Supreme Court

Justice Elena Kagan

|

It's official. The U.S. Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court by a vote of 63-37. What sort of justice will she turn out to be? For some sobering predictions, here's a sampling of Reason's coverage of Kagan's ideas and her Senate confirmation hearing:

Natural Reluctance. Elena Kagan's disturbing refusal to acknowledge pre-existing rights. By Jacob Sullum.

Elena Kagan on Free Speech, Executive Power, and Judicial Restraint. Will Obama's Supreme Court pick show too much deference to the government? By Damon Root.

Will Elena Kagan Allow Books to be Banned? Understanding the Supreme Court nominee's chilling argument in Citizens United. By Daniel Shuchman.

"She is certainly a fan of presidential power." By Radley Balko.

NEXT: The Economics of Online Porn

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Could she be our first unacknowledged Lesbian Justice?

    1. No. That was Souter.

      1. Zing!

  2. A victory for craven, careerist mediocrities everywhere. Seriously, does anything think this woman will do anything but mindlessly vote liberal? Has anyone ever found her to have one original or interesting thought or do anything of note beyond abuse the clerical staff at Harvard?

    I don’t care that she is a liberal. But I do care that someone so obviously devoid of independent thought or merit could go so far in life. These are truly dark times.

    1. Yea, imagine if all your kid achieved in life was to gradaute with honors from Princeton, get a masters in philosophy from Oxford, graduate with honors with a law degree from Harvard, clerk for a SCOTUS judge, be a professor at U of Chicago, Dean of Harvard Law and Solicitor General of the US, how dissappointed you’d be with her mediocre achievements!

      The right is not even TRYING in inventing their crackpot narratives these days.

      1. Hate to say it, but you just got served, John.

        1. John will just argue that Princeton, Harvard, Oxford and U of Chicago are just leftist summer camps for socialist joos or something…

          1. who are the joos?

            1. They are teh socialists!

              Right?

          2. You were right up until the needless Jew-bashing, MNG.

            1. Sigh. Fanatics always lack senses of humor…

                1. So did I.

      2. What cases has she tried? Aside from the spell as a clerk, her career has been as a legal academician (theorist) and bureaucrat. And a quite far left one, at that. Which is par for the course for faculty at Chicago and Harvard.

        Don’t try to tell me that she was the MOST qualified person out there for this position. And I mean qualified as a JURIST, not as a demographic.

        1. Do you know anything about U of Chicago? Ever heard of Leo Strauss goofball? OR how about Scalia, who taught there for years.

          Jesus, will you buy anything the right media feeds you?

          1. So your argument is that CV clearly illustrates that she’s a great constitutional scholar and highly qualified jurist?

            This has nothing to do with the right-wing media. I do not watch Fox news.

            1. I argue those are significant educational and occupational accomplishments. Do you actually disagree?

              1. I argue those are significant educational and occupational accomplishments.

                Sure. But you argue that only to support your assertion that they make her highly qualified to be a SCOTUS justice.

                I disagree that those automatically qualify a person to be a SCOTUS justice. She’s not stupid, clearly. But is she a jurist? Not based on what I saw at her confirmation hearings.

                1. MNG,

                  They’re great accomplishments, but not relevant to the question of whether she’s qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Frankly, she wasn’t even qualified to be named Solicitor General. To hold out her 18 months of SG as some great experience for serving on the SCOTUS is a joke.

                  I’d have been much happier if Diane Wood had received the nom, despite being by all accounts, much more liberal. At least Judge Wood had been an appellate judge for quite some time. Being the Dean of HLS is nice, but by itself in no way suggests that she is qualified. My law school dean is quite bright, an national expert on an technical area of law, and in no way deserves to be nominated for SCOTUS. What’s really funny is the same people who bitched mightily at Harriet Meiers (sp?) getting the nom are now swallowing their tongues about Kagan’s lack of experience. At least Meiers had some practical experience outside of academia.

                2. Actually, I believe his original argument is that you can hardly call some ‘mediocre’ who attends and graduates with honors from Princeton, then Oxford, then Harvard, then serves at UChicago and Harvard as a professor and a dean, then serves as Solicitor General of the United States.

                  I note that MNG did not challenge the accusation of careerism. Merely the accusation of mediocrity.

                  On this, I must agree.

