Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Elena Kagan and 'Stupid Liberals'

Elena Kagan’s 1983 master’s thesis at Oxford carries an obligatory yawn-inducing title: “The Development and Erosion of the American Exclusionary Rule: A Study in Judicial Method.” She should have called it, “Stupid Liberals.”

Over the course of 130-plus pages, President Obama's new Supreme Court nominee lambastes the liberal Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, but not for its unabashedly activist rulings. Instead, she slams the court for failing to craft unabashedly activist rulings that would better withstand the test of time.

In the process, the young Kagan gives us a glimpse into her thinking about the proper role of courts. “Judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends,” Kagan wrote. “Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid.” (Does she still believe this? Expect Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, to put this question to Kagan during the June 28 confirmation hearing.)

But, Kagan adds, it is foolish not to ground such decisions in legal principle lest they become vulnerable to later attacks.

As an example, Kagan analyzes the Warren Court’s opinions on the exclusionary rule, which prohibits law enforcement officers from using evidence obtained illegally. She notes that many of the court’s opinions were shabbily crafted, lacking clear and strong legal foundations. These failings made the decisions easy pickings for future, more conservative incarnations of the court.

“Future courts attempting to effect long-term change would do well not to repeat such a serious error,” Kagan wrote.

It’s an indication of Kagan’s formidable intellect that she wrote this paper in her early 20s -- before she earned her law degree. And she deserves credit for taking on the liberals’ sainted Warren Court and for emphasizing the importance of legal principle and reason -- not just social justice -- to guide the decision-making process. But make no mistake: these are not the writings of a Scalia-like strict constructionist in the making. Kagan may not find the Warren Court’s legal methods appealing, but there is every indication she agrees with the outcomes.

By Eva Rodriguez  | May 19, 2010; 5:23 PM ET
Categories:  Rodriguez  | Tags:  Eva Rodriguez  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A pro-incumbent year in Oregon
Next: Legalizing drugs -- what Obama and Calderon won't discuss

Comments

If you've transcribed the passage from her thesis accurately, we can conclude that back in 1983 Kagan didn't know the difference between "affect" and "effect," or didn't proofread carefully.

Maybe this will come up in the Senate confirmation hearing.

Posted by: farstriker | May 19, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This works for me. I'm sick as hell of the radical right.

Posted by: Nymous | May 19, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Neither did the columnist, apparently, farstriker, judging by the reference to "Warrant Court".

As a conservative, I think Kagan is as good as we're going to get given the present 59 vote majority of the Dems.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | May 19, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Scalia, strict constructionist? Sure, he and his buddies say that, but he is quite the conservative "activist" judge. Have you read his record?

Posted by: blackmask | May 19, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

What makes the author believe that SCalia does not " . . .try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends?”

I know Scalia is a "sainted Catholic," but does he really want all of his life's work to go down the tubes when he dies?

Come on Miss author, get real.Both sides "shape their "opinions" for their own ethical, political, and philsophical ideals>

Robert, Thomas,and all the right wing bench sitters, are not apolitical!

Posted by: Robe2 | May 19, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Face it, Kagan is a right-of-center conservative appointment to the Supreme Court.

But we in the West are tired of having nobody West of the Mississippi on the Court.

We are tired of having nobody who is an Atheist, a Wiccan, a Mormon, or a Pastafarian on the court. All "faiths" that have more adherents than there are Jewish Americans. Combined they have more adherents than there are Catholic Americans.

We also find it hard to believe, when US News and World Report lists half the Top Ten Law Schools in America as being in the West, that you only have people from Harvard and Yale.

Posted by: WillSeattle | May 19, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

“Future courts attempting to effect long-term change would do well not to repeat such a serious error,” Kagan wrote.

If Kagan was referring to future courts attempting to bring about long-term change, then effect is correct. If she had meant future courts attempting to modify long-term change, then it would be affect. I think she meant the former, so she is correct in her usage. No need to waste Senate time over this point.

