RSS Feed MenuThe debacle election years 2006 and 2008 have borne bitter fruit for Republicans. If, over that cycle, they had held just two more seats Obamacare likely would have failed. Now we see another consequence of the overwhelming loss of the Senate. Elena Kagan, one of the most unpopular nominees of modern times is going to be voted through the Senate. A nominee with nothing but contempt for the Constitution as ratified, but great love of the one bruited about at any given time in law school faculty lounges, is going to be ensconced on the bench.
The results of a recent Gallup poll are extraordinary. Only Harriet Miers and Robert Bork had fewer people behind their approval. Those who were definitely against her were virtually as high as for Bork. The reason this is extraordinary is that her confirmation hearings were run by the Democrats. The entire process was in their control. The Republicans were as polite as could be and there was no ideological galvanization to destroy her as there was for Bork. But what is known is enough for a large chunk of America to be against her and for her to have less than a majority behind her.
Her shameful ideologically driven policy of excluding the military from Harvard — and in opposition to the law the administration she worked for signed into law — is now well-known. Her rewriting medical statements on abortion and then palming them off as “unbiased medical opinion” is also recognized. She has never been a judge, and compared to any legal scholar of her generation, has written practically nothing. She is being put forward by President Obama primarily to approve of Obamacare, when any fair analysis would insist she recuse herself.
If Elena Kagan had been appointed when a Republican controlled the Judiciary committee gavel there is a very good chance that President Obama would be facing an embarrassing defeat, rather than a win. The collapse of Republican fortunes for two cycles continues to cause permanent damage to American conservatism.
Slide // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm
John Vecchione: “A nominee with nothing but contempt for the Constitution as ratified”
Really? What a reprehensible little ideological jerk you are John. And that is probably the best thing I can say about you. You made a complete fool of yourself over the McChrystal affair and now you seem to want to repeat your moronic performance with this bit of silliness. I’m really confounded that Frum allows you to post such drivel.
Pathetic.
Watusie // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Two points:
First, the constitution “as ratified” is no longer the law of the land – it is the constitution PLUS the case law that is supreme. And it has ever been thus, since Marbury.
Second, can’t help but notice that you fail to address WHY Republicans failed in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Answer: you governed badly. So, what are you going to do to make sure that doesn’t happen again?
busboy33 // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:27 pm
“one of the most unpopular nominees of modern times”
And by “modern times”, do you mean this year? Seems to me (and most of the rest of reality) she’s had less dust-up and objections than any of the last 10 nominees.
So what do you base such a blatantly questionable statement on?
I fully understand that you are a partisan hack, and approach every letter you type with the goal of trying to push your reader into believing what you do. The problem is, you haven’t yet mastered (or even begun to try) the art of not being rabidly blatant in your efforts. I can get fever-induced nonsense like this at Red State — why should I bother to come here for this level of “insight”?
forkboy1965 // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:39 pm
The usual and unsubstantiated rabble from the Right regarding Kagan. It wouldn’t matter who Obama put forward the only response the Right has is “No.”
steevlak // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I haven’t heard a convincing argument against Kagan, so I don’t know why the fight against her nomination was worth winning. I don’t think a nominee’s poll numbers should be considered.
msmilack // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Is it possible that you are projecting attitudes toward her that were held by a few not the many? I don’t agree she was universally unpopular. To the contrary, I felt the Republicans had difficulty coming up with legitimate criticisms of her. As part of their overall strategy to say no anything-Obama, however, the majority felt compelled to at least pretend to dislike her when in fact the reasons cited rang as bogus (to my ear, especially people like Kyl from Texas), some of which were announced before we knew anything about her — kind of pro forma objection. When one considers how much more radical Obama’s choice could have been (see anger on the left that she is too conservative), I think the GOP should be happy that Kagan was Obama’s choice. She is far more centrist in her thinking on most issues than 3 of the conservatives currently sitting on the court who tend to vote in a right tilted bloc.
TerryF98 // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Elections have consequences remember Johnny boy.
Have a nice day thinking up more complete bullshit to post here. You busted what credibility you had with the McChrystal idiocy you posted here.
jakester // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I don’t like this Kagan either, but barring finding a skeleton in her closet, there was no way the GOP was going to block her. She is the quintessential liberal jerkwad, but that is not enough to nix her.
Bosco // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Who titled this article? If reality is an onion, the author commented on its skin, which when peeled away can lead one to cry.