                  1. In fact, I’ll double-down and add this: Like many with libertarian leanings, I am concerned about Elena Kagan’s views as they have been expressed, implied, or at least guessed at, here and elsewhere. But I think it’s overreaching, of all the criticisms one could make, to say she’s mediocre.

        2. I would think a Solicitor General would be especially suited for a SCOTUS job as they argue cases, well, you know, in front of the SCOTUS…

          1. The OFFICE of the Solicitor General is responsible for representing the U.S. – it does not mean that the individual who is the Soliciter General himself or herself will argue every case before the SCOTUS. How many cases has she TRIED? I.e., litigated start to finish? Unless I am mistaken, I believe the answer is ZERO. How many cases did she argue before SCOTUS?

            I do know that she argued one case – in which she said the U.S. government could ban books and political pamphlets. That really is a stunning endorsement of her qualifications as a constitutional law scholar.

      3. Only you could list a career sinecure’s academic credentials and CV so convincingly.

        Based on her CU argument as SG as well as her recent performance to the Senate, forgive me I’d be more impressed with her knowledge of the Constitution if she told me she likes mustard on her bratwurst. No, really.

        1. Only anyone with access to wikipedia could list a career sinecure’s academic credentials and CV so convincingly.

          FTFY

          As to the rest, you do know that it’s possible for someone to come to different legal conclusions than you without said person being a dumbass or evil, right?

          1. you do know that it’s possible for someone to come to different legal conclusions than you without said person being a dumbass or evil, right?

            Except when they’re flat-out wrong.

          2. As to the rest, you do know that it’s possible for someone to come to different legal conclusions than you without said person being a dumbass or evil, right?

            That’s true. Most of them, like you, are a dumbass and evil.

          3. Re: MNG,

            As to the rest, you do know that it’s possible for someone to come to different legal conclusions than you without said person being a dumbass or evil, right?

            Indeed – for instance, there was NO HINT OF EVIL WHATSOEVER in those lawyers that advised GWB that waterboarding was not torture…

            Right? I mean, for consistency sake, waht you say should be true for the above…

            1. John Yoo had an excellent CV.

      4. Yea, imagine if all your kid achieved in life was to gradaute with honors from Princeton, get a masters in philosophy from Oxford, graduate with honors with a law degree from Harvard, clerk for a SCOTUS judge, be a professor at U of Chicago, Dean of Harvard Law and Solicitor General of the US, how dissappointed you’d be with her mediocre achievements!

        *I* would be disappointed if all that achoeved was getting a job as a tax-fed leech. I would rather my kid became a brick layer.

        Fuck you, Keegan, tax-fed leech extraordinaire…

        1. Hey, idiot, those schools are all private.

          1. Re: MNG,

            Hey, idiot – I DON’T CARE. As in “I don’t give a shit they are private.”

            [Rather SEMI-private, as institutions that are partially funded with stolen money at bayonet point cannot be construed as PRIVATE, but I know how you love to obfuscate.]

            If ALL one got from going there was becoming a tax-fed leech, then I would rather my kid became a brick layer.

            1. So if someone works for a private firm that recieves any taxpayer monies, said person is a tax-fed leech?

              1. blockquote>So if someone works for a private firm that recieves any taxpayer monies, said person is a tax-fed leech?

                BINGO! Give the man a cigar!

                What? Did you think my libertarianism was just a pose? I am CONSISTENT in my positions, MNG. So, go to hell.

                1. You’re consistently stupid dude.

                  1. Re: MNG,

                    You’re consistently stupid dude.

                    MNG, coming from you, I should take it as a badge of honor. I really don’t care much for your love for the intellectually lazy and lovers of expediency like Kagan here.

                    But maybe some can come up with different conclusions than you and be a dumbass or evil, after all, right?

              2. Probably a rent seeking leech.

          2. Hey, idiot, those schools are all private.

            Hey, idiot, they all take federal grant and loan student aid money.

            1. Re: Barely Suppressed Rage (WTF),

              Hey, idiot, they all take federal grant and loan student aid money.

              For lazy lefties, private IS private – there’s no distinction. Just like when they conflate crony capitalism with free markets.

            2. If taking federal money makes an organization a tex fed leech, then every major corporation is one. Please name me 10 US based companies with over $1 B in revenue that doesn’t take any federal money.

              1. If taking federal money makes an organization a tex fed leech, then every major corporation is one.

                Ok, your point is?