Posted by: DavidH3 | May 19, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

The author seems to suggest that her criticism of the Warren Court is simply that they didn't write well enough to pull off the activism that she favors. That's ridiculous. Here are the actual quotes, from another Post post. The first one would seem to suggest that Rodgriguez has juxtaposed two parts of a quote and omitted a section to completely alter the sense of the comment.

First, she actually said:

"U.S. Supreme Court Justices live in the knowledge that they have the authority either to command or to block great social, political and economic change. At times, the temptation to wield this power becomes irresistible. The justices, at such times, will attempt to steer the law in order to achieve certain ends and advance certain values. In following this path, the justices are likely to forget both that they are judges and that their Court is a court."

That sure doesn't sound like "such activity isn't necessarily wrong" does it? What she actually said sounds a lot like "it's wrong to forget you are a court, not a legislature." At a minimum, omitting the sentence that actually follows the description of the activity in question is misleading.

Later:

"No court should make or justify its decisions solely by reference to the demands of social justice," contending that rulings "should appeal no less to our intellectual than to our ethical sense."

Roughly translated, it means unless the result you otherwise wish you could reach is in fact intellectually honest and legally sound, forget about it.

The fact that she said the above BEFORE even going to law school is simply astounding. The observation that opinions that aren't legally sound don't present the precedential roadblock to subsequent courts would be impressive for a law review type, let alone someone who hasn't set foot in a law school.

Rodriguez' spin on the above borders on disingenuous.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 19, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I would not be opposed to appointing a single woman as an Associate Justice if she was well-dressed, tall, slim, blue-eyed, blonde and cute. Of course, it goes without saying that her surname would have to be Anglo-Saxon because only 'real Americans' should sit on the Bench.

It is not important for all women to be bright because blue-eyed blondes are usually agree with what the majority wants. All she would have to say is: 'I concur'.

Posted by: robertjames1 | May 19, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

What's astonishing is that Rodriguez wrote this article before she went to law school.

Astonishing, but obvious.

Posted by: thrh | May 19, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"She notes that many of the court’s opinions were shabbily crafted, lacking clear and strong legal foundations."

Hey - you want to read some crap law, read Bush v. Gore. But it's true, they didn't have much time to think; and the electoral college is a monstrosity in the first place. But still - when they've got an ax to grind, yeah, they do some horrendous work, those so-called Justices. "Blind" ain't quite the word.

Posted by: pressF1 | May 19, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Farstriker:
If you've transcribed the passage from her thesis accurately, we can conclude that back in 1983 Kagan didn't know the difference between "affect" and "effect," or didn't proofread carefully.

Maybe this will come up in the Senate confirmation hearing.

It won't, at least in the context of which you speak, as it is not an error. Effect also can be used as a verb. From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: effect (2)
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1533

1 : to cause to come into being
2 a : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles : accomplish b : to put into operation

In this usage, affect and effect are often confused. Affect, when used as a verb, denotes pretense ("she affected a cheery demeanor"), or an action which has an effect or influence ("the weather affected everyone's mood"). This points to the clear difference - effect, when used as a verb, goes beyond influence and refers to a final result (“Future courts attempting to effect long-term change would do well not to repeat such a serious error...”). Here, affect would be incorrect, because effect is being used in place of "cause".

This has been your English lesson of the day. Test on Friday. LOL

Posted by: saxman1 | May 19, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Robe2 and blackmask above are absolutely correct -- if you think justices like Scalia or Thomas are strict constructionists who leave their personal biases at the door, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Clarence Thomas is a black man who angrily resents any insinuation that he was given an unfair helping hand because of his race and lets that seething resentment color virtually everything he does. Scalia is a traditional family-values Catholic who cannot conceive of anything being "normal" if it isn't what he personally believes. They just happen to use those biases to reach results that satisfy their fellow social conservatives so they're considered objective justices.

Posted by: simpleton1 | May 19, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

God I hope they find some dirt on this stupid cow - keep digging Republicans. It's not that I think she's too liberal. On the contrary, she's a puppet of Wall Street who's unfit to be a traffic magistrate.

