SCOTUS may soon be encumbered by a regime organizer with no judicial experience and an infinitesimally brief courtroom history — exceeding none save Obama’s:
It has been said that an opinion is like a certain part of one’s posterior anatomy — everybody has one. But when it comes to Obama’s latest nomination for Justice of the Supreme Court, formulating a fair opinion of Elena Kagan’s expertise légale is difficult because she has no judicial experience.
This pesky little snippet of reality therefore impedes any and all analyses of her recorded legal opinions because:
There are none.
And as far as actual courtroom experience — even as a practicing lawyer — Kagan had never argued a case in court prior to being appointed by Obama as United States Solicitor General in 2009. Now mind you, we do know about certain other public facets of Ms. Kagan’s existence. Ample resources exist which define her family history, education, employment, social networking, and ideological dogma.
We know, for example, that Kagan and Obama have a shared history that dates back to their Chicago days. But really, we don’t need too thorough of an analysis to understand what is obvious to all who look and is reinforced by applying a healthy dose of common sense. This nomination has nothing to do with serving blind justice through wisdom.
Observed from any angle, there is no doubt that Solicitor General Kagan’s resume of published legal papers is — to be kind — thin. Her vast assemblage of legal works amount to three law review articles, a few essays, and two book reviews.
Clearly, for someone with no judicial experience whatsoever and with extremely limited time in a courtroom in any capacity, there must be some hidden considerations for Obama to effusively praise her judicial expertise and herself as "one of the nation’s foremost legal minds."
But just where and what are these examples of expertise? Make no mistake; Obama doesn’t care that Kagan is little-qualified for SCOTUS. He doesn’t care that she hasn’t court experience. Obama cares only that Kagan shares his ideological mien, that she mirrors and is committed to his political vision as an acolyte of the Obama regime.
The Kagan Standard
In a National Review article written by Ed Whelan, he asserts that Kagan flunks her own "threshold" test of the minimal qualifications needed for a Supreme Court nominee. From Kagan’s own 1995 law review article on the Supreme Court confirmation process entitled Confirmation Messes, Old and New, she placed great emphasis on the necessity of previous judicial experience:
It is an embarrassment that the President and Senate do not always insist, as a threshold requirement, that a nominee’s previous accomplishments evidence an ability not merely to handle but to master the "craft" aspects of being a judge. In this respect President Clinton’s appointments stand as models. No one can say of his nominees, as no one ought to be able to say of any, that they lack the training, skills, and aptitude to do the work of a judge at the highest level. [p. 932 (emphasis added)]
That was then, this is now and the sociofascists currently hold absolute power. The Obama regime wants Kagan sitting on SCOTUS to correctly interpret the "fundamentally flawed" Constitution and ensure the court deals fairly on behalf of "the despised and the disadvantaged."
Assailing original intent
Commenting on the Kagan article about judicial confirmations, former Attorney General Ed Meese opined:
First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.
Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the "despised and disadvantaged." The problem with this view — which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law — is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as "despised and disadvantaged." The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.
It is worth noting that just five years ago, the same State-run Media now lauding Kagan as supremely qualified, visionary, and brilliant ridiculed George W. Bush’s SCOTUS nominee, Harriet Miers, for her lack of experience. As correctly illustrated by Paul Campos at The Daily Beast, Miers was derided by State-run Media as a careerist mediocrity whose primary qualification to be on the Supreme Court was a slavish devotion to President Bush.
If you want to learn about Elena Kagan’s education, employment history, or affiliations, follow the hyperlinks found in this article. But don’t bother trying to find examples of her judicial excellence because it is non-existent.
And never think for one nano-second that Kagan has been nominated for any other reason than the fact that she has been an obedient servant of the regime — ready and willing to do its bidding as a lifetime appointee.
Hype and Chains for 174 more days.