You have to hand it to the Republicans who know how to churn up faux outrage at the drop of a hat. They did it with Obama, and didn’t waste any time as the Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination hearings approached. Within days, thanks to GOOPers like Sen. Jefferson Bureaugard Sessions (AL) the approaching hearings had been nearly turned into a circus- as Sessions threatened to bring in Gen. Jerry (“My God’s bigger than yours”) Boykin to confront Kagan about her stances on the military.
One of Sessions’ complaints was Kagan barring Army and Marine recruiters at Harvard while she was Dean there. In fact, they got it all wrong. Kagan didn’t “bar” them – as they were allowed to recruit in a separate hallway apart from the main recruitment center. Kagan already explained the reason, namely that Harvard’s rules prohibited any discrimination on the basis of race, creed, or sexual orientation. The military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” didn’t meet that standard, so they were allocated separate space. Big deal!
Another conservative shibboleth passed around was that Elena Kagan isn’t “qualified” since she wasn’t an actual lawyer. This is nonsense. Kagan served as Editor of The Harvard Law Review which is the surpremo standard for law competency, irrespective of whether one actually later practices law (apart from this, the complainers fail to note that 38 previous appointees have had NO legal experience, period, and weren’t even Harvard Law editors!)
These folks so consumed by Kagan’s “deficiencies” turn a blind eye to those of Clarence Thomas who – at the time of his nomination hearings – had the least favorable American Bar Association ranking of any nominee dating back to the 1950s. Apart from that, Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of consequence, and had been a judge for only a year. Kagan meanwhile has written dozens of articles as well as briefs while Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Others complain about the “irony” of “liberals” wanting Kagan to be nominated, while objecting to Sarah Palin as Veep. But they mix chalk and cheese. Kagan, as noted, was Editor of the Harvard Law Review- and she also clerked for Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall- so is amply qualified to sit on the court just on that basis. A comparative standard for Palin (for VP) would have been being Editor of a Constitutional Journal in college – as opposed to being head of the women’s basketball team!
Kagan’s bona fides prompted even TIME magazine (no longer the "liberal" voice of yesteryear) to note: “Kagan has compiled a remarkable legal record while winning frineds across the political spectrum”. Reeps also forget she served as Solicitor General, or equivalent to being the “10th justice” in the words of TIME.
Reeps also like to argue nonsense that at least Palin “served in office” (governor or Alaska) but they never make note of the next little item – that she quit before she completed her term of office. Indeed, she had nearly 18 months left. How capable of being veep (or president for that matter) is someone who leaves a formal, state executive office for speechifying at Tea Party conclaves?
But beyond all that, Palin didn’t even demonstrate minimal knowledge that would be expected of a veep, for example, in her interviews with Katie Couric on CBS. Her explanation of her foreign security bona fides was claiming she could “see Russia from my house”. But having actually lived in Alaska (1 year over 1985-86) I can assure people that is impossible –especially from Wasilla, a little bumpkin hamlet not far from Anchorage- and well land-locked. At least if one were living at the extreme western edge of Nome (hundreds of miles northwest of Palin’s home) one might see Russia (Siberia) on a totally clear day, if one also avails oneself of a good telescope!
Palin’s paltry and pathetic answers to Couric’s hardnosed questions, not any “liberal bias”, were what led to her downfall and by extension the misshapen McCain- Palin ticket.
Since the nomination hearings have commenced, Elena Kagan has amply demonstrated she’s no Sarah Palin. With a combination of wry, deflecting humor, common sense, commanding insight into the law and artful English – she’s held her own and shown herself to be superior in intellect to her most determined inquisitors.
A Denver Post editorial yesterday praised her honesty and also her humility and noted that “this is a useful reminder of how confirmation hearings can work”.
The much more salient point in all this tempest in a teapot is who will Kagan’s rulings or siding benefit if anyone? TIME (‘Judging Elena’, July 5, p. 30) isn’t so sure at all it will be “liberals”. As the author of the piece (Adam Cohen) observes:
“Liberals would seem to have the most at risk if Kagan is confirmed. She would replace Stevens, one of the court’s most reliably left-leaning members. If she breaks from the liberal line on even a few issues, the court’s waning left of center bloc will erode even further.”
And all it would take is a few 6-3 decisions the wrong way to confirm that.