Posted by: fleeciewool | May 19, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

“Future courts attempting to effect long-term change would do well not to repeat such a serious error,” Kagan wrote.

***********************

A better word would have been "effectuate". The meaning would then have been clear.

Posted by: flamingliberal | May 19, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Kagan spelled and used the word "effect" correctly. You need to bone up on your understanding of the English language and correct usage.

Posted by: MrsCalabash11 | May 19, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

The only reason Kagan will be a Supreme Court judge is because she was counsel for Goldman Sachs. She is part of the cabal that worked for Bill Clinton. They got rid of Glass-Steagall, for God's sake. Wake up, sheeple.

Posted by: shred11 | May 19, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

You know, I just got through the first couple of pages of her thesis this evening, and will read the rest of it later. Even those opening pages, however, make it crystal clear that she would make decisions based on the Constitution, statute, and long established precedent.

Frankly, if only the Roberts wing of the current court were so enamored of those three things, we would be better off...

Posted by: WarriorGrrl | May 19, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

The points she makes in her thesis have now become commonplace. Rodriguez is a bit late to the game.

Anyone would be better than the gang of Catholics we now have, who represent big business, who sold our country out to foreign nations, precisely as the President says.

Adding Kagan will not rid us of these creatures, and they are our problem.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | May 19, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

The issue is not what Elena Kagan wrote at Oxford or for that matter at Princeton. The issue is what she did or did not do for Goldamn Sachs. It may also be what she did or did not know about Goldman's activities. I am not in the mood to list all of Goldmans's alleged transgressions, but suffice it to say that they are being investigated for all sorts of things in Europe and the United States. Simply put, no one wants to talk about her association with Goldman which shows us who really rules this country.

Posted by: jeffreed | May 19, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Works for me, closest thing we have in this country to the Islam Extremist is the radical Christian right...all terrorist in my book...

Posted by: Impeachbush99 | May 19, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Scalia is no originalist, merely following the "original intent" of the Constitution - and repeating such claims incessantly does not make it true.

Beyond that, we need to take a more critical look at originalists' claims and stop giving them a free pass on claiming the high road.

Posted by: lxp19 | May 20, 2010 4:37 AM | Report abuse

The current gang of 5 conservative activist block see nothing wrong with using the court to mold social policy. The big difference is that the liberal way of thinking is that the Constitution and the Courts are intended to protect the liberty of the people and to promote justice. Conservaitves use the court to do the opposite, and to assert the priviledges of an oligarchic elite to rle the lives of citizens without interference by that pesky elected government. Both liberals and conservatives are activists, it is just a matter of who they advocate for.

And you rightards who are so amazingly unaware of our Consitution or its history - save that "original intent" nonsense. Even the Framers did not follow that concept when they were in government. They correctly recognized that the "intent" of vague provisions in the Constitution were just that - vague - -and that of the 55 men who were there you would at best get only a half dozen or so interpretations of the "intent" but more likely you would get 55 differing versions.

AND it is importatn to note that the Framers solidly embraced the idea of a "living Constitution" while they were in government. It was written to be flexible, and open to interpretation, you dolts.

Posted by: John1263 | May 20, 2010 5:33 AM | Report abuse

Farstriker is wrong. "Effect" does have a verb meaning and Kagan was using it correctly in her thesis (again, assuming faithful transcription). The following sentences are correct:

The Warren Court deployed heterogenous forms of evidence to effect social justice.

His demeanor was affectless.

The following sentences are NOT correct:

We must consider the affects of this measure.

SB 1070 in Arizona effects the rights of minority groups.

Posted by: jonathan_n_winkler | May 20, 2010 5:49 AM | Report abuse

YAWN
Well when I was 20 I really liked Tone Loc's Funky Cold Medina and drank a lot of beer - but I know that's weird right? What does that say about me now? Oh, but I am a human and not a robot. Fast forward 25 years and no wall of papers declaring I am brilliant so I guess my opinion doesn't matter - oh wait, I get to vote!! So, put this lady in charge of whatever she thinks she might have either read about or written about and the rest of us will make decisions with an actual past of some interest to call upon.