      5. It’s refreshing to see MNG not stoop to massive logical falicies to prop up his hillbilly shack of an argument.

      6. You are an idiot as usal. She barely made tenure at Harvard. In fact left Harvard for low paying job in the Clinton Administration. Then was appointed to a judgeship but never confirmed. They turned herself into an “admin law” expert and egg sucked her way to tenure.

        She very little academic record. She is simply not a scholar of any note. It is not that she is not qualified to be something. It is that she has no business being on the high court.

        You of course list her academic credentials because that is all she has as opposed to scholarly ones and because you don’t know any better.

        Dumbest poster on Reason is definitely MNG

        1. Tell you what, John: You line up every single lawyer in the country. Every single one. Let’s line them up in ascending order of a scale which judges them on their academic credentials. We can come up with some reasonable, compromise standard which gives extra points to people who attended ‘second tier’ or ‘third tier’ schools but achieved scholastic distinction, if you want to draw that line in the sand, sure.

          I will still bet money that Elena Kagan is far above the median on the achievement scale. Even if we expressed the median as a reasonable range of values rather than a single point, I would still bet money that she would be above the median.

          *AGAIN*, I note: I do not think I will love this woman as a Supreme Court Justice. If I were a Senator, I do not think I would have voted for her in good conscience. I do not agree with her views as I understand them. And as Papaya notes in the comment right below mine, I’d actually *rather* someone academically mediocre but with respect for the Constitution.

          Great Freepin’ Jeebus, why is it so hard to concede that you might reasonably, possibly, have made a single poor word choice so that people who might otherwise agree with you have to agree with MNG on one little point he’s making?

          1. She is a mediocrity. That is not a poor word choice. That is exactly what she is. She is not a bad lawyer, although from accounts of people who knew her at Harvard she is an awful person. But she is neither a practicing attorney of any note nor a scholar of any note. She has held a lot of high positions primarly because she is wonderful at kissing ass. You may think that is a great skill. I don’t.

            1. You just make this shit up don’t you?

          2. Ben P.|8.5.10 @ 8:46PM|#

            Tell you what, John: You line up every single lawyer in the country. Every single one. Let’s line them up in ascending order of a scale which judges them on their academic credentials

            Dude, if you’re going to go to all the trouble of lining up every lawyer in the country, the next logical step would not be to nominate one of them for something.

      7. As an alumnus of the UofC I can assure you with few exceptions a professorship there is nothing but mediocrity in every arena except political maneuvering.

    2. Well, I care that she’s a liberal. I’d rather take any mediocrity who respected the Constitution over any Ivy League achiever with “independent” or “original” thoughts who thinks their job is to advance “progressive” causes by twisting laws into their preferred shapes.

  3. Man, one year of court experience, then straight onto the Supreme Court.

    The corruption is fucking mind-breaking.

    1. Has she even seen one of these “courtrooms” before?

      1. That’s just it — no. Her sole exposure was during the year she was Solicitor General, whch meant she went from no courtroom experience at all to representing the United States before the Supreme Court.

        Like I said, the corruption is fucking mind-breaking.

      2. Yes, when her office was enthusiastically endorsing the US government pulling books off of shelves and disposing of them for forbidden political speech.

    2. Well, if that level of experience is good enough to be president….

  4. Diversity roolz!

  5. What sort of justice will she turn out to be?

    One of the worst ever in the history of our country.

    And shame on the five cowardly republicans who voted to approve this evil hag.

    1. No shit. Fuck Lindsey Graham.

      1. He’d like that.

        1. Probably so. He has spent his entire career laying down for money. So at worst it would just be another day on the job.

          1. He’s also a closeted homosexual. Which makes him a massive hypocrite/piece of shit based on his voting record.

            1. Unmarried? USAF JAG corps? Is there anything about this guy that doesn’t scream homosexual? Just look at his picture:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..,_2006.jpg

              1. I don’t give a shit if he starts giving out free blowjobs in the Rotunda every Friday afternoon. He’s a useless piece of shit. That’s why I hate him.

      2. The man has a principle of deference in executive appointments to the bench. That used to be the norm before the Bork fiasco you know.

        1. Thank God Bork was Borked. The relationship between the Legislative and Executive branches is (well… was) supposed to be adversarial, rather than a combined tag-team on the asshole of the People.

