Elena Kagan, another Obama lie?
When Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, Obama said he wanted someone who:
Sotomayor had already gained a certain notoriety for stating:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
He wanted someone who obviously felt that the law was fluid, and that “intellect and empathy”, and a certain bias, was more important than strictly interpreting the law. Over a good amount of objection and protest, Sotomayor was confirmed.
Fast forward pretty much one year to the day, Obama gets a shot at nominating his second Supreme Court Judge. This time he picks another woman. Elena Kagan has no judicial experience at all. None. Not simply very little, I mean zero, nada, nil. She has a law degree, and has taught at law schools, but she’d never decided a case. She had been involved in a rather public and nasty legal battle where she banned military recruiters at Harvard. Now that she’s being debated as a Supreme Court jurist, the argument that she is anti-military is dismissed by her supporters as:
This is pretty bad stuff here. I see no empathy for the people at all here. She totally screwed US citizens on behalf of Saudi royalty. These weren’t even normal US citizens. There were people who lost family, loved ones, their children, their husbands, their wives, because of Saudi royalty. And, Elena Kagan and “empathetic” Obama were siding with those Saudis.
Arlen Specter, now a Democrat, had the perfect opportunity for payback and a certain amount of retribution on behalf of the families of 9/11. Some of those people live in his state. Given his chance, this is what he said:
“I have an open mind,” Specter said Monday during a campaign stop at the Sheet Metal Workers hall on Columbus Boulevard.
And, in discussions, you wanna guess what the most common defense for Kagan is? Go ahead, take a wild stab at it.
I don’t know why we should blame her for the law. That’s congress’s job. If she was following the law then it’s a plus in my book. She doesn’t sway according to popular sentiment, she sticks to the law. I thought conservatives like this about people?
First of all, tell me what the law was she was following. She was arguing that the trial itself would damage US-Saudi relations. I’m not sure what law that is. Second, which way do liberals want it? Either she’s “empathetic” or she’s not. Obama says he wants an “empathetic” jurist, but this woman’s record is as far from that definition as you can possibly get. If he comes out and cites the fact that Kagan followed the law, then he lied about the qualification of Sotomayor. If he repeats his “empathy” requirement, he’s lying about Kagan.