Posted by: dcjayhawk2 | May 20, 2010 6:02 AM | Report abuse

@farstriker: "Effect" more often is a noun, but sometimes is a verb meaning "to make or bring about; to implement" (Wikipedia), as in "to make or bring about long-term change."

@dcjayhawk2: Listening to Tone Loc's Funky Cold Medina and drinking lots of beer is "an actual past of some interest"? YAWN.

Posted by: cmckeonjr | May 20, 2010 6:33 AM | Report abuse

farstriker - actually she used the correct word and you are wrong. Other than that, I don't like her

Posted by: DorothyfromColumbus | May 20, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

"...closest thing we have in this country to the Islam Extremist is the radical Christian right...all terrorist in my book..."

You're kidding, right? Get real. Exactly how many acts of terror have "radical Christian right-wingers" committed? Don't tell me Timothy McVeigh, because he never claimed to have committed the Oklahoma City bombing because of Christianity. He did it two years to the day after the Waco disaster, and clearly stated that that was the reason. Other than that, what is there? An occasional attack on an abortionist or abortion clinic? I might grant you that, but, unlike acts of Islamic terrorism, those have all be condemned in the strongest terms by Christians. Contrast that with the World Trade Center 1993, 9/11, Fort Hood, the would-be shoe bomber, the would-be panty bomber, the would-be Times Square bomber, and attacks too numerous to list world-wide since at least the 1980s and continuing to this day in Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, former Soviet republics, India, etc. etc. etc.

No, you are wrong, "impeachbush99" -- the closest thing we have in this country to Islam Extremists are Islam Extremists.

Posted by: RedderThanEver | May 20, 2010 6:49 AM | Report abuse

Looks like farstriker needs to go back to school. lol

Posted by: fotw | May 20, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

There is no such thing as a Scalia-like strict constructionist. There are only judges who make decisions you agree with or not. And Scalia is one of the most activist judges on this court along with Roberts and Alito.

Posted by: wbowers | May 20, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

If you've transcribed the passage from her thesis accurately, we can conclude that back in 1983 Kagan didn't know the difference between "affect" and "effect," or didn't proofread carefully.

Maybe this will come up in the Senate confirmation hearing.
*******************************************
"Effect" is probably the correct word as an equivalent to "bring about long term change".

To "affect" long term change would be to merely influence it.


Posted by: st50taw | May 20, 2010 7:29 AM | Report abuse

BTW for those of you who believe that there is some conspiracy because she had a part-time consulting gig at Goldman you are either a)intentionally fanning a non-story based on innuendo and quarter truths, b) simply intentionally lying or c) stupid

If you are not sure which one you are, chances are it is "c"

Posted by: rcc_2000 | May 20, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Farstriker:

To "effect" is "to bring about" and though effect is more usually a noun it is quite properly used as a verb. The difference in the quote here is that the word was used in the sense of "bringing about" change, not merely modifying something. "Effect" is a stronger usage.

A quick Google search is all it takes to understand the difference.

Posted by: Pogoagain | May 20, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

It is ironic that Clarence Thomas is the single best arguement against affirmative action, because, were it not for affirmative action, this staggering mediocrity of a man and judge would never have been apppointed to the Supreme Court where he has managed to trump all comers to attain the title of worst Justice of the last century (probably ever).

As for Scalia, he is not "a sainted Catholic" as someone mentioned. The Catholic Church is VEHEMENTLY against the death penalty. Scalia not only supports the death penalty, he doesn't even think it should have a minimum age nor should it be limited to only crimes that resulted in death. Mr. Scalia is as Catholic like Nazis were good Protestants.

With Justices like this, how in the world can anyone think that Kagan would not be an improvement?