And the concluding sentence struck me powerfully as un-American: a collapse of Republican fortunes doing damage to American conservatism, as if those fortunes and conservatism lead the country in ways preferable to other fortunes and approaches.
Goodness, sir, the country is bigger than your head, your wallet and your limited wisdom.
Amorak // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“If the GOP had held just two more Senate seats in the election debacles of ‘06 and ‘08…”
Well, gee, if we had some ham we’d have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs. I’m afraid I can’t be bothered reading anything with that kind of intro. If you won’em all, you could do anything you want, like fix the constitution you’re sworn to protect, or run illegal immigrants and intellectuals out of the country, stuff like that. How about working things out for a change?
CAPryde // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:31 pm
So is the argument of this post that we should make all major decisions in government based on current poll results? Because that is going to have some interesting outcomes with respect to conservative positions on gay rights, the troop presence in Afghanistan, and the regulation of big banks, to name three current issues off the top of my head.
andydp // Jul 19, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Ok, let me see how this argument works…
IF we had the seats in the Senate, IF the GOP won in 2006 and 2008, IF we had only done a better job as caretakers of the Republic, IF we had been finacially responsible, IF we hadn’t gotten into a two front war, IF IF IF…
THEN Obama would not be President and THEN he coudn’t nominate Elena Kagan. THEN we could have a new Justice like Clarence Thomas and give school districts the right to strip search 13 year old girls.
Am I being simplistc ? Yes. There’s better arguments above, this one will do here.
Chris // Jul 19, 2010 at 2:51 pm
When the Republicans were reduced to asking her if she thought the rights in the Constitution were grounded in a deity, the game was up. Thin gruel indeed.
westony // Jul 19, 2010 at 3:06 pm
As I recall David. Republicans “Don’t like your brand of Conservatism”.
Xunzi Washington // Jul 19, 2010 at 3:57 pm
John,
Being a lawyer and all, what reasons would you have to exclude Kagan from the court?
Bebe99 // Jul 19, 2010 at 4:07 pm
So much for reality based discussions. This article includes all the right buzzwords (gleaned from right-wing media only) to make any rightwinger stomp and shout. So according to biased reports, Kagan is a military-snubbing, constititution-hating, abortion-rights advocate. What?! Couldn’t you find any instance of her bashing Christians then you could have really made a case against her.
dante // Jul 19, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I love the stretch of the argument in order to try to claim some political points. The polling says this:
For: 44%
Against: 34%
No Opinion: 22%
Any rational person would draw one of two conclusions (or maybe both), that a) she has a +10 rating among those that have an opinion, or b) that with 22% having no opinion, people don’t really care.
Only among the right-wing is there some grabbing at the “only 44% support her” statistic that proves absolutely nothing. Stop trying to spin the facts to fit your argument…
LFC // Jul 19, 2010 at 4:27 pm
The Republicans were as polite as could be and there was no ideological galvanization to destroy her as there was for Bork.
That’s because Kagan did not have an ideological record like Bork did. Bork expressed a number of highly controversial opinions and was viewed by many Dems as an activist judge.
The right painting Kagan as some wild-eyed liberal is unbelievably (OK, totally believably) dishonest. She simply doesn’t have a record to justify the author’s silly ranting. In fact, she has little record at all. Now THAT’s a problem worthy of ranting about.
Demosthenes // Jul 19, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Very silly article. I really don’t know where to start, other than noting the author is either not a lawyer or is barely literate (or both). “Contempt” for the Constitution? Compared to the radical judicial activists with a 5 to 4 majority on the Supreme Court today, she seems like an originalist. They just got finished trashing 100 years of established jurisprudence on campaign finance and over 60 years of precedent on the 2nd Amendment without blinking an eye.
Xunzi Washington // Jul 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm
“I really don’t know where to start, other than noting the author is either not a lawyer or is barely literate (or both).”
The author’s bio claims that he is a lawyer. So that means he’s barely literate.
Madeline // Jul 19, 2010 at 8:59 pm
If the GOP had held just two more Senate seats in the election debacles of ‘06 and ‘08, Obamacare would have failed and Kagan would have been rejected.
And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. What does this sentence (from the front page teaser) have to do with the rest of the article?
Oldskool // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:07 pm
A nominee with nothing but contempt for the Constitution as ratified
I stopped reading at that point. You weren’t going to make an argument, you were going to lob grenades and that’s our job, down here in the comments section. Although ours aren’t quite so dogma driven.