|

Roundup of zany reactions to Kagan nomination

 crazies2.jpg

Consistent with our solemn dedication here at Applesauce to keeping our Obamaphobic friends apprised of the latest goings-on in the loonier precincts of the blogosphere, we proudly present a wonderful collection of right-wing reactions to President Obama’s nomination of Elena Keegan to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some of the following links have lots of links of their own, which means you can spend much of the afternoon reading some really astonishing stuff.

For example, there’s the argument that her failure to get a driver’s license until she was in her late 20’s “nicely captures Elena Kagan’s remoteness from the lives of most Americans.”

You might also get a kick out of the loaded question of whether  “men [are] allowed to be nominated to the Supreme Court anymore,” which seemingly ignores the fact that 108 of the 111 justices who have served on the court have been men.

And then there’s my favorite: The claim that the Kagan nomination demonstrates Obama’s “brass-knuckles, Chicago-mobster mentality.” That one, believe it or not, comes from a Catholic group.

So, with no further ado, you are cordially invited to check HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.

UPDATE: When you recover from reading all that material, you might want to readjust your brain with this long (4,500 words) and comparatively reliable PROFILE of Kagan.

UPDATE II: HuffPo is up with a NIFTY SLIDESHOW that covers Kagan reactions from the left and right alike — including one from Chuck Norris, the “actor” and famed legal scholar.

UPDATE III: Sen. Patrick Leahy SAYS Obama could nominate Moses the Law Giver, and Republicans would demand to see his birth certificate.

Share:

9 Comments

  1. Mike Carroll

    “First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

    Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law—is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

    Ed Meese

    My God, how zany can you get. Helpful Note for liberals-That’s sarcasm.

  2. Ed Meese? Is that the same Ed Meese who had this exchange with U.S. News and World Report?:

    U.S News & World Report: “You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn’t people, who may be innocent, have such protection?”

    Meese: “Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

    Is that incredible or what? The guy actually said: “If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

    Now that IS zany (no sarcasm intended).

  3. Here’s one other thing, Mike Carroll, about your hero Ed Meese:

    He’s an adjunct fellow at the Discovery Institute, where they spend all their time trying to disprove evolution.

    Yeah, old Ed is a real intellectual giant.

  4. Mike Carroll

    Read what he said Pat.

  5. Mike Carroll

    Question for my liberal friends. If a Republican President nominated an academic with the following hiring record
    http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/188379/kagan's_harvard__hiring_record_a_vision_in_white/
    you would be comfortable with that, right?
    You Betcha!

  6. Mike Carroll

    One more comment for the day. If Kagan is confirmed the Court will be made up of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. We obviously need an Affirmative Action program for WASPs.

  7. Orlando Clay

    Oh, while we’re on the subject of crazies: I want to personally thank all the Consurgents and Teahadists across Florida for effectively forcing Charlie Crist to run for the U.S. Senate as a “No Party Affiliation” candidate. Thanks to you folks, I can vote for Crist in November and keep my 30-year streak of NOT voting for a Republican intact (although I have to admit that I was nearly bamboozled by the Reagan charisma in 1980).

    Thanks, Cons!

  8. Yesterday I heard Rush Limbaugh — you know, the one whose mouth is bigger than his belly (and that’s saying a lot!) — and Sean Hannity — two well-known intellectual giants who both flunked out of college at the end of their freshman year — decry Kagan’s lack of judicial experience. Did they piss and moan, bitch and groan, when William Rehnquist, the immediately prior Chief Justice, who also had “no prior judicial experiience” was nominated (and confirmed, just as Kagan will be despite their inane braying)?

    Just wondering.

  9. Disturbing? How is it disturbing that she barred the recruiters? Did she break a law? You can disagree with the ban, but to call it disturbing is a little extreme. Harvard has a policy that to recruit there you have to treat gays fairly. The military does not treat gays fairly. Looks to me she did her best to honor her schools wishes while following the law. And Mr. West calls this disturbing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>