Monday, May 17, 2010

Elena Kagan Is A "Racist"

As you know, whenever the left doesn’t like someone, they call them a racist. Yawn, whatever. And when that person also refuses to advocate adopting an Apartheid-like system of racial spoils and preferences in America? Then, I guess, they're double-racists? Well, get this, using the left's definition, it turns out that Elena Kagan is a racist. . . a dirty, dirty double-racist.

Ever since Martin Luther King said that he wished that we would judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, the left has been busy trying to make sure that the law judges people by their race without regard to their characters. Indeed, nothing obsesses the left more than separating people by race. And nothing angers them more than character tests.

But in the mid-1990s, a group of “New Democrats” appeared who felt that there was no way this country would ever move beyond race so long as we continued to give out legal protections, benefits, school seats, jobs, Congressional seats, and even government funding on the basis of race. Yeah, they were crazy like that. In fact, these people, who would have been considered dirty racists if they had been on the right, somehow managed to infiltrate the highest levels of the Clinton administration -- much to the chagrin of the old-line Apartheidists. . . er, civil rights types.

What this group argued was that it was counterproductive and harmful to the country to keep separating people by race and ensconcing race-based legal preferences into the law. Instead, they advocated using broad-based, color-blind assistance to help poor people, regardless of color, and limiting affirmative action to narrowly-tailored circumstances to remedy actual past discrimination. That’s almost the conservative view, if you drop the affirmative action crap.

So what does this have to do with Kagan? She was smack dab in the middle of this group of modern New Democrat bigots. Oh the humanity! Yep. And this isn’t sitting well with the race hustlers. Indeed, they have begun an angry “muttering” campaign against her, pointing our several damning facts:

1. She never did the kind of “civil rights” work that other Democrats do.

2. Not one single black person became a tenured or tenured-track professor at Harvard Law School while Elena “Bull Connor” Kagan guarded the doors as Dean.

3. Recently released memos from the Clinton Presidential Library and Dirty Book Store show that she “clashed with and sometimes mocked” Clinton’s advisers who were involved with Clinton’s initiative on race. As if these people know what true mocking is. One little whiner, Chris Edley, complained that Kagan ignored his efforts to contact her by phone, email and even “hallway greeting.” It got so bad that the poor dear threatened to resign and go work at UC Berkeley as the dean of their law school. Oh no! Hey Chris, if you read this (if you can read), give me a call and I’ll show you real mocking.

4. In November 1997, she co-authored a memo that said: “We believe that the central focus of the race initiative should be a race-neutral opportunity agenda that reflects these common values and aspirations.”

Well, I’ve never heard such unbelievably vile thoughts. And she wasn’t even done there: “The best hope for improving race relations and reducing racial disparities over the long term is a set of policies that expand opportunities across race lines and, in doing so, force the recognition of shared interests.”

The monster! This woman is worse than Hitler! What have you done Barack Obama? Have you no shame?! This woman clearly wants to set back the clock to the age of slavery.
In all seriousness, this is great news. If she follows through on these views, and there is no reason to think she won’t -- unless you want to believe that she’s gone through the last twenty years hiding her views in the hopes of one day sitting on the Court -- then she will push the court irretrievably to the right on race. And even if she doesn’t, we still don’t lose anything because we’re replacing one of the Court’s most liberal members. So the worst we can do is break even. But the left, the left has a lot to lose here. They could find themselves going from 4-5 to 3-6, from which they will probably not recover in our lifetimes.

Maybe there is something I like about Barack Obama after all?

20 comments:

MegaTroll said...

I'm really starting to wonder about Obama. Why would he pick her when there are he could have picked people so much further left? Nice article.

AndrewPrice said...

Good point Mega. One thing is for sure, she's not what the left wants. The question is, is she really as moderate as she seems or does she have an "inner leftist" waiting to come out once she hits the court?

BevfromNYC said...

Nice! Knowing this, I wonder how long it is going to take the Obama Admin to come up with a reason she has to rescind her nomination? Maybe she'll develop a mysterious Soap Opera-esque illness or a great desire to "spend more time with her family".

patti said...

you had me at: "she “clashed with and sometimes mocked” Clinton’s advisers..."

there's still a large part of me that doesn't trust why she's the nominee. maybe she had a super secret private meeting with barry and she agreed to do his bidding regardless of her record.

see?! this is what barry has done for me. he's made me a conspiracy theorist...

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That would be funny. She suddenly discovers that she's suffering from Oopsidaisia and needs to withdraw.

Actually, while the civil rights groups are muttering openly, they are reluctantly endorsing her because they haven't wanted to go against Obama at this point.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, LOL! I understand! Obama doesn't exactly bring out the "trust" factor in anyone at this point.

