May 10, 2010, - 1:16 pm

With Kagan, Obama Replaces US Military Vet w/ US Military Opponent

By Debbie Schlussel

That Barack Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, is extremely liberal is no surprise.  We expected that.

obamakagan

Check Out George Washington’s Face. He’s Not Happy.

That she’s against America’s military is an outrage, though.  Say what you want about uber-liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.  At least, he served the country in the U.S. Navy, enlisting during World War II and earning a Bronze Star.  Contrast that with Kagan’s harsh position against military recruiting on college campuses.

According to Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness (she was appointed by President Reagan to serve on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services),

Senators considering this nomination should question Elena Kagan’s flawed logic and anti-military attitude that she expressed by signing an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment in Rumsfeld v. Fair.  It is significant that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that legislation, which protects equal access for military recruiters on college campuses, with a unanimous (8-0) vote.  Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not agree with Kagan’s anti-military views.

Clearly, she’s against First Amendment rights and equal protection for military recruiters.  Who’s next on her list for denial of these rights?

To say this is not a good development is the understatement of the year.  But this was predictable.  It’s Barack Obama, after all.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

34 Responses

This woman is a disaster waiting to happen and we can only hope that she will not get confirmed.

batyah on May 10, 2010 at 1:23 pm

As I heard it though, Kagan changed her tune PDQ when harvard was not gonna get a whole bunch of federeal funding b/c of their position. then again, it may have been that she bowed to pressure. She’s been a true politico her whole career. Has rarely taken a real position on anything, especially not in writings. She’s never been a judge either. She could be a wildcard. Thing is, the Libs I know are freaking about her so there could have been worse appointments by a guy like B. Hussein, no? Actually makes me wonder what’s up here.

ZooKeeper on May 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm

To me this is Obama’s Harriet Miers, simple as that, for this woman to be against the 1st Amendment is un-American of her, question why is Obama picking this woman, because this woman is a doctrinaire left wing hack, that’s why. Even liberals don’t favor her, it’s just NOT conservatives alone who’s against her.

“A nation is identified by it’s borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on May 10, 2010 at 2:03 pm

To be honest, this does not surprise me after the weekend of news about Gates. I could never figure out why BHO kept Gates on at Defense until this weekend–he is a chess piece in the Pres’s plan to neuter America. Use the Dept of Defense to attack its own budget, have a Justice willing to say NO to recruiters, and shortly you have your muzzie buddies running the show with no real effective military to fight it.

This Pres has one agenda–dismantle the America that has existed since the Deceleration of Independence and put into its place a socialist state with muzzie underpinnings.

Sean J on May 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Since she’s never been a judge, wouldn’t this make this the first time a non judge was appointed to SCOTUS?

David B on May 10, 2010 at 2:12 pm

No it wouldn’t, former chief justice William renquist was never a judge before getting confirmed. Before the 1960’s it was common to appoint non judges.

Nak on May 10, 2010 at 2:40 pm

AS I recall, the one only needs to be appointed the pres and confirmed by the Senate to be on the SCOTUS- No legal background is required

ward on May 10, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Correct, Debbie has said that on many occasions.

    mk750 on May 10, 2010 at 3:15 pm

I really hate this beotch if you can call it that. By looking at the pictures of Kagan, I thought it was a guy. No wonder it bats for the other team.

As to her dumbass decision to keep recruiters off the campus, if it had been put into place permanently, would she have then gone after the ROTC contigent on campus and kicked them off the campus as well? She should be reminded that the U.S. military has protected her for all of her life, and because of the military, English is not her second language.

Jarhead on May 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm

Another Diesel Dyke that will turn out to be a utter and complete disaster for Freedom loving Americans, yet, a jackpot for Nanny State Fascists who hide their true intentions by saying they are “progressive” or “liberal”. Our dollar/ economic collapse will make Greece look like VERY small potatoes.
Wait till the chickens come home to roost on our unfunded liabilities that the looter government guaranteed to the Moocher government/public workers/Unions and public beneficiaries of the Nanny state Largess…
You’ve been warned… Wake up or else you’ll soon find yourself on Shutter Island with all the lunatics rioting in the streets because the Feds can’t pay your pension because they have no funds to disburse, because all the producers have been bankrupted by over taxation, regulation,oppression. i.e Robin Hood Government…
John Galt was Right on.i.e we producers should go on strike and then what will the Public Moochers and Looters do to fund their frivolous spending sprees and take from the “rich” and give to the “poor” Robin Hood Mentality?