So, we will watch and wait before making judgments on Kagan’s liberal fitness. In the meantime, we know she is fit to sit on the High Court, contrary to all the right wing posturing and phony outrage.
One of Sessions’ complaints was Kagan barring Army and Marine recruiters at Harvard while she was Dean there. In fact, they got it all wrong. Kagan didn’t “bar” them – as they were allowed to recruit in a separate hallway apart from the main recruitment center. Kagan already explained the reason, namely that Harvard’s rules prohibited any discrimination on the basis of race, creed, or sexual orientation. The military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” didn’t meet that standard, so they were allocated separate space. Big deal!
Another conservative shibboleth passed around was that Elena Kagan isn’t “qualified” since she wasn’t an actual lawyer. This is nonsense. Kagan served as Editor of The Harvard Law Review which is the surpremo standard for law competency, irrespective of whether one actually later practices law (apart from this, the complainers fail to note that 38 previous appointees have had NO legal experience, period, and weren’t even Harvard Law editors!)
These folks so consumed by Kagan’s “deficiencies” turn a blind eye to those of Clarence Thomas who – at the time of his nomination hearings – had the least favorable American Bar Association ranking of any nominee dating back to the 1950s. Apart from that, Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of consequence, and had been a judge for only a year. Kagan meanwhile has written dozens of articles as well as briefs while Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Others complain about the “irony” of “liberals” wanting Kagan to be nominated, while objecting to Sarah Palin as Veep. But they mix chalk and cheese. Kagan, as noted, was Editor of the Harvard Law Review- and she also clerked for Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall- so is amply qualified to sit on the court just on that basis. A comparative standard for Palin (for VP) would have been being Editor of a Constitutional Journal in college – as opposed to being head of the women’s basketball team!
Kagan’s bona fides prompted even TIME magazine (no longer the "liberal" voice of yesteryear) to note: “Kagan has compiled a remarkable legal record while winning frineds across the political spectrum”. Reeps also forget she served as Solicitor General, or equivalent to being the “10th justice” in the words of TIME.
Reeps also like to argue nonsense that at least Palin “served in office” (governor or Alaska) but they never make note of the next little item – that she quit before she completed her term of office. Indeed, she had nearly 18 months left. How capable of being veep (or president for that matter) is someone who leaves a formal, state executive office for speechifying at Tea Party conclaves?
But beyond all that, Palin didn’t even demonstrate minimal knowledge that would be expected of a veep, for example, in her interviews with Katie Couric on CBS. Her explanation of her foreign security bona fides was claiming she could “see Russia from my house”. But having actually lived in Alaska (1 year over 1985-86) I can assure people that is impossible –especially from Wasilla, a little bumpkin hamlet not far from Anchorage- and well land-locked. At least if one were living at the extreme western edge of Nome (hundreds of miles northwest of Palin’s home) one might see Russia (Siberia) on a totally clear day, if one also avails oneself of a good telescope!
Palin’s paltry and pathetic answers to Couric’s hardnosed questions, not any “liberal bias”, were what led to her downfall and by extension the misshapen McCain- Palin ticket.
Since the nomination hearings have commenced, Elena Kagan has amply demonstrated she’s no Sarah Palin. With a combination of wry, deflecting humor, common sense, commanding insight into the law and artful English – she’s held her own and shown herself to be superior in intellect to her most determined inquisitors.
A Denver Post editorial yesterday praised her honesty and also her humility and noted that “this is a useful reminder of how confirmation hearings can work”.
The much more salient point in all this tempest in a teapot is who will Kagan’s rulings or siding benefit if anyone? TIME (‘Judging Elena’, July 5, p. 30) isn’t so sure at all it will be “liberals”. As the author of the piece (Adam Cohen) observes:
“Liberals would seem to have the most at risk if Kagan is confirmed. She would replace Stevens, one of the court’s most reliably left-leaning members. If she breaks from the liberal line on even a few issues, the court’s waning left of center bloc will erode even further.”
And all it would take is a few 6-3 decisions the wrong way to confirm that.
So, we will watch and wait before making judgments on Kagan’s liberal fitness. In the meantime, we know she is fit to sit on the High Court, contrary to all the right wing posturing and phony outrage.
No comments:
Post a Comment