian

Of course she's the perfect nominee. An unaccomplished left-wing ideologue that will dutifully take her marching orders in order to build a legacy and avoid being attacked in the press.

This is also going to be the ugliest nomination since Clarance Thomas or worse. Obama intentionally chose Kagan for her “is she or isn't she” quality, and the left will be driving the gossip. Much like the Obama-fist-bump Newsweek cover, the left will create the meme, drive the discussion, then project blame onto the right as soon as anybody comments on the left's own hysteria. Some crackpot like Pat Buchannan will make a snide remark, and the entire right will be smeared for being homophobic even though I suspect nearly the entire right will go out of its way to say sexual preference has no bearing on the ability of a SCOTUS justice.

But this is how Obama The Great Divider chooses to play politics.

Mr. EMT

Simple arguement:
If you disrespect the highest court in the land enough to vote to place someone who has absolutely no judicial experience at all. By all means, vote for someone with out any experience and show that you have no business holding your own seat.

whats_up

Judicial experience is not required to sit on the Supreme Court, many of its most ablest Judges did not have prior experience as a judge.

Mr. EMT

Thanks for proving my point.

whats_up

What point was that?
Mr. EMT

Oh, scuse me down there. Did you honestly think that approving someone with no experience at all for an authority position on the highest court in the land was going to impress people?
Guess you do not mind giving away the fact you have never held any position of responsibility in your life, nor would anyone entrust you with making any important decisions.

Thanks for playing, you fail miserably.
whats_up

Like I said before many Judges on the Supreme Court have had no judicial experience before. Some of those have been counted as the greatest judges to sit on the court, so your arguments ring hollow my friend.
Mr. EMT

I'm sure you are used to hollow ringing in your head.
whats_up

So you dont think that Justice Renquist was that good, after all he had no judicial experience prior to being named to the court. How about Justice Warren?
TheDickNixon

How about your claim David Duke voted for Bush in 2004?

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C2UYYYSPBB7S3NC3NQ7NOJFLME Peter

Most rational Americans will embrace this nomination.

Your bed wetter party of crybabies lost the last election. Elections have consequences.

Is she or isn't she? Who freaking cares?

Trench_Raider

Elections have consequences.

You keep that comment in mind come November, child.

And oh yes….trolling flagged.

TR

howardzinn

The 'Banned' is flagging people… that's funny.

Trench_Raider

yes, I flag trolls and idiots….like you. Everyone should so so to prevent the like of you from being under the misconception that you are a legitimate member of this community.

And for the record, I am not “banned”, son. I was given an amnesty.
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/04/rwns-new-comme…

And yes, you ARE a troll. Clearly the members of this site and the staff regard you as such. How many posts have you had deleted since last Friday? I've had none. What does that tell you?

TR

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Americans with critical thinking skills question ANY nomination, and come to their own conclusions based on their beliefs. Idealogues accept any and all nominations handed to them without question.
tblrk2006

Son, unqualified people are not something to be proud of. This will come back to bite ALL of us in the ass.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C2UYYYSPBB7S3NC3NQ7NOJFLME Peter

This from the party that wanted quittin' Sarah to be vice president.

TheDickNixon

And you voted for the man who makes Jimmah Carter look like George Washington.

baoxian

I don't care. Maybe you should be asking why HuffPo (a rabidly left-wing blog, lest you forget) is already starting the chum line on the gay-baiting angle.

Trench_Raider

The thing about the military recruiters alone should be enough to disqaulify her from being so much as janitor staff for the Supreme Court. As most Americans respect and admire the military (as they should) this will probably be the most productive line of attack when the Republicans oppose the nomination. Sadly the clown the White House has a rubber stamp congress, so this creature will probably be confrimed.

TR

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C2UYYYSPBB7S3NC3NQ7NOJFLME Peter

Nonsense. This is a free country and many of us don't like the fact that our federal dollars for schools force those schools to have military recruiters on campus.

If we wanted to include a progressive organization such as Media Matters in schools by associating it with federal grants, you'd shit bricks. To many of us, media literacy is a skill that needs to be taught and is as important in defending this country from networks like Fox as your fear of the boogy man Al Queda.

TheDickNixon

You are a moron if you think AQ is helpless. Apparently you are ok with the 2900 dead on 9-11. Bet you view them as Little Eichmans.
Trench_Raider

Your first paragraph shows you to have a disgusting attitude toward the military…an institution that you no doubt know almost nothing about. You are not worthy of the protection that the military provides. No doubt Ms. Kagan has a similar view, which is why the b—h does not deserve to be anywere near the high court.

Your second paragraph is an attempt at a threadjack and is off topic trolling. Flagged of course.

I really do wish that being a stupid child was painful…

TR

ceo

Is it not the military's job to uphold the Constitution?
Is it not a citizen's right to question how our federal dollars are spent?
Go ahead wrap yourself with the flag that's easy to do keep it away from your neck though because the blood flow to your brain is been cut off.
Call someone a bitch who could run circles around your pea size brain.
Go ahead you putz.
Glad you exercised your 1st Amendment right now I know you are a fool.
Better to keep your thoughts to yourself but now there is no doubt you're a fascist bastard.

