Why should we fight against Kagan's confirmation?

[rbell]

CASE_AGAINST_KAGAN_article

Elena Kagan is too political, too leftist, too inexperienced and too disrespectful towards existing law to be confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court. As Ms. Kagan's nomination hearings begin on Monday, what we now know about her should disturb fair-minded Americans, and should embolden moderate senators of both parties to avoid rubber-stamping her for a lifetime appointment. The pressure should be most intense not on Republicans, but on Democrats who claim moderation and yet try to explain away Ms. Kagan's history of leftist proselytizing.
No amount of personal charm on Ms. Kagan's part should obscure her actual record.

Excellent analysis. Specific, and oh-so-pointed.

A wake up-call for D's and R's. Not that any D's, or half the R's, are listening. But after Kagan is confirmed (and let's not kid ourselves--there's not the slightest chance she won't be)--let's retaliate with mass firings of "Law-makers." (quotation marks intentional, to display the irony of all this). Some of the points (See article for supporting details):

• We know she is remarkably lacking in courtroom experience.
• We know she deliberately ignored the law while at Harvard, and unfairly besmirched our military in time of war.
• We know she cut corners in order to preserve partial-birth abortions.
• We know Ms. Kagan is hostile to gun rights.
• We know she believes foreign law is highly relevant to U.S. law.
• We know she believes judges should automatically favor certain classes of people and impose their own values to reach desired outcomes.

And we know lots of other things about Ms. Kagan:

• She believes states should be forced to recognize purported marriages performed in other states (presumably such as homosexual "marriage") even if their own policies forbid it.
• She used her job as legal analyst to make political judgments about how various legal stances would benefit Democrats over Republicans.
• She supported a policy to allow human embryos to be cloned and killed.
• She said she "loved" the vicious character assault on Judge Robert Bork when he was nominated for the Supreme Court in 1987.
• And she once wrote that she hoped for "a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left."

So...why would any nominally intelligent, freedom-loving American want this train wreck of a "judge" writing our laws? (Yes, I know our intended branches of government...but I also know what leftist judges do.)

 

[billwald]

Glad she understands the plain meaning of the interstate commerce clause regarding contracts.

 

[rbell]

for someone who supposedly has high regard for "states' rights," billwald seems awfully unconcerned...