The More We Learn Of Kagan, The More The Left May Hate Her

Her paper trail is somewhat thin, her judicial working experience is basically zero, and she has spent little time in a court room. That said, there is some small bit of knowledge to be gleened, and this first, which comes from the William J Clinton phalis library, one should tick off all the “abortions for all any time any where no matter what” crowd: Elena Kagan Abortion Memo Offers New Look at Nominee

In 1997, Kagan and Bruce Reed, her boss at the Office of Domestic Policy, urged President Clinton to support a Democratic proposal to prohibit abortions late in pregnancy when a fetus might be viable, even though some abortion-rights groups opposed the proposal. In a memo, Reed and Kagan lay out a raging debate that was occurring in Washington at the time.

The White House released a statement last night saying, “As a White House aide, Elena Kagan provided legal advice and evaluated policy proposals for President Clinton, who like President Obama, supported a late-term abortion ban with a narrow exception for the health of the woman.”

My my my. This is an issue the left turned their cheek on during the 2008 general election, but, will they want someone for the court who obviously is not 100% for full abortion on demand?

Here’s another that is ticking some people off at the DU and Rawstory

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States.

But Kagan, acting as President Obama’s Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation. She posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

We were treated to a litany of left wing complaints about Booooooooosh! not going after Saudi Arabia, since the majority of hijackers came from there (even though a good chunk of Dem voters believed that Bush let it happen/made it happen), and here we have Kagan saying “no, you can’t sue Saudi Arabia.”

The Politico has a long article on Kagan’s apparent support for the Citizens United case, as well as a seemingly conservative (ie. Constitutional) viewpoint on campaign finance

…neither Elena Kagan’s oral argument in the case, which the court rejected in its sweeping January decision, nor her limited scholarly writings on the subject, have given supporters of strict campaign finance rules much confidence that she shares their views – or Obama’s – on the subject.

Apparently, she isn’t in to diversity that much, either

Some black activists were already dismayed that no African American woman has reached President Obama‘s short list in two searches. The selection of Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, served to irritate them further, as they described her tenure at Harvard — which administration officials highlight as evidence of her practicality and her ability to work across ideological lines — as one lacking in racial inclusion. (snip)

As with many elite institutions, Harvard Law has been prodded over the years to diversify the ranks of its faculty. While Kagan led the school from 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: Twenty-eight were white, and one was Asian American.

Well, really, that is business as usual in Liberal World. They talk a good game, but rarely follow through with actions.

CNN pundit Roland Martin wrote an online column Monday that slammed Kagan’s record on diversity as one for which a “white Republican U.S. president” would be criticized. “There would be widespread condemnations of Republicans having no concern for the non-white males in America,” he wrote.

It is all about the double standard. Bush appointed numerous minorities, yet was never given credit by the left or the media. In fact, many of those appointees were treated in a despicable manner, which, had they not been Bush appointees, would have created a massive uproar. Instead, mostly crickets. You look around the liberal organizations, and you find a severe lack of diversity. The NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc, all are run mostly by white males. The majority of people working for rented Democrat contender John Kerry were white. We also see this quite a bit with Democrat Congress Critters.

But, in Liberal World, it is all about Do As I Say, Not As I Do.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!