Trench_Raider

Oh look. Yet another cowardly troll who isn't registered. Yet more proof that the settings here need to bar “guests” from posting.

Son, you would not know a “fascist” if it bit you on the a–. But it does not matter. “Fascist” is now like “racist”, “bigot”, and “homophobe”: meaningless words when used by a leftist clown.

TR

Mr. EMT

This is a free country and many of us don't like the fact that our federal dollars for schools force those schools to have military recruiters on campus.

Yes we know, that is a common trait among treasonous bastards.

whats_up

Can you point to any document that states in order to be a citizen you must like the military?

howardzinn

Okay a LOOSER whos social life is so limited that he returns to a place where he is unwanted…. they whines like a two year old about how unfair it is on his widdle blog. Boo-Hoo.
Trench_Raider

I'm unwanted here? That's laughable. Care to compare my acceptance by the legitimate members of the site to yours? I was well liked and by most even during my “spat” with the site owner. You are regarded as an idiot and troll. I ask again, how many posts have YOU had deleted in the last week? That should tell you how much YOU are wanted here.

Take your childish whining and shove it, little boy.

TR
Oh yes…and flagged once again.

howardzinn

Oh noooooooo not another flag! Anything but the flag!

Threats against this site on your blog a “spat” you do have an interesting way of justifying yourself, but then again you have a long history of it.

StanW

Thin-Skinned-Zinn, you certainly do know a lot about the “long history” of this board for someone who has only been posting here a short time.

It is possible you used to post here under a different name?

TheDickNixon

Trench mentioned scrappy had returned. Zinn fits the profile (losing arguments, little smiley faces in posts, stupidity, etc) of scrappy to a tee. Who knows, all the conservative sites that allow comments have 3-5 regular dufus's that show up on every thread to misinform and threadjack and insult. Scrappy is just doing his job Nixon supposes.

Trench_Raider

Threats against this site on your blog

So now you are just making s–t up. No suprise coming from a troll and a liar.

The fact remains, that you are a troll and an idiot as proved by the number of posts you have had removed since the new system was put into place. nothing cane change that simple fact.

TR

billdalasio

Some of our liberal trolls may want to be a little more cautious in supporting Ms. Kagan's nomination. As this article:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/10/she-is-certai…

makes clear, her record on the rights of the accused is hardly protective.

Oh, who am I kidding, this is about expanding state power. And the left will find her just honkey-dorey.
D-Vega

She does have a bit more experience than Harriet Myers, being Solicitor General.

The banning of military recruiters on campus is pretty bad.

I will withhold my take on it until I learn a bit more about her.

Trench_Raider

The banning of military recruiters on campus is pretty bad.

It's more than bad, Vega. There was NO excuse for it aside from a hatred for the military (the “don't ask don't tell” thing was just an excuse). It should be a deal breaker for anyone who cares about the military and the well being of the country. Unless something else equally damning comes up, it's the thing the Republicans should focus on when opposing her.

But I'm not going to hold my breath about the Republicans dealing with her agressively. After all they let your racist little friend the “wise latina” off without much of a fight. Perhaps a year of Obama's idiocy will make them find the guts.

TR

D-Vega

she is a shoe in.

I would have preferred that other woman. the real liberal one.

Trench_Raider

Oh I agree.
But that's because Obama has a rubber stamp Dem dominated congress that will be willing to over-look this woman's anti-military action. Likewise it's unlikely that the Republicans will be willing to stall the process.

But look on the bright side. This is yet one more thing that can be used against the admin. during the November mid-terms and eventually Obama's re-election bid in two years. Things like this will help to solidify the mood out there right now and create an enviorment in which the Dems can be thrown out. Sometimes I tend to agree with what Lenin said: “worse is better”. ;-)

TR

Dave

Sometimes reality is a little more nuanced than the talking point:

“The issue arose long before Ms. Kagan, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986, came back as a professor and became dean in 2003.

Because of the military’s policy against openly gay soldiers, the law school in 1979 barred military recruiters from using its Office of Career Services, the central clearinghouse through which employers from all over the world seek to recruit top-notch law students. “

…

“Harvard reached its own accommodation in 1996. While the school did not allow military recruiters to use its main placement office, it did allow them on campus through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a student group. The recruiters met with students in the same classrooms, just under different sponsorship.”

…

“In November 2004, the appeals court ruled, 2 to 1, that Solomon was unconstitutional, saying it required law schools “to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives.”

The day after the ruling, Ms. Kagan — and several other law school deans — barred military recruiters from their campuses. In Harvard’s case, the recruiters were barred only from the main career office, while Ms. Kagan continued to allow them access to students through the student veterans’ group. “

…

“Capt. Kyle Scherer, 25, who graduated from the law school last year and is now a military intelligence officer with the Army in Afghanistan, said by phone last month from Kabul that Ms. Kagan always supported students interested in the military. When recruiters came on campus, Ms. Kagan would send out e-mail messages, saying, in effect, “we distinguish between those who serve their country and the discriminatory policy under which they serve.”

