Everything I need to know about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan I learned directly from President Obama. In his email to me yesterday, Obama explained that though Kagan hails from academia, she has an “openness to other viewpoints.” Uh, in the context of school, does “other” mean uneducated? And hasn’t sunlight shed on DC post-Bush revealed that “skill in working with others to build consensus” is code for: shows affinity for corruption? It means believe in change so long as it doesn’t upset the applecart.
By all accounts, Kagan is the kind of conservative I abhor. As Harvard dean, she’s an educator diametrically opposed to enlightened students and faculty. The Peter Principle in its absolutely most corrosive position of authority. Squelch the last tugs of intellectual idealism with moral bankruptcy.
Much as we like to hold its ivy covered walls in high regard, Harvard has served as breeding ground for an inordinate proportion of our nation’s greedy bastards. A conservative foil to such neoliberal ideologues as are Wall Street apprentices would be inhumanitarian indeed. I’ve no doubt Elena Kagan will be a Clarence Thomas of feminism, the Scalia of selflessness, the Roberts of empathy and the Alito of intellect.
Obama thought I might be impressed by an example of advocacy Kagan has shown, the anti-corporate bandwagon I suppose:
“choosing the Citizens United case as her first to argue before the Supreme Court, defending bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections”
Two points we can glean from this: Kagan argued against free speech, against the position of the ACLU in fact. And two, as an indication of her persuasive potential, she lost.
I’m rather disappointed that Obama.com misses the mark so widely with their emails. Considering they don’t just spam, but follow as well, I’m hurt that my profile doesn’t suggest that I’m unlikely to be receptive to reassurances of anyone’s centrism. If they’re tailoring their messaging at all, I’m simply insulted by the last argument that presumes I’m an idiot. I have enough respect for the security services, so I think they would know.
The resignation of Justice Stevens has drawn attention to there no longer being a Protestant on the Supreme Court, which might be problematic if you consider that moral issues are being decided by nine judges neither of whom share the average American’s religion. Kagan would make the court fully one third Jewish, to represent 1% of the population. Geographically the court is 100% from New York. Perhaps is is chiefly Kagan being a woman that prompts Obama to conclude:
ensuring a Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before
NOW we’re told the ultimate reason to prevent a Trump presidency is because he’ll appoint Supreme Court judges who will set progressive movements back for generations. You forget that President Obama’s latest nomination put the lie to that bugaboo. Put it to bed and burned it. Upon the fortuitous demise of one of the most corrupt justices ever, Antonin Scalia, who died literally, in bed with a crony patron, President Obama submitted for consideration as his replacement the conservative jurist Merrick Garland. Garland’s most notable legal achievement was to indemnify the US regime from charges of torture. I’m sure voters in 2008 elected Obama to uphold Democratic ideals not scuttle them. We’re being sold the same pitch with Hillary, really without any basis in fact, that a democrat will attempt to curb the Supreme Court’s antisocial conduct, as exemplified by the Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts cabal. The Garland nomination has also exposed the other lie, that Trump’s appointments could not be opposed. As we see with Garland still, SCOTUS nominees can be embargoed indefinitely.