Who cares? on May 10, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Could you explain a bit more how her not wanting recruiters on the harvard law campus means with absolute clarity that she hates the us military? From what I’ve read she was against Organizations that openly discriminated from coming to the school campus, and that she was specifcly against the don’t ask don’t tell policy which meant no recruiters.

Nak on May 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    The policy is actually a Harvard policy that doesn’t allow groups that discrimination based on gender, race or sexual orientation. She just upheld it. I really don’t think this is that big of a deal. It’s not really.

    I’m more concern about her actually lack of passion for either the right or the left. She seems like someone who will do what ever the prevailing winds want to keep her job

    Pete Bone on May 10, 2010 at 8:42 pm

Nak – she’s a lib who supports BHO. That should be enough of an explanation to show you she hates the military.

Another thing about Kagan – I just read she has a grand total of 3 years actually practicing before a court, that’s it. This is the age equivalent of putting a 29 year old on the Supreme Court. I know that sounds ridiculous, but so is this man-woman-thing being nominated to the SCOTUS.

Jarhead on May 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm

Kagan has been for censoring the internet of political “hate” speech to be defined by her own liberal friends. Say good-by to any internet sites that don’t pander to Muslim Predation. (Fortunately I can’t think of any such site.)

Tim on May 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm

Of all the things to say about the woman and her credentials for the position, what does her appearence have to do with it? I will grant you any other problem you have if it’s about her experience but complaining about looks is kinda low and altogether pointless.

Nak on May 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Well, quite likely her next victims will be the people of Arizona who want the immigration laws being followed.

And if and when the Republicans are in power, she’ll swoop down and attack the military campus recruiters again, although of course protecting the schools’ rights to receive handouts from the Government that they will try to prevent from defending itself.

One good thing, she is another intellectual lightweight, bolsteredin her career and reputation by affirmative action. Can you imagine if she, Miers, Ginsburg and Sotomayor were all on? We’d have the men doing the serious work and 3 1/2 feminazi lightweights writing heartfelt emotional dissents,

But I guess we all have to revise our opinions, and acknowledge that BO is not anti-semitic. AFter all, he appointed a Jewish woman to the Supreme Court, and there isn’t even an election for 5 1/2 months. Now the Jewish donors and voters can relax in the knowledge that our great president is a friend of the Jewish people, manifested by his great appointment and that his actions against Israel can be safelu ignored. AIPAC can feel relieved. But of course this didn’t have anything to do with the appointment.

Just because he attacks Israel, supports Iran, and supports terrorism all over the world doesn’t mean he’s anti-Semitic any more than FDR failing to challenge the Holocaust, failing to admit jewish refugees, and compromising US propaganda in Arab countries to ignore the Holocaust, while opposing the formation of Israel meant he was anti-Semitic. After all, like Obama, he placed a substantial number of Jewish people in his administration.

Remember, form over substance.

Little Al on May 10, 2010 at 6:00 pm

Deb,
Have you any goods on her associations with the Islamos. I bet there there are some. Also, I have to wonder if she’s in with the J-Street crew or any of the other Soros groups.

Not Ovenready on May 10, 2010 at 7:51 pm

Another one of the token appointments from the great Reagan-Bush years that’s returned from the crypt to haunt us. Bush (I) appointed Sonia Sotomayer, herself unqualified, now Elena Kagan, who loathes the military. Good going guys!

This appointment is perhaps, an insight to the lack of respect Obama really has for the highest court in the land, by nomimating candidates who lack any “real” experience whatsoever. Will the Supreme Court become an “activist” court?

It just further exposes the Obama credo that the Constitution is a document of “negative” rights authored by rich, white, slaveowners, that requires tranformation based on “fairness,” not the interpretation of law. Stay tuned!

Patrick on May 10, 2010 at 8:22 pm

Another excellent post, Debbie.

Even if Kagan’s opposing the U.S. military generally and its military recruiting on college campuses in particular turns out to be the only negatives against her–which I doubt–these things alone should make her nomination be filibuster-worthy.

JeffE on May 10, 2010 at 8:39 pm

Well, I will say Kagan will be an utter and complete disaster. That being said though I see why Obama nominated her. I had been expecting this for some time. In fact I thought she was going to get appointed to SCOTUS last year when Sonia ‘La Raza’ Sotomayor got it which surprised me. However when Kagan got passed over the first time, I knew that she would get the next available spot.

Kagan is on record as having no respect towards the United States military. None. It is not reverse discrimination, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, gays are not covered under civil rights laws. Hell, the democrats were the ones that came up with the idea in the first place. It just proves to me that your average member of the general public’s memory is about 3 days long.

