the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
In Barack Obama’s address to the nation regarding his nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court, he said, “Neither [Elena’s mother], nor Elena’s father, lived to see this day. But I think her mother would relish this moment. I think she would relish — as I do — the prospect of three women taking their seat on the nation’s highest Court for the first time in history. A Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.” How exactly is Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court going to make the Court “more representative”? Let’s not even go down the road leftists like Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic and Ezra Klein at the Washington Post are going, which is to question the lady’s sexual preference. Let’s stick to the rest of it. With the rest of it, we find that not only is Elena Kagan not representative of America, but Barack Obama is full of it. Please click here for the rest of the post.
Today Barack Obama made official what has been rumored for several days, and nominated current Solicitor General and former Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan to fill the vacancy created on the Supreme Court by the retirement of Justice Stevens. In response to this news, and the sudden flurry news stories concerning her, it has come to the attention of many Americans today that Obama’s nominee is – how shall we say this delicately? – not very attractive. Furthermore, prior to the announcement, back when most observers still believed Diane Wood would be the pick, a furor erupted at the suggestion (apparently widely held among people allegedly in the know) that Kagan was also gay. So, as attention to the nomination has moved today from the hardcore SCOTUS junkies to the general news-consuming public, a whole class of people have had two first impressions formed of Elena Kagan: 1) that she is ugly, and 2) that she is rumored to be gay. Additionally, a number of clips from Kagan’s relatively scant paper trail have already made their way into my inbox from a number of conservative organizations. Purportedly, Kagan called the Constitution “defective,” and suggested that the Federal Government had the authority to censor books in libraries. I have no idea whether either of these claims are true, or whether they are fair in the context in which they are made. I don’t have the time to examine them right now, and frankly, I don’t care. What’s of more interest to me is the predictable sniffy responses from some conservative activists who like to fancy themselves as high road travelers in the midst of all this political fracas. Please click here for the rest of the post.
As the commentariat today grapples with President Barack Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, questions about Kagan’s tenure at Harvard Law are bubbling to surface as a point of contention for both Republicans and Democrats. Kagan, whose leadership at Harvard Law marked an unprecedented expansion of the program’s faculty, hired 32 tenured and tenure-track faculty. With one exception, all were white; only seven were women. Please click here for the rest of the post.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis rewarded six former staffers from her congressional office with political appointments and huge raises upon taking over at the Department of Labor. The appointees had significant pay increases averaging 50 percent upon changing jobs; one employee’s salary nearly doubled. Please click here for the rest of the post.
The Left constantly claims the mantle of being Pro-Women’s Rights. Yet, they prove time and time again that it is lip service only. In fact, they are often either misogynists or misogyny apologists themselves, all in the name of some sort of call for a perverted version of “diversity” and “tolerance.” They’ve recently gone so far as to condone genital mutilation. They have defended child rape in the case of Roman Polanski. They are silent on Iran gaining a seat on the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women. Why? Because it’s never actually about people to them. It’s all agenda-driven, always. Please click here for the rest of the post.