Posted by: nyrunner101 | May 20, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

In reply to farstriker, who wrote:
"If you've transcribed the passage from her thesis accurately, we can conclude that back in 1983 Kagan didn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect,' or didn't proofread carefully.

Maybe this will come up in the Senate confirmation hearing."

The word effect can be used as either noun or verb. Look it up. Maybe this will come up in your writings in the future.

Take care with corrections; they can come back to bite you.

Posted by: wwIIbaby | May 20, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

The Constitution was never intended to be a static document. The Bill of rights was intentionally left vague so that future generations could interpret them within the context of their age. This is only 1 of the great brilliances of the document.
Since the Enlightenment, who's revolutionary vision has never been even partially fulfilled, there has been a general tendency towards progressive liberalism. Standing in the way are religion and a false belief in the chances for a libertarian government.
It's time for us to hold these frank discussions, and to move towards the inevitable future predicted by the events of the 1700's.

Posted by: forrester1 | May 20, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it curious that the people who say the Constitution is static, that interpreting law is activism and akin to an attack on the Constitution, who use the words "original intent", are also the people who like to bring up the founders' quotes about changing government if the people think they need to, watering the tree of liberty with patriots' blood, and other imagery of violent overthrow?

So they ignore the fact that the founders included the framework for amendments to the Constitution and the founders' acknowledgment that future generations would need to make changes, but they embrace the founders' worst case scenarios, that of revolution and wholesale change of what our venerable Constitution set into place.

Posted by: hitpoints | May 20, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

If Kagan is elected she will try to legislate law from the bench. She is so left wing she is fascist or communist. She though Warren was to weak and right wing. Amazing.

She will be another nail in the coffin of America. And being Gay is NOT a good reason to vote for her.

Posted by: txengr | May 20, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse


And why would I even consider the "opinion" of a blatantly biased right-wing propaganda writer on any issue of importance?

..

Posted by: DEFJAX | May 20, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

to "farstriker" -- it's your dictionary calling, pick up the phone!

effect
verb, transitive
effected, effecting, effects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Posted by: JBRish | May 20, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedderThanEver

You're kidding, right? Get real. Exactly how many acts of terror have "radical Christian right-wingers" committed? ... An occasional attack on an abortionist or abortion clinic?
------------------------
RedderThanEver - you really are insane. By your thinking, that less killing is OK, the Islamic extremists are OK because they kill less people than Hitler.

This is typical of the people who call themselves Christian - terrorist acts committed to further MY agenda are OK.

Christians are supposed to be followers of Christ. Why don't you read your New Testament and try to find where Christ says it's OK to kill anyone. I keep thinking about the passage that says to turn the other cheek.

Read Matthew 5, because you obviously don't know it: "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

This is what the one you say you follow says. To bad you "so called" Christians can never put your money where your mouth is.

Posted by: xconservative | May 20, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"She is so left wing she is fascist or communist."
Posted by: txengr

-----

No surprise from a poster with TX in the name. Another General Jack D. Ripper. Water fluoridation is a Commie plot!

Posted by: hitpoints | May 20, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Even the BBC notes the extreme bias of the Supreme Court as "Northeastern Elitism".

Our version of justice is presented to the world by the "balance" of the Supreme Court.

Posted by: donx65 | May 20, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Yes, liberals are sometimes stupid, but they mean to be better people; they just are often misguided.

Republicans, however, seem to be the party of the boyscout'ish, "tough on crime" (really tough on freedom) party of folks who have zero understanding of humanity.

America does not need the Democrats or the Republicans. American badly needs Libertarians, compassionate ones, not the social darwinist sect of that group.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | May 20, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Eva, Eva, Eva: "Stupid Liberals?" You forgot to use the rest of the RNC's required buzzwords in your article. What's the matter with you? Maybe your next diatribe should be titled "Eva Rodriquez: 'Just Plain Stupid.'"

Posted by: TX12345 | May 20, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Some commenters here argue that Scalia and the other conservative justices on the Supreme Court are just as prone to shaping their interpretations of the Constitution to correspond to their own social and moral views as are the liberal wing of the court. That isn't true. In general, they don't have to. The Constitution is an 18th Century document and the views embedded in it are conservative by today's standards, though not by those of the time.