Your right in that Kagan is not a good looking appointee. Is any supreme court finalist? No. They are not judged on their looks. I mean yes, Kagan looks like actor Kevin James but so what? Also yes, in my opinion (based off of what I have heard) it is basically an open secret that Kagan is what can be at best described as a semi closeted lesbian.

To me what gives this away is that Kagan’s attitude towards the military. This is a woman if you do research on her has taken a stance on basically NO issue, well period, but especially no issue that is even remotely controversial. EXCEPT ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. She let her personal life override her normally passive feelings on that one. Hell, so called ‘friends’ of hers that have known her since law school do not even know her stances on basically any of the issues because she has never disclosed them. She was VERY careful and it paid off for her.

I hate to say it but in the end she will get confirmed almost certainly, unless she is caught in bed with either a dead man or a live woman. The republicans can drag this stuff out for a while but they do not have the votes to shut down her nomination. I mean they can roll the dice and take their chances by trying to drag through the mud in regards to her personal life but I think it would come off as looking as desperate and gain Kagan sympathy she does not deserve.

Kadrmas on May 11, 2010 at 3:38 am

    She will still get confirmed, EVEN IF she’s caught in bed with a living woman.
    A Dead man? Maybe that will cause the Liberal/Democrap Majority to pause, but I would NOT bet the house on it…

    Who cares? on May 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm

Also sorry for being lengthy. In the above post I got a bit off topic. The reasons why Obama picked Kagan, well there are at least a couple that stand out in my mind: First, she has with the exception of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ appeared to have not taken a stand on any issue that is even remotely controversial. Thus it is hard to dig up dirt on her. Just to say she is for Obama simply will not be enough to derail this.

He (Obama) played it safe on that one. Also she is only 50 years old. She would be the youngest Supreme Court Justice if confirmed and thus probably would be on the court I would say a good 30 years or so, maybe more if confirmed. Thus she would leave her ultra liberal mark on America for a long time. That and to be honest, I would not put it beyond some republicans on the Judiciary Committee to possibly question her about her sexual orientation in an effort to derail the nomination. Our Ranking Member on the Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is I am sure at this moment, digging up all the dirt on her that he can. I have kicked around the idea of whether it would be a good idea to put her on record about why she was so adamantly against ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and if it had/has anything to do with her personal life? But I just get the feeling such a ploy would backfire miserably.

Basically, Kagan was for Obama the perfect pick. Someone that would be very hard to dig up significant baggage on mainly because for the most part she has never expressed her views either way. Also ,because she was never a judge there are no legal opinions of hers to track to see where she stands. Sure she was Solicitor General, well she has been Solicitor General for almost a year and a half but still no legal opinions. Her sexual orientation can be speculated on and her looks can be slammed but frankly this woman is rather mysterious. La Raza Sonia had far more personal and legal baggage than Kagan does.

Basically all the republicans really can do, is pepper her with questions about her stance on legal issues. See how much she really knows. In the few lawsuits she has ever joined she has always lost. She has never argued a single case personally before a court. That is about the only thing republicans really have to go at her at other than being connected to Obama. Despite the rough year for the democrats, I think democrats will end up winning this battle, all republicans can do is minimize the bleeding or at least try to.

I fear this will not be the last pick Obama will get either even if he gets defeated in 2012. I have heard rumors that Chief Justice Roberts is already getting bored on the Court. Couple that with the fact that Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are now both 74 years old, how much longer will they want to stay on the court? I don’t know. I mean if Obama gets re-elected, both would turn 80 during his final term in office. Ginsburg is getting up there in years too. If anyone either retires or dies during the rest of Obama’s first term it will be her.

Kadrmas on May 11, 2010 at 3:49 am

Appellate court: 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1998-2009
Did anyone ever bother to look up sotomyors credentials?

Federal court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1992-1998
Private practice: partner, Pavia & Harcourt, 1988-1992; associate, Pavia & Harcourt, 1984-1987
Teaching: adjunct professor, New York University Law School, 1998-2009; lecturer, Columbia Law School, 1999-2009
Local government experience: assistant district attorney, New York City, 1979-1984
Degrees: BA, Princeton University, 1976; JD, Yale University, 1979
Total federal court experience: 17 years
PolitiFact’s estimate of relevant experience: 30 years

Nak on May 11, 2010 at 10:56 am

Time on the bench: 6 years

That’s long enough to sit on the highest court in the land?

Ken Blazek on May 11, 2010 at 11:36 am

    It more than a third of the judge who have every held that position had.

