Monday, May 10, 2010

Elena Kagan: Woman, Jew, and Slavery Hater

This morning President Barack Obama announced his choice to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the United States Supreme Court.

Another woman.

Another Jew.

Good God, what must he be thinking?

The rightwing conservatives in congress are already sharpening their “No Votes” for the summer’s confirmation hearings. And no, while the last thing they can object to is the gender of the nominee, let alone her religion, that is exactly the first thing that come to their minds.

Another woman.

Another Jew.

So they are not going to jump on Kagan for her gender, which would be an insult to 51% of Americans, nor would they be so politically foolish to fault her for being a Christ Killer, at least not publicly.

So what is left to them?

Well one rightwing nut, the Washington Times’ own Flagg Youngblood (who, with a name like that simply must be gay) has labeled her as “out of the mainstream” for her objection to the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy toward gay soldiers.

Quoting Youngblood in The Atlantic Wire:

“Kagan's staunch ideological opposition to the military and providing qualified students the opportunity to serve puts her well outside of the mainstream. Even Bill Clinton, who dodged a military draft during Vietnam, signed the law Kagan opposes, the Solomon amendment, with overwhelming congressional and public support.”

That’s funny.

I thought the mainstream had shifted its course and is now somewhere along the lines of the views of Retired General Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen. All of whom are now calling for an end to “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.”

One wonders if Youngblood also thinks that opposition to the ownership of Black slaves is also out of the mainstream. That point of view, after all, is only 150 years young.

Bringing up the last and best, so far, objection to Kagan’s nomination. Her wild-eyed support of everything Thurgood Marshall. Who thought up this oeuvre? The Republican National Committee, to their great shame. In their memo they ominously ask this question:
“Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective?’”
Obviously Kagan has a bias. She clerked for Marshall, after all, when she was a brand new lawyer. She delivered a stunning tribute to Marshall on the occasion of his death, one that is now being cited as a smoking gun for her disdain for the United States Constitution, something that she is supposed to rule on from time to time in her new job.

In her tribute, she cited a passage from a speech Marshall made on the occasion of the bicentennial of the US Constitution. Here are the offending words:
“…I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago”
How, they ask, can Kagan possibly be considered fit for this job if she views the Constitution, as originally set down by the Founding Fathers, as defective, when common wisdom has it that this is a perfect document for a perfect union and a perfect nation.


Except it isn’t.

Otherwise why do we still have this included in our Constitution? Article I Section 2, Clause 3:
“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
That 3/5 of a person? Black slaves.

Slavery was written into the Constitution. It was given the Founding Father’s stamp of approval. Something that took almost 80 years, a bloody war with half a million killed, and two constitutional amendments to correct.

So what is it GOP? What is it RNC? Is Kagan and her mentor Thurgood Marshall correct that the Constitution, as originally written, was defective? Or are you guys seriously suggesting that slavery was a by gum grand idea?

Because frankly, from the way they have been acting over the past year, I am beginning to wonder if the GOP is looking longingly at America’s scandalous past vis-à-vis slavery, and are becoming apologists for the Southern Way of Life.

As a regional party, as they are fast becoming, that would not surprise me in the least.

1 comment:

Sherry said...

The fundamentalists apparently believe the constitution is akin to their Bible, both written by God and therefore completely true, factual, sacred and without fault.