Pop quiz: Elena Kagan will be the next Supreme Court Justice because:
A) Clinton & Obama like and trust her, and most liberals like and trust Clinton & Obama.
B) Republicans will not put up a fight during confirmation hearings because they know Kagan will move the court to the right.
C) She has no judicial experience
D) She stands for nothing
The White House announced today that that President Obama has nominated good friend and White House solicitor general Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. Her nomination process appears to be without a significant obstacle. Which brings us back to today’s pop quiz: Why will Kagan be the next Supreme Court Justice? Is it
A) because Clinton & Obama like and trust her, and most liberals like and trust Clinton & Obama?
That could be it. Progressives were asked to sell their souls- if you like religious metaphors- prior to the 2008 election. The mantra was “get Obama elected firsts, and then hold his feet to the fire in pursuit of a progressive agenda.” Remember? Even Progressive champions like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Wolfe converted many progressives through their preaching so that Obama could then preach to the converted. Now that Obama is in the White House, part two of the master plan (pursue a progressive agenda) has taken a back seat to "shut the fuck up you crazy hippie pie in the sky faggot basterd communists this is the real world and there is no room for you here."
The left has moved center, taking many self described liberals with it and left the progressive agenda dangling by its fingernails at the high end of an unevenly weighted seesaw.
B) Republicans will not put up a fight during confirmation hearings because they know Kagan will move the court to the right?
While we know very little about Kagan, we do know one key difference between regressives and progressives: Regressives, sometime referred to as conservatives in polite company, actually have a voice in the Republican Party. And, when given the opportunity to appoint a judge onto the Supreme Court, the regressives have no problem nominating right wing lunatic activists judges like Sam Alito & John Roberts with a long paper trial.
Progressives, conversely, have no voice inside the Democratic Party. And Democrats are so terrified of rocking the boat that hey end up standing for nothing.
So, while Republicans may try to float some lesbian rumors, it is only to get under Obama’s skin. But make no mistake, they are laughing inside, knowing full well that they have won the battle already: forcing a democratic president with a democratic majority in congress to pass over qualified justices with a clearly articulated progressive legal stance in favor of a ghost who stands for nothing.
Or is it
C) Kagan has no legal experience? Counterintuitive, yes, to appoint someone to the highest court in the land who has never been a judge. Hasn’t happened in recent memory. But that is why we voted for Obama. Change. Shake it up! Good grief Charlie Brown, should we allow fighter pilots trained only on video games? Health Care reform to be decided by for profit corporations? White house appointed Wall Street regulators who are Wall Street insiders?
But I digress.
Kagan’s lack of judicial experience means that she has navigated her career and managed to take a legal stance on exactly nothing (D).
Again, intuition would fail you if you deemed this a deficit because in the cowardly stance of the Democrats a primary criteria in selecting a nominee is the ease with which one could navigate the selection process and the conventional wisdom in politics has drifted a long way from any Mr. Smith goes to Washington idealism and has firmly cemented itself in the reality of please everyone by standing for nothing.
So, scholars to correct answer to today’s pop quiz is actually "E": All of the above. Elena Kagan will be the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States, move the court to the right because she stands for nothing, she has never been a judge, and Democrats like her and Republicans will get their way.
Fret not. Owing to her relative youth and the fact that SCOTUS nominations are lifetime appointments, if we F&CK this one up, it will only be 30 or 40 years before we have to replace her.