Elena Who and Obama's Sleight-of-Hand

Elena who? If you’re wondering that then you’re with the rest of us. Elena Kagan’s biggest plus for President Obama may be her lack of experience and, as importantly, her lack of a paper trail. Is she the best possible nominee? No, she’s not, and honest liberals would have to agree.

The other positive she offers to liberals is that she just turned 50 years old. Fifty is very young for a member of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Figure on seeing Elena Kagan for at least three decades.

The down and dirty on Kagan is that she has never been a sitting judge. TV’s Harry Anderson character from “Night Court” has more experience on the bench than Elena Kagan. As far as can be determined, she’s never even been a judge in traffic court.

I’ll let other conservatives discuss her ties with Goldman-Sachs and the blatant hypocrisy of liberals. I’ll also let them point out that she had not argued a case before the SCOTUS until she became Obama’s Solicitor General just 17 months ago. Her hostility to the military is on record, not just in her words but in her deeds, so I won’t go there either. So where am I going? Hang in with me a little longer.

Anyone who would justify approving Kagan based on her comparison to the others on Obama’s short list is short-sighted. There may be a group of Republican US Senators who would justify their vote for Kagan based on a comparison to those Obama has waiting in the wings. This would be a mistake. Are you listening Lindsey Graham and John McCain? How about you Maine senators?

I will never forget the Hell that Clarence Thomas was forced to suffer for his nomination and eventual confirmation. I don’t think the GOP has the stomach for that kind of attack on Kagan and it would prove fruitless. The soulless Democrats have always been better at lying and making personal attacks than Republicans. I don’t think I want us to go there anyway.

Elena Kagan is technically qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. Technically. She has a reputation for brilliance and as Dean of the Harvard Law School even hired some conservative law professors. She is more acceptable, at least on paper, than the others on Obama’s short list of nominees. So, is she the best we can do under Obama? Maybe, and perhaps that’s the problem.

The GOP cannot prevent Kagan from becoming a US Supreme Court Justice. Republicans do not have the numbers in the US Senate. Her alleged lesbianism will not be an issue in this day and time, but her lack of experience and the fact that her political views are outside the mainstream must be addressed.

Kagan is important because she lowers the bar and because she makes “the unacceptable” more acceptable to the public. She will be to the left of Justice Stevens and if the GOP swallows her without complaint then the shifting of the court to the left will begin to take a sharp left turn. Count on it.

Obama and his fellow Democrats do not anticipate losing their majority in the US Senate. They will count on gutless Republicans to accept whomever Obama nominates and Democrats will not hesitate to point to Kagan as the prime example of what Republicans find acceptable. Know this: failure to oppose Kagan ensures an even more liberal nominee in the future.

Republicans must fight and vote against Kagan to maintain the viability of an argument against any future nominations by Obama or future Democrat presidents. There are many arguments against Kagan that are legitimate and should be used to expose the fact that Obama’s ideological bent takes precedence over what is best for this country. To do this, Senate Republicans must be both brave and honest and they just can’t seem to do both at the same time. It is time they learned.

The question for the GOP members of the US Senate is this: Which do you love more: your country or the vapid, temporal praise of a liberal press? Before you answer, do allow Bob Bennett’s fate influence you. May it influence you down to your marrow and know that Utah will not be an exception if you fail in your duty. A filibuster will not work; but this is a case in which the “loyal opposition” needs to be loyal to its country and be in opposition to a nominee that would cause it harm.