Last year, when he was promoted from first lieutenant to captain in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, he invited her to the ceremony and gave her the honor of pinning his captain’s bars on his shoulder. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/politics/0…

TheDickNixon

Her qualifications have no bearing in this discussion. Regardless of her lack of experience, the GOP will not filibuster her nomination, as they should all of Obamateurs selections until after the November election.

Lack of political will puts this woman on the SCOTUS. And the selection by a incompetent POTUS.

D-Vega

Why should they filibuster all of Obama's selections?

When it came to Bush's nominees, all conservatives wanted was an up or down vote.

If there are serious issues, then let the Reps bring it up. But it wasn't a deal-killer when she was nominated for SG, so it shouldn't be a problem now.

TheDickNixon

Nixon thinks it's safe to say that Obama has proven himself to be completely incompetent as POTUS. Therefore Nixon recommends filibustering every nominee the One brings forth.

Enough is enough.

Your opinion may vary. The GOP won't do it.

D-Vega

Washington Monthy has an interesting piece about the right's attempted narrative “Obama's Harriet Miers”, and how its hogwash.

Whether one thinks Elena Kagan is a wise choice or not, it's hard to ignore the fact that she's a brilliant, accomplished attorney. Even conservatives tend to respect her as a gifted, skillful legal mind. Kagan's background, despite not having been a judge, is pretty impressive: Supreme Court clerk, White House domestic policy aide, dean of the Harvard Law School, Solicitor General of the United States. Not too shabby.

Harrier Miers, meanwhile, helped manage a law firm in Texas, and worked as the head of local bar associations that the state's top lawyers didn't join. She then worked for George W. Bush — writing him charming notes, telling him he's “the best governor ever,” who is “cool” and “the greatest” — and he made her White House counsel before inexplicably concluding Miers was the single best lawyer in the United States for the U.S. Supreme Court. Miers proceeded to offer responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire with glaring errors that first-year law school students would generally avoid.

Now, I've seen some suggestions that liberals consider the political dynamic similar to the Miers nomination — that is, the president's own party telling the White House that the chosen high court nominee just isn't satisfactory — but that's a separate matter altogether.

Comparing the qualifications of these two nominees is hard to take seriously.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/indiv…

`Lizzie Loval

You are a total idiot D-Vega (should that be V-agra? Where do you get your info? ok. maybe Kagan is qualified, but she still has way TOO much baggage. If the Republicans had any cojones they'd filibuster this nomination and the next 2-3! But they were raised to be polite. (unfortunately) IF the POTUS had any manners he'd resign and we'd get our country back
`Lizzie Loval

how about F/U baby!

howardzinn

From your favorite news source 'Faux News'

Kagan a Courtroom Novice No Problem for High Court, Supporters Say

FOXNews.com

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has never been a judge, she's never ruled on a case and she's never written an opinion. But that doesn't mean she's President Obama's Harriet Miers.

“The former Harvard Law School dean wouldn't be the first non-judge elevated to the high court — both the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Lewis Powell Jr. were confirmed to the court in 1972 without a judicial background. “

TheDickNixon

So the fact that Dick Durbin, David Axelrod, and Pat Leahy say she is qualified, and Fox reports this, causes you to think that conservatives should support this charlatan?

Are you retarded or something? Fox News Network has not endorsed this person. Fox reported that 3 liberals said she was qualified and you think we should join in? Gosh you aren't very bright.
TheDickNixon

You didn't even read the story did you gomer? Nixon looks down at you, laughing.
TheDickNixon

p3wned

D-Vega

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)'s, found on page 28, Senate Judiciary Committee:

Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a
profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic
question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-
sex marriage?

Kagan: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://judic…
Dave

“Kagan has never sat on the bench and she'd never even argued a case before the Supreme Court before she became Obama's Solicitor General.”

Really? She didn't argue before the Court until she argued before the Court. Now there's a damning criticism.

“…much more significantly, Kagan banned military recruiters from Harvard over Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We're at war and Obama's picking a judge who's hostile to the troops?”

Well, not according to this guy:
“Capt. Kyle Scherer, 25, who graduated from the law school last year and is now a military intelligence officer with the Army in Afghanistan, said by phone last month from Kabul that Ms. Kagan always supported students interested in the military. When recruiters came on campus, Ms. Kagan would send out e-mail messages, saying, in effect, “we distinguish between those who serve their country and the discriminatory policy under which they serve.”

Last year, when he was promoted from first lieutenant to captain in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, he invited her to the ceremony and gave her the honor of pinning his captain’s bars on his shoulder. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/politics/0…

You might want to read that entire article to get a little more accurate view of the Harvard military recruitment situation.
John

This is just ignorance. Pure ignorance.

If I Was Your President (Boyfriend Spoof)

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN