We Have to Talk About Elena Kagan
by FRANK SALVATO
May 14, 2010
The coverage of President Obama’s most recent nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, has been nothing less than incredible. Of course, the word incredible can be used in several contexts, some good and some bad. To clarify, I am using it in a context meant to mean bad...very bad...incredibly bad.
While the mainstream – or irrelevant – media waxes on about how she is a surprisingly moderate nominee for the president to have chosen, the extent of their critical examination of Ms. Kagan, former and first female Dean of Harvard Law School, consists of yarns about basketball and softball pickup games. As Marcia Kramer of CBS-TV in New York tells us regarding her relationship with the prostitute hustling Eliot Spitzer,
“Spitzer told CBS 2 HD about that time Kagan goaded him into a spaghetti eating contest. Spitzer gave up after eating seven bowls, but Kagan put the picture on the front page of the Princeton paper, no doubt with a ‘saucy’ headline.”
MSNBC’s Gabe Pressman reported on how Ms. Kagan’s nomination was a great victory for the Women’s Movement,
“A couple of hours after the President announced that he had appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, two veterans of the battle for women’s rights ran into each other at the Fairway super market on Broadway. They were overjoyed.
“‘Amazing!’ exclaimed Ronnie Eldridge. ‘It’s just amazing to see how far we’ve come.’
“The other woman, Ellen Cohen, a feminist writer, exclaimed: ‘Can you believe it? It’s unbelievable!’
“Eldridge, a former councilwoman, told me about the meeting. ‘We were so happy. We never believed we’d see the day when three women would be on the Supreme Court.’”
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan, an English writer for The Atlantic, described by the irrelevant media as a “conservative,” has been pushing the rumor that Ms. Kagan is gay,
“...since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified. It's especially true with respect to Obama. He has, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination. Well: does he view Kagan's possible life-experience as a gay woman relevant to this? Did Obama even ask about it? Are we ever going to know one way or the other? Does she have a spouse? Is this spouse going to be forced into the background in a way no heterosexual spouse ever would be?”
Two things should be noted here:
1) That “conservative” political commentator Sullivan endorsed John Kerry – a Progressive-Democrat – in 2004, celebrated the Democrat Party’s takeover of Congress in 2006 and endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008. To identify Sullivan as a “conservative” is to be unsuccessfully comedic.
2) And that, in light of Mr. Sullivan’s affinity for endorsing Progressive candidates and celebrating Progressive political takeovers of government institutions, maybe, just maybe, Mr. Sullivan was doing the dirty work of floating a distraction – a “bright shiny thing” – for the intellectually challenged irrelevant media to glom on to so that they wouldn’t be tempted to look deeper into her published philosophy.
What “published philosophy” you ask?
DiscoverTheNetworks.org reveals that included in Ms. Kagan’s 1981 Princeton senior thesis, To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933, was this,
“‘...a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States’; that ‘Americans are more likely to speak of...capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness’; that ‘the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter’; that ‘in a society by no means perfect,’ no ‘radical party’ had yet ‘attained the status of a major political force’; that ‘the socialist movement [had] never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties’; and that the Socialist Party had ‘exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance.’ Kagan called these developments ‘sad’ and ‘chastening’ for ‘those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.’”
And then there is this. Kagan’s immediate and emotional response to the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980,
“‘She wrote that her immediate ‘gut response’ to Reagan's election had been to conclude ‘that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead, and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused.’ Soon thereafter Kagan predicted, with a hopeful spirit, that ‘the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.’”
In 1991, Ms. Kagan took a position as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, where she met Barack Obama, who served not as a “professor” teaching the Constitution or constitutional law, as Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet points out, but as a “senior lecturer.”
During her time at the University of Chicago, she penned an article for the University of Chicago Law Review addressing free speech where hate speech and pornography are concerned, in which she stated,
“I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”
All of this information on Ms. Kagan was acquired in a single search on the Internet. The information is sourced, linked and factual. That the irrelevant media can only talk and write about “spaghetti eating contests”, basketball pick-up games and whether or not she is “gay” illustrates their incredible disdain for the art of journalism. Goebbels would be proud.
But the larger and much more serious point here is that President Obama has nominated someone to the United States Supreme Court who has espoused a dedication to the principles and ideology of Socialism while stating, in no uncertain terms, that she would rationalize the abandonment of free speech rights. This, the Obama Administration and the irrelevant media present as a “moderate” nominee.
Our Framers did not intend for the nomination of an individual to the United States Supreme Court to be an exercise of politics. They intended for Presidents to nominate those with a loyalty and dedication to not only the United States Constitution, but to the whole of the Charters of Freedom, as well as the Natural Rights philosophies embraced by our Framers in the creation of the Charter and our country. They even provided a process where the President’s choice, should it be made of political opportunity, would be vetted by the Senate so as to assure that no ideologues would pass through the doors of the United States Supreme Court.
Today, not only do we have a nominee to the United States Supreme Court who embraces the philosophies of Socialism and a disregard for the sanctity of free speech as demanded by Article I of the Bill of Rights, we have a Senate whose majority embraces the goals and philosophies of the Progressive-Socialist 1960’s twirling-in-the-street in Haight-Ashbury, “revolutionaries.”
The Supreme Court has the duty – the sacred duty – of protecting and defending the United States Constitution. They are tasked with applying the mandates of the US Constitution to questions brought before them in a fashion that upholds and honors the Constitution. By her own words – “...the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation...” and “Americans are more likely to speak of...capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness” – Ms. Kagan has proven that she is grossly unqualified for the position of United States Supreme Court Justice.
The fact that she rose to the level of Dean at the Harvard Law School should raise some “red” flags as well...
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.