          1. I’m glad Bork did not become a justice, but I think the process with how he was blocked was abhorrent. He’s a brilliant legal mind and was well qualified, his sin was answering questions and having different, though well reasoned, opinions on things. But elections matter and Bork was not out of line with Reagan.

            1. Advise and consent doesn’t mean “Well, the Prez is all like, elected, so we should take his advice and just consent to whomever he picks.”

              By that logic, the next FDR can appoint 73 justices, since he’s elected.

        2. Hahahahahhaahah.

          1. he’s no “man”
          2. A politician with principles.

          Bravo, sir. You made my day!

          1. I guess you served in the military for years including tours in two conflict zones huh, and that gives you the right to judge his “man”-ness?

            1. Two to four week stints giving advice on legal matters do not a warrior make.

        3. The Senate generally would defer to the president’s nominations because the pres did not go out of his way to find someone who was a rank political ideologue who he could be sure would further his particular breed of social engineering. There was a time when what mattered was that the candidate was an excellent jurist and possessed a strong analytical mind.

          The Senate should not be a mere rubber stamp, deferring to the pres just because he’s the pres. It is with the advice and CONSENT of the Senate that justices get appointed. The Senate can, after examining the candidate, withhold its consent.

          1. “There was a time when what mattered was that the candidate was an excellent jurist and possessed a strong analytical mind.”

            Bork was both.

            1. And possessed of a pronounced ideological bent, as well.

              1. Yeah, like the idea that 9A and 14-P&I should be read as though they were covered by an inkblot.

                Fuck him in his stank-ass.

              2. Well, yeah, he had a pov that you (and I btw) find ultimately wrong. But his pov had just been vindicated by Reagan’s victory. Elections matter.

                1. Again with the election shit.

                  First off, the Constitution matters more. Reagan getting elected doesn’t mean that all of his views (and those of his appointees) supersede the very document that establishes his office. How is that not clear to you? Republican democracy is just another term for tyranny if there aren’t any rules binding the rulers.

                  Secondly, do you not see a valid reason for why the appointment process should be adversarial? It’s the very best feature of the Senate, not a bug.

                2. Hey dumb ass, the Congress won elections to.

            2. Bork was both.

              Yes he was, and the Senate rejected him because he also was a strong ideologue.

              1. They rejected him because he was honest.

    2. “And shame on the five cowardly republicans who voted to approve this evil hag.”

      The last time I got a phone call from the Republican Party asking for money I told them “I do not want one penny of my money going to any candidate who voted for TARP.” I will have this to mention next time. “I do not want one penny of my money going to any candidate who voted for Kagan.”

    3. Shame on everyone of whatever political party who voted for her confirmation. Why do you hold Republicans to a higher standard? If she’d been put up by a Republican President, they’d have all fallen in line, merit be damned.
      These are truly, truly dark times.

      1. If she’d been put up by a Republican President, they’d have all fallen in line, merit be damned.

        Harriet Miers dumbass

      2. They did when Bush nominated Harriot Myers. Kagen is nothing but a leftist Myers. And Republicans and conservatives actually insisted on something better.

        1. “Kagen is nothing but a leftist Myers.”

          Hilarious. Because SMU=Princeton, Oxford or Harvard and legal counsel to the Prez=Solicitor General of the US…

          1. Because Ivy League credentials mean sooo much more than State or Small Private U.

            You douchebag.

            1. Hey, there are these things called “universities.” Like anything else some are recognized as better than others. This is true for corporations, military combat units, etc.

              Grow up dude.

              1. I’m guessing you’ve never actually met anyone with a law degree from Yale or Harvard as compared to lots of other law schools?

                I know several people with Harvard and Yale law degrees. I can think of maybe ONE who I think would be a good judge.

                I know several people with law degrees from so-called “second-tier” schools who would make fantastic judges – far superior to lots of people who currently are judges.

                The school where you got your degree from really doesn’t mean a whole lot in terms of what kind of jurist you are. Having the “right” degree from the “right” school has meaning only to those who are too small-minded and cramped to consider actual, genuine qualifications, and who find it simpler to check the name brand rather than examine the actual quality of the article.

              2. Not a smidgen of elitism here, eh, MNG?

              3. Like anything else some are recognized as better than others.

                Except that the deans of more and more law schools are refusing to participate in the US News and World Report rankings, as they realize how artificial, misleading and destructive they actually can be.