We can be sure that the drafters expected the world to change in due course, though exactly how would have been impossible to say. That is why they provided explicitly for amendments. Liberal judges and justices are often not satisfied to interpret the Constitution as it was conceived and written. While this may be efficient it also amounts to changing rules that should be left to the national and state legislatures and the people of the nation. It is wrong. Kagan and other liberal intellectuals know it and thus cannot be completely honest on the subject.

Posted by: Roytex | May 20, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Some commenters here argue that Scalia and the other conservative justices on the Supreme Court are just as prone to shaping their interpretations of the Constitution to correspond to their own social and moral views as are the liberal wing of the court. That isn't true. In general, they don't have to. The Constitution is an 18th Century document and the views embedded in it are conservative by today's standards, though not by those of the time.

We can be sure that the drafters expected the world to change in due course, though exactly how would have been impossible to say. That is why they provided explicitly for amendments. Liberal judges and justices are often not satisfied to interpret the Constitution as it was conceived and written. While this may be efficient it also amounts to changing rules that should be left to the national and state legislatures and the people of the nation. It is wrong. Kagan and other liberal intellectuals know it and thus cannot be completely honest on the subject.

Posted by: Roytex | May 20, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Sure, "effect" can be (poorly) used as a verb and often is. Whenever you want to sound like a pompous @$$, use "effect" as a verb instead of "make" or "cause."

Posted by: MBP1 | May 20, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives can question liberal honesty and integrity when they can justify Bush v. Gore.

Posted by: vinlander | May 20, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives can question liberal honesty and integrity when they can justify Bush v. Gore.

Posted by: vinlander | May 20, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Uh, farstriker, if you're going to be snarky, at least know what you're talking about. Effect means to bring about. Affect means to cause change to. Let me guess: teapartier?

Posted by: chert | May 20, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

In response to RedderThanEver (better get your blood pressure checked), didn't American christian right-wingers shoot up the Holocaust Museum and drive a plane into an IRS building? Just last year?

Posted by: dnahatch1 | May 20, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

If Kagan is elected she will try to legislate law from the bench. She is so left wing she is fascist or communist. She though Warren was to weak and right wing. Amazing.

She will be another nail in the coffin of America. And being Gay is NOT a good reason to vote for her.

Posted by: txengr | May 20, 2010 9:00 AM |

------------------

@txengr:

Please check your definitions--Last time I checked:

--Supreme Court Justices are appointed by The President and confirmed by the Senate--not "elected"; any basic civics text teaches this.
--Communism and fascism are--ideologically speaking--polar opposites. Make up your mind.
--"To" is a preposition, "Two" is an adjective or noun, mostly used as the latter (a cardinal number), and "Too" is an adverb. They are not interchangeable. One of my pet peeves is when supposedly smart people seem unable to tell when each of these should be used.
--Not that it really matters one way or the other, but "being Gay" isn't a good reason NOT to vote for someone, either. It isn't anyone's business, but does the absence of a visible opposite-gender partner conclusively prove that a person is gay? I couln't get a date to my high school prom because I was an unpopular person in a backward community--did my inablility to secure a prom date or be seen with a girlfriend mean I was gay? Wise up!

If you ask me, the real problems with our society are not "Liberals Demolishing Our Moral Values" or "Illegal Aliens Taking away American Jobs" or "Underrepresentation Of 'Real Americans'" or "Big Government Taking Over Our Lives", or any other such Teabagger claptrap. Anger =/= Policy

IMHO, the REAL problems in our society are:

--Greed.
--Selfishness.
--People not taking pride in their work.
--Companies not standing behind their products.
--Service providers insisting that doing their jobs correctly costs extra.
--Politicians of any stripe who are more interested in enriching themselves and perpetuating their power than in genuinely serving the PEOPLE (NOT CORPORATIONS) who elected them.
--Replacement of the American Work Ethic with the ethos of Reality Shows and Acheiving Financial Independence Through Litigation.
--People who use their Scripture as a license to hate and kill others--CHECK YOUR BIBLE: If you're going to take it literally, notice that "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" appears pretty early in the text. And it's quite unabmiguous:

Don't Kill.
Anyone.
For ANY reason.
Ever.
No Exceptions.

