Star One Smart Blog's

...well, she asked this years ago, but obviously the concept swooshes! right over her head...

Ms. Kagan addressed the point herself 15 years ago in the University of Chicago Law Review: “Herein lies one of the mysteries of modern confirmation politics: given that the Republican Party has an ambitious judicial agenda and the Democratic Party has next to none, why is the former labeled the party of judicial restraint and the latter the party of judicial activism?”

Because, you silly leftist bint, we Conservatives (sometimes that will include members of the Republican party, sometimes not) want to preserve the Constitution, hardly an activist stance. You, and your left leaning - progressive - self-styled liberal activists want to interpret that very same Constitution in ways that are destructive to the nation. Conservatives desire to maintain the original stance; leftists desire fundamental CHANGE for to accrete their power and spread their ideology, and to by any means allow to creep in their misguided ideas of where this nation should be headed.

Allow me to illustrate just where Barack Obama and his left-leaning ideology will take us...before, and after.




If Elena Kagan can't understand the basis of the very obvious differences between Left and Right, why should we want to allow her anywhere near the SCOTUS ?

Received via e-mail today (paid for by Organizing for America; I love it when those bastards send me stuff~!)...

From:Barack Obama (info@barackobama.com)
Sent: Mon 5/10/10 3:34 PM
To: Serr Serr8d (*************)
Serr --

Today, it is my great honor to nominate our Solicitor General, and my friend, Elena Kagan, to be the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.

As I send my nomination to the Senate, I wanted to record a special message for you that I hope will help us launch a national discussion.

Take a minute to watch this video, and then help me to introduce Elena to your friends and family by passing it on.

Watch the video.     [Screw that. No linky for you.  I don't need to promote an indoctrination by a professional Community Organizer. -ed.]

Elena is widely regarded as one of the best legal minds of her generation -- earning praise from across the ideological spectrum throughout her career. Above all, she is a trailblazer. She wasn't just the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School -- she was one of its most beloved and successful leaders, building a reputation for openness to other viewpoints and skill in working with others to build consensus. These were some of the many reasons why I selected her to be my Solicitor General, the nation's chief advocate -- the first woman to hold that post as well.       [BHO uses the word 'woman' twice, in the first and last sentences; but he's a bit late on that train. There's two women already placed on the SCOTUS. -ed.]

Her work as Solicitor General has allowed me to see firsthand just why Elena is particularly well-suited to the Court: She has not only a keen understanding of the law, but also one that is rooted in a deep awareness of its impact on people's lives. Last year, she made that clear -- 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.     [You know Elena Kagan will argue to overturn that anti-Statist ruling, because that ruling flies in the face of Progressive Thinking; that thinking being that our benevolent Government doesn't need corporations to interfere in their 'Daddy knows best' nannystatism mentality; they just needs to pay ever-increasing tax rates to fund the State. -ed.]

Now, I look forward to the prospect of Elena taking her seat alongside Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayor. For the first time, our nation's highest court would include three women, ensuring a Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.

When Justice Stevens wrote me to announce his retirement, I knew that the Court would be losing a standard bearer. And I felt a responsibility to nominate an individual capable of being that same guiding force, a consistent voice of reason on the Court.        [Yeah, we know your sort of far-left ideologues who fight for Progressive ideas and goals over and above the clear and present mandate to uphold the Constitution. We knows well the types of snakes you prefer. -ed.]

I am certain I have made the right choice. As you learn more about Elena, I am confident you'll see what I do -- that she is a voice we need on the Supreme Court.      [Like we would need a pit bull installed in each and every kindergarten classroom in the nation, for to keep the kids in line. -ed]

Please watch the message -- and share it with others:

http://my.barackobama.com/**********

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Well, there's a problem evident with Elena Kagan in BHO's very first sentence: "my friend".

I do not trust anyone Barack Obama calls a 'friend', especially if that person is appointed by Barack Obama to play an important role in governing this nation. Barack Obama is a far-left demagogue; he has yet to appoint a single person to any position that I can honestly say I trust.

Elena Kagan, from what I've read about her so far, is a born-Chicago politico, a Harvard culture snob - elitist who has achieved a tenured University position without a wealth of published papers or briefs (who else comes to mind when one is stymied whilst searching for deep background writings, hmmmmm?) and you can just tell that she has been rewarded these well-positioned seats because of what she believes (leftist, statist, progressive activism) and how FDR BHO believes she'll adjudicate 'his' cases 'his' way, with no surprises, rather than because Elena Kagan is a stern and stoic believer in correct interpretation of our Constitution.

What we have here is a manipulator of the legal system for further progressive relaxation of our Constitutional guidelines; guidelines that have heretofore protected us from these leftist infiltrators.

Stanley Fish, in today's NYT, reviews a new book, "The Living Constitution" by David Strauss, and in his review brings to light exactly how these modern, liberal, progressive, interpreters view our Constitution; as a living, breathing, easily choked and distorted document that they can and will flounce every chance they get...

In the majority of instances, Strauss argues, “the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role.” Even “when a case involves the Constitution, the text routinely gets no attention,” for “on a day-to-day basis, American constitutional law is about precedents, and when precedents leave off, it is about commonsense notions of fairness and good policy.”

...

Why is Strauss trying to take the Constitution out of the constitutional interpretation loop? Because he wants to liberate us from it as a constraint. He repeatedly invokes Thomas Jefferson’s remark that “The earth belongs to the living and not the dead” and expands it into a question: “What possible justification can there be for allowing the dead hand of the past . . . to govern us today?”

That is like asking what justification is there for adhering to the terms of a contract or respecting the wishes of a testator or caring about what Milton meant in “Paradise Lost” or paying serious attention to the items on the grocery list your spouse gave you. In each of these instances keeping faith with the past utterances of an authoritative voice — the voice of the contracts’ makers, the voice of someone’s last will and testament, the voice of the poet-creator, the voice of the person who will make the dinner — is constitutive of the act you are performing. And not keeping faith raises the question of why we should bother with the Constitution or the contract or the will or the poem or the list at all. Why not just cut out the middleman (who is not being honored anyway) and go straight to the meanings you want?

Why not, indeed? If BHO can succeed in packing the court a la FDR with his modern far-left interpreters, our Republic will never recover.

I recommend that our Republican senators chew this nominee to ribbons on the Senate floor, as BHO and his leftist buddies did to President Bush's nominees. If anything comes out (we'll know it if we can find it) then we must filibuster and stop this nomination if at all possible. We have to hold out past August, to November, when the American people get a chance to answer this far-left drag on our nation's underpinnings.

Are there enough Senators left with the balls to whittle this nominee down to size?

We'll see. We must push these 41 Senators to sharpen the knives. As is deserved (BHO did the same thing); as is necessary for what's become a matter of nation preservation.

The goal: No easy victory for BHO and his Organized for America's Decline leftists. Stop this nomination if possible; if not, then expose what's happening to the majority of the American people, to the independents who make up the swing voters. If they can see exactly what's happening, if they care, then we can deliver a mid-term body blow to the Obama regime.

---