I certainly agree that there is a danger that Obama knows things about her that we don't. But right now, in all honesty, her record is that of a moderate liberal -- which is a far cry from what Stevens was on the court. Will she turn out that way? I can't say, but the odds are that she will.

If I had to put money on it, I'd say she will end up being one of two types. Either she'll be the court "moderate" who votes with the majority more often than not. Or she'll end up being a justice who respects the constitutional framework, which would make her a nightmare for the left.

I think the odds of her being a doctrinaire leftist are very low.

But then, who knows?

StanH said...

I would love to help with the mocking of Chris…LOL!

This confirms what Dick Morris said the other evening on Hannity, that Kagan was a moderate voice in an otherwise loony left administration. However, if what you say is true, why would Barry choose her? Suspicious minds want to know?

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I've heard that from Morris now and several others. It seems to be true, especially when compared to her Harvard stint.

It's possible that somehow she just never had the opportunity to let fly, but I doubt it. It's very hard to go 20+ years without letting your true thoughts come out.

Why would Obama choose her? I still think this comes back to "she's easy to confirm." Plus, he seems to be looking to pick people he knows personally for important positions.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew: I think you're right. The last thing Obama & Co. need right now is another frenzied media circus.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I suspect that if ObamaCare had gone over better and if they weren't facing total disaster at the polls, then he would have been braver about nominees. But as it is, I don't think he can afford a contentious fight.

Unknown said...

Andrew: I think old friendship trumped pure politics with Obama and Kagan. And it looks like it may work to our minor advantage. Her adamant stand on gays in the military is being a little overplayed. She has shown few signs of being truly anti-military, and that single issue pushed her to make a dumb decision at Harvard.

And wouldn't it be nice to reverse the years of racial preference law? Eat that, Sotomayor. And unlike Red Sonia, Kagan is actually very smart. It's more than one vote on the Court, it's a justice who will actually be somewhat influential. Now, if we could just get someone to do their makeup - - - -

And speaking of Harvard--What's wrong with UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall? Sure, we produced the crazy nominee for the Ninth Circuit, Goodwin Liu, but we also produced John Yoo. We're batting 500. Can Harvard say the same?

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, UC Berkely is hardly a shining example of sanity these days! LOL! And poor Chris Edley seems so overmatched, seeing as how he's subject to hissy fits when people don't recall his calls.

Re: Kagan, I do expect her to vote with the liberal wing more often than not, but I don't expect her to be out there making crazy decisions like the court's liberal wing did until we started replacing them with people who weren't idiots. But as you know, we won't know anything until after she starts issuing decisions.

CrispyRice said...

Nice article, Andrew!

I've had a hard time getting worked up about her as the radical some on the right want to make her out to be.

I'll agree that it makes me suspicious about why he picked her. I'll go with the whole-hog conspiracy loons and the "as dean of Harvard she knows that Barry was a foreign student and this is payback for her silence" theory. Mwahahahaaaaaa!

Whatever. As long as she really is this moderate, I'm happy.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, That's funny! LOL!

I have a hard time getting worked up about her too. She comes across as bland and moderate to me. I wouldn't pick her -- I'd be scouring the country for another Clarence Thomas -- but I doubt we'll get much better out of Obama.

I would certainly have been worked up about some of the other choices on his list.

Tennessee Jed said...

Look at that picture. I ask you, is that a future member of SOTUS?

AndrewPrice said...

Actually Jed, by that test, she passes with flying colors.

Individualist said...

Well..... this seems encouraging. But how is she on issues such as "creative uses of eminent domain", "defining a limit to the power granted to congress by the "Good and Welfare" clause, the need to reinterpret the US Consitituion with the UN Charter since it's a treaty therefore everything it says is US law....

I like that she seems to think color blindness is the way to go but not if she wants to transform the system of welfare HUD projects slavery of the Great Society for miniorities to a Redistributive Wealth Serfdom for all in our times. I want a color blind society that allows Freedom and libs seem to have issues getting that...........

AndrewPrice said...

Individualist, Don't get me wrong. I don't like her and I would never have picked her. She does not believe the things I want to see the court promote. BUT, she's much better than the alternatives on the list, who are all openly far left. She, on the other hand, appears to be a center-left moderate. I don't think she's good for us, but she's not as bad as any of the other choices. At the same time, I think she will prove to be awful for the left, who are expecting someone much further left.

FB Hink said...

I had been praying for a reverse-Souter I'm not holding out much hope but some of the things I've heard have been somewhat encouraging. Thanks for the post.

AndrewPrice said...

You're welcome Hink. As we've said many times now, we can't know until she starts issuing rulings. BUT, all signs are surprisingly positive.

Post a Comment