Posted by: Rhino40 | May 20, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Ouch...

You folks have driven farstriker back into his/her cave.

Never doubt the power of the crowd to deliver a richly-deserved thrashing to a pedant.

Posted by: Ken_Davis1 | May 20, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

What I do not like about Kagan is her dishonesty. She has been out of the closet for years. She abhored "Don't ask. Don't tell." Now she is Obama's gift to the gay world and she has gone back into the closet!! How can Senators put a dishonest person on the bench? If her honor is not sacred, she should not be the judge of anyone. She is merely a representative of the Liar in Chief!

Posted by: annnort | May 20, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@annnort1:

Awwwww...you're just upset beacuse the current POTUS--unlike his predecessor--uses ACTUAL WORDS!


LULZ

Posted by: Rhino40 | May 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"How can Senators put a dishonest person on the bench?"

Well, annnort1, a few recent examples do come to mind:

Rehnquist
Scalia
Roberts
Thomas

Well? I'm waiting...

Posted by: Rhino40 | May 20, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I cannot imagine what sort of mentality -or lack of same- is possessed of anyone who would call Elena Kagan a "conservative"-
that's like calling Attila the Hun an "activist"! She is a flaming liberal who would spend the next 40 years or so, spreading Obama's brainless poison over America like a deadly radioactve blanket! This is why he nominated her -so she could carry on his dismantling of America -the God-ly nation they both despise!

Posted by: churchlionjudah | May 20, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

xcon - You say I "really am insane" for merely pointing out that there have been many many more actual and attempted acts of terror perpetrated by Muslims than by Christians in this country (and, in elaborating, that Muslims are also responsible for the vast majority of acts of terror committed world-wide)? I say it is you who has mental deficiencies of some sort if, by my comment, you leap to the conclusion that I believe "...that less killing is OK, the Islamic extremists are OK because they kill less people than Hitler." If that isn't sophomoric reasoning, I don't know what is.

You say further that "This is typical of the people who call themselves Christian - terrorist acts committed to further MY agenda are OK." Again, what sort of deficiency in logic do you suffer from that you assume I am a Christian? I am not. I am simply a realist who is able by virtue of my cognitive abilities to recognize that Muslims, over the past 30+ years, have been responsible for the vast majority of acts of terror committed in this country and world-wide.

And further, these pearls of wisdom:

"Christians are supposed to be followers of Christ. Why don't you read your New Testament and try to find where Christ says it's OK to kill anyone. I keep thinking about the passage that says to turn the other cheek." And "This is what the one you say you follow says. To bad you "so called" Christians can never put your money where your mouth is.'"

Again, I am not a Christian. Why do you leap to that conclusion? By similar process, should I assume you're a Muslim, or at least an anti-Christian bigot? Although an agnostic, I certainly ascribe to a lot of Christian beliefs, particularly the one that says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I do not ascribe to the Muslim tenet that non-believers (infidels) must convert to Islam, become Dhimmis (second-class citizens subordinate to Muslims), or die. Do you?

And to the other poster who commented on attacks at the Holocaust Museum or the plane "driven" into the IRS building -- I can't speak to the Holocaust Museum event, but the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building was a Democrat and Bush-hater. He also didn't shout "God is Great!" in Southern Baptist lingo, train at a terrorist training camp in Vatican City, or accept money from wild-eyed Christian terrorists in meetings held at the local Presbyterian church to carry out his attack (which killed only himself).

You guys need to get real. You need to face reality. Things are what they are, and wishing otherwise doesn't make it so.

Posted by: RedderThanEver | May 20, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company