    I really have a bit of problem with the hatred for this woman, wait let me finish. It seems that it is solely based on the fact that Obama picked her.

    Compared to a lot of other people there is relatively little to judge this woman by. She has pretty much just a bunch of academic boxes that make her resume look good. She isn’t strongly aligned with the right or the left, she seems to have no actually opinions at all. Even keeping the military off the campus was really her doing but just up holding policy.(just doing my job.)

    Pete Bone on May 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Like Jarhead so elequantly said,
      “she’s a lib who supports BHO. That should be enough of an explanation”…
      And I’ll add: That should be enough… to warn us that odds are, she hates Freedom, Prosperity, American Born people, the Military, Straight people, non union workers, Self government, ect…ect…and odds are she just LOVES Socialism, Elitism, Communism, Fascism, voluntary servitude, Gays, Illegal Immigrants, Union workers especially teacher and government unions, public indoctrination (aka public education)ect…ect…

      Who cares? on May 11, 2010 at 3:37 pm

Barry Soetoro aka Obama is not even qualified to be the President because he is not a natural born citizen. Now we have another commie being appointed to the Courts.

When are people going to say enough is enough and impeach this usurper from Kenya. There is more than enough to file criminal charges on the phony Birth Certificate and Selective Service document that was forged. They are both primary felonies and that does not even get into conspiracy to defraud the American Public.

We have more evidence against this guy than they had on Bill Clinton.

Watch this from youtube if you think I am full of BS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2-2E65uFHM&feature=related

ScottyDog on May 11, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    You are assuming that facts & truth are relevant in this crazy world…MAXIM of public Policy = THE FACTS ARE ON THE MOON! TRUTH? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! So…why the hell would the facts or truth matter when everything is already pre-planned & road-mapped, without ANY regard for the truth, the facts or Reality?
    That’s why I keep saying the public IS in fact “Shutter Island” and the Private sector is SANITY…Only in private will you get the facts, truth and reality…Everything else you hear and are told is coming out of the mouths of the lunatics and Dr’s who are running and occupying the Public lunatic asylum. The entire public media, with a few exceptions (DS, HRL,) are all in bed with the Powers that Be, who are planning the destruction of the American Dream, by way of supplying all the public funding to pay for the Largess of public spending. Whoever pays the piper can get the Piper & ALL the rats to follow him like sheep, even if the banker is about to step off a 10,000ft cliff…THE FACTS ARE ON THE MOON! THE FACTS ARE ON THE MOON! THAT IS REALITY IN PUBLIC.

    Who cares? on May 11, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Let this be a lesson to all you so-called conservatives who voted against George Bush who was not on the ballet but you wanted to get back at the republicans. This is my primary reason for my Presidential vote who will he put on the Supreme Court? If you vote a liberal into the white house and you have several judges aging rapidly then expect liberal appointees to change and shape our laws. So far all thats left is Scalia and Thomas the only true conservative judges. Remember this the next time you want pay-back from a lame-duck President. Right now George Bush is living it up in Africa on our dime acting like he cares about Aids patients when he’s probably just set up a dummy corp to fight for Aids while he digs for oil out in the jungle.

THE LORD THOR on May 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Pete Bone:
“Compared to a lot of other people there is relatively little to judge this woman by. She has pretty much just a bunch of academic boxes that make her resume look good. She isn’t strongly aligned with the right or the left, she seems to have no actually opinions at all. Even keeping the military off the campus was really her doing but just up holding policy.(just doing my job.)”

Are you that naive that you do not think Barry Soetoro has already made sure that a commie is going to be appointed to the Supreme Court? Look at all the illegal Czars he has appointed and everybody else that has been appointed from his cabinet right on down to the aides. They are all fellow travelers and are communist ideologues.

Please tell me you are not falling for the “she has no record” nonsense?

ScottyDog on May 11, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Right on Dog!

    FYI. Czars are perfectly legal in a communist country, which is what we are today, even though the administration has NOT yet openly declared we are, but whats that small omission got to do with Reality?

    Who cares? on May 11, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    No, my concern is that she’ll do what ever Obama wants and then do what ever the next guy wants and so on and so on.
    Rather than actually stand for anything.

    Pete Bone on May 12, 2010 at 10:34 am

I heard her speech after Obama introduced her. In her speech, she gave the perfect reason why she should never be confirmed. She referred to our Republic as a Democracy.

What I would like to hear (but we never will)…

Senator (to Kagan):
“Ms Kagan, why did you refer to our Republic as a Democracy?”

Dr Dale on May 11, 2010 at 10:19 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field