                Who is “smarter” or the better potential judge: the guy who graduated summa cum laude, ranked No. 1 in his class, with law review, moot court, a full scholarship, clinic and externship experience, from a second-tier law school, or the guy who barely skated by, attending just enough class not to fail out, did not participate in any activities or associations, and graduated at the bottom of his class from Yale law school?

                Does his majickal degree with the word “Yale” on it somehow make him more qualified than the other guy?

                It’s bullshit.

                1. Ah, the sweet smell of resentful populism envy!

                  1. the sweet smell of resentful populism envy!

                    More like the stench of your skid marks as you totally avoided answering the question. So you maintain that the schlub who graduated Yale Law is automatically more highly qualified than the stellar student from a T2 law school?

                    So you agree then, that Bush was a highly qualified president, having graduated from Yale U.

                    1. All things being equal, yes I am more impressed by someone graduating from Oxford than SMU.

                      Of course many other factors, if I knew them, would be important to me.

                      For example, the fact that she succeeded at four quite different Ivy League schools is very impressive to me.

                    2. All that means is she was good at that game, under the prevailing rules. Kinda like the popular kid in the 80s movies who was really a douche.

                    3. All things being equal, yes I am more impressed by someone graduating from Oxford than SMU.

                      Well apparently you’ve got a fucking reading disability, because my hypothetical clearly indicated that all things were NOT equal.

                      I can state with certitude that the fact that a person managed to squeak through Yale Law and get the majickal piece of paper with that majickal word on it does not automatically mean that person is smarter, worked harder, or is in any way more qualified to be a lawyer or judge, let alone a SCOTUS justice, than the person who worked hard and was an outstanding achiever at a “lower ranked” law school.

                      The plain fact is that you are not automatically guaranteed a better legal education or better product from a “tier 1” school than from a good “tier 2” school.

                      Anyone who puts that much stock into the name of the school that one got a degree from is a simplistic fool.

              4. Do you also wear clothing with conspicuous logos on it, so people know what brands you prefer? Because, you know, those $90 Ralph Lauren shirts are so incredibly superior to the $30 Land’s End ones.

                Law schools are money-making businesses. They are brand names. Which one did you get your degree from?

                1. Hey MNG – a little something for your Friday morning.

                  A little preview:

                  Law school grades are the important predictor of a lawyer’s career success?in fact they are “decisively more important” than the eliteness of the school attended, according to two law professors who have studied the issue.

                  University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Sander and Brooklyn Law School visiting professor Jane Yakowitz analyzed data from four studies and concluded that the standard advice?go to the best law school that will take you?doesn’t necessarily hold true, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports.

                  Of course, you can feel free to continue judging lawyers solely by the name of the school they attended, rather than what they actually acheived while they were there.

              5. Exactly. I give negative points to ivies.

          2. She’s a careerist toady, just like Miers. Full stop.

          3. Seriously, that is waht does it for you. She made the cut to those schools.

            What has she accomplished. Thurgood Marshall – Litigated cases.

            Judges should see the inside of a courtroom before they ascend to the bench.

            1. By that logic you would oppose Richard Epstein for SCOTUS justice, eh?

              I think he’d make a tremondous justice btw.

              1. Look, I went to law school and run my own firm. I litigate cases all the time. Trial work means defending your client and understanding people – judges, juries, witnesses.

                Maybe I have a bias – I found law school to be boring, similar to high school, and couldn’t wait to leave. The robots that hide in law schools – the professors – I don’t have a great opinion of them.

                To many people on the court, fail to see that the names on the docket are actually people – that’s how we get statements that the police are professionals, Kelo, and of the other pronouncements from our betters.

                So no. No thanks.

                1. Too Many justices – sorry

                2. “To many people on the court, fail to see that the names on the docket are actually people”

                  Yeah, and they were all well experienced in courtrooms, so why not something different if that is your worry?

                  1. Disagree with your premise – something different.

                    Secondly, Do you ever talk to (law) professors? Would you want any of them to be your judge?

                    The Catholic Church has a marriage class, as do some other churches. I always wondered what a man who never married, never lived with one woman for his whole life could tell me about marriage? on the other hand, a family friend – married 35 years- he might be my goto guy.

                  2. Try Something Different – Criminal Def)ense Attorney or Public Defender ( not from the Prosecutor’s Office

                  3. Something different would be a libertarian. You don’t want different. You want leftist.

                    1. I never said no to a libertarian. I do not expect o’bama to appoint one. I want a qualified person – not a monk that secreted herself away from the rest of the world.

  6. Her getting on the Court with five Republican votes shows that it is not about Republican versus Democrat. It is about the ruling class versus everyone else. This woman nothing but kiss ass and check blocks to be part of the ruling class. And when push came to shove they rewarded her. They all need to be shot.

    1. I’d prefer “hung from lampposts”.

      1. Hanged, my dear, when speaking of a lady.

        1. I dunno; I’ve heard she’s well hung.

          1. I’m getting this scary mixed image of Elena Kagan and the Hottentott Venus.

    2. John, don’t you mean that she is getting on THE court with five Repubican votes? Or did someone pull Kennedy’s card?

    3. Well, if McCain were President, she wouldn’t be getting on the Court, would she? I’m not a McCain fan, but the Team Red/Team Blue thing did make a difference here, did it not?

  7. Her getting on the Court with five Republican votes shows that it is not about Republican versus Democrat. It is about the ruling class versus everyone else.

    Most of the Republicans who voted no aren’t “everyone else,” either. They just didn’t get called up to take this shift.

    1. Sadly, true enough.

  8. And the MSM is focused on her gender. Another female on the Supreme Court.
    Three females serving together.

    But what about the content of her character ?

    1. Since the MSM has not character themselves, they can’t comment on it. They can only talk about race or gender.

      1. Did you see this one? the press is completely insane: http://www.breitbart.tv/report…..onference/

    2. Wow! That’s six tits!

      1. 6 very very nasty tits.

        1. At least 6 very very nasty tits.

          FTFY

        2. Have you been looking at the TSA’s stored pictures again, Law Student?

          1. I would pay big bucks to watch the Supreme Court walk through one of those.

      2. Don’t you mean 10? Counting the ones on the backs of Wise Latina? and Kagan.

        I loves me some back-tits.

  9. Thank god, the harvard bureaucratic elites are now represented on the court.

    1. Yeah, we really dodged that bullet, eh?

  10. Will Elena Kagan Allow Books to be Banned? Understanding the Supreme Court nominee’s chilling argument in Citizens United. By Daniel Shuchman.

    I guess graduating with honors leads one to become a book-burning fascist.

    I will tell my kids “College? Are you fucking crazy? Do you want to end up like Elena Keegan, a book-burning Nazi?”

    1. Are people really conflating someone’s argument for a client in a court case with their actual opinion on a topic? Really?

      1. Re: Neu Mejican,

        Are people really conflating someone’s argument for a client in a court case with their actual opinion on a topic?

        Oh, you mean she wasn’t being honest? Ahhh, that is so much better!

      2. Yes.

        Given that what her client was asking her to argue was so noxious i.e. that the feds can ban books, it was something that if she respected Constitutional rights she should have resigned rather than argue.

        1. that’s silly.

          her arguing that, even if she didn’t believe it is no different than a defense attorney arguing his client is innocent, when he knows the guy is guilty as sin.

          1. Actually, that is quite different. An individual accused of a crime has a constitutionally protected right to have the government prove every element of the offense charged, and has no obligation to participate in or aid the prosecution.

            The Solicitor General represents the Executive Branch of the United States government, the chief of which has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. An Executive that would argue for a public policy that would traduce the Constitution is deserving of not only censure, but impeachment.

  11. I’ve reached the point that for the next 20 years or so, anybody with a degree from an Ivy League school should be barred from government. Fuck ’em. Collectively, the best and the brightest of the Ivy league, in concert with the dimbulbs that got elected to Congress, have fucked everything up. Let them go find real jobs for a generation and let somebody else have a go at screwing things up.

    1. Re: T,

      Be careful or MNG might accuse you of being an anti-intellectual…

      1. I think I can bear the stress of his disregard.

    2. So Milton Friedman and Richard Epstein should be barred from government?

      1. Re: MNG,

        So Milton Friedman and Richard Epstein should be barred from government?

        Rather, should government be? The question answers itself, except for State-worshippers.

      2. You lefties are always weeping about diversity. I would think you would welcome a bit of intellectual diversity. Personally, I would like to see SCOTUS populated by graduates of first rate state schools like Michigan State, UC, Illinois, etc. There are bound to be a heaping handful of qualified people who graduated from such places.

        1. Sorry, but “diversity” for the wet set is having a panel of black leftists, female leftists, disabled leftists, Latino leftists and Asian leftists.

          1. They can do without the Asians if they have to.

  12. Elena Kagan’s disturbing refusal to acknowledge pre-existing rights.

    As in “I believe we have rights because the government wants us to have rights.”

    What sort of justice will she turn out to be?

    Pretty much like the so-called “wise Latina”: A spectacularly lazy bum who will simply decide in lockstep with what the government wants.

    1. You talk like you believe the abstract theory of natural rights is incontrovertibly true, rather than one of several attempts to put a framework around a very fuzzy concept.

      1. Re: Neu Mejican,

        You talk like you believe the abstract theory of natural rights is incontrovertibly true, rather than one of several attempts to put a framework around a very fuzzy concept.

        But you do know what a perfunctory contradiction is, right NM?

        For instance, you do OWN your body, don’t you? Or is that too fuzzy for you to grasp?

        1. I don’t “own” my body. I AM my body. Or is that distinction too subtle for you?

          1. And to preempt here…basing natural rights to life and liberty gets it exactly backwards. You don’t have a right to life and liberty because you OWN your body. You have a right to property (ownership) because you are alive and free.

            1. oops…

              that should be

              “basing natural rights to life and liberty on ownership”

  13. Many people ask me, “What sort of justice will you turn out to be?”

  14. Will Obama’s Supreme Court pick show too much deference to the government?

    Obama’s “wise Latina” appointee sure did not waste time to show her intellectual lazyness and vote in lockstep with her other Statist brethren in the MacDonald case, writting an opinion even MORE convoluted than Justice Stevens’, which is quite a [dubious] achievement.

    But, like MNG touted above, Elena has all these credentials . . . I guess that passes for principles and convictions in this day and age.

  15. Hey, she plays poker and smokes cigars! She just like us – no worries people!!!!

    1. Yeah, and she’s got a good sense of humor, too! Just like Scalia!

  16. Hmmmm…not sure where people got the idea that the SCOTUS was supposed to be populated with people that had courtroom experience. Even on a practical level I am not sure how that is a good idea. Sort of like you want a citizen’s review board to review police actions…

    Anyway, she’s certainly as qualified as she needs to be for the position.

    1. Anyway, she’s certainly as qualified as she needs to be for the position.

      “Statist bums, apply here”

    2. I would love to be on a citizen’s review board to judge the constitutionality of Congressional legislation.

      1. True. The Constitution doesn’t require law degree for a person to interpret it. It is written in clear language. If anything lawyers have warped it’s meaning beyond all recognition.

        1. You don’t have to be a lawyer to do that. Plenty of non-lawyers argue for all kinds of warped interpretations of the Constitution.

          1. We must respect the constitooshun. Except the 14th amendment, which we should repeal, because I don’t understand it and did you know mexicans were havin babies just to take ur jerbs? However, I know exactly what the 2nd amendment says.

  17. I see Lindsey Graham also supported the vote. Is he planning on coming out?

  18. At least now there’s a legitimate reason to bar cameras from the Supreme Court. Yeesh, that face…

  19. We needed a wise lesbian woman on the court to round it out.

    Is that racist?

    1. We now have a wide lesbian. As for wisdom????

  20. rctlfy.wordpress.com

    I give head to spoofs!

  21. Our President of the United States had a great couple of months;

    1. Financial reformed passed, thanks to “Tea Party Approved” Senator Scott Brown (R-MA)
    2. AZ SB1070 (written by Neo Nazi lover, Russell Pearce and private prison giant Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) lover, Jan Brewer, both “Tea Party Approved” ) fails in court when legally challenged.
    3. CA Prop 8 (financially supported by San Diego businessman Terry Caster, owner of A-1 Self Storage, Company, San Diego businessman Doug Manchester owner Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel and the Grand del Mar, Church of Latter Day Saint (LDS/ Mormons), Catholic Church, both “Tea Party Approved”) fails in court when legally challenged, the judge appointed by Ronald Reagan.
    4. Elena Kagan Confirmed to Supreme Court, (63 to 37, with the help of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg, and Richard Lugar, are they “Tea Party Approved”?
    5. Another Birther lawsuit (Captain Pamela Barnett, V. Barack Obama) and “Tea Party Approved”, was dismissed.

    Happy Birthday Mr. President, even though belated, keep going, you are doing great and I am personally enjoy that the so called “Tea Party” is taking it so well. Love it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.