Friday, April 9, 2010

A Zionist Jewish Lesbian Feminist Not So Free Speech Friendly Nominee for the Supreme Court?

Please don't call the messenger names. I'm just pointing out the politically incorrect obvious. With the  important nomination of a new Supreme Court justice shouldn't we look at all the aspects of the person? Is Elena Kagan who 'we the people' would want? Of course 'we' don't get a vote.

John Paul Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July.

Listening to NPR a couple of days ago it appeared that Elena Kagan, now Obama's solicitor general, was being promoted as Stevens replacement. For the sake of speculation, lets take a look at Kagan as the nominee.

She's another Clinton retread who from 1995 to 1999 served as President Bill Clinton's Associate White House Counsel  and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

An interesting statement from Absolute Astronomy ...
Kagan has also written widely on a range of First Amendment issues and in ways supportive of free speech rights.
"In ways?"  Not very encouraging when we are supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to protect free speech. I wonder which ways she is and is not supportive?

During Kagan's solicitor general confirmation hearing she seemed to follow a Bush administration line of thinking which must also suit Obama well.
During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield” amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials. 
This makes me wonder if Kagan might someday apply indefinite detention without a trial or maybe even assassination  to American citizens right here in our country.

Glenn Greenwald says Kagan would mean the court would take a turn to the 'right' and perhaps an easier confirmation.
Replacing Stevens with Kagan (or, far less likely, with Sunstein) would shift the Court substantially to the Right on a litany of key issues (at least as much as the shift accomplished by George Bush's selection of the right-wing ideologue Sam Alito to replace the more moderate Sandra Day O'Connor).  Just click on the links in the last paragraph here, detailing some of Kagan's "centrist" (i.e., highly conservative) positions on executive power, civil liberties and Terrorism for a sense of how far to the Right she would be as compared to Stevens.
The danger that we won't have such a status-quo-maintaining selection is three-fold:  (1) Kagan, from her time at Harvard, is renowned for accommodating and incorporating conservative views, the kind of "post-ideological" attribute Obama finds so attractive; (2) for both political and substantive reasons, the Obama White House tends to avoid (with a few exceptions) any appointees to vital posts who are viewed as "liberal" or friendly to the Left; the temptation to avoid that kind of nominee heading into the 2010 midterm elections will be substantial (indeed, The New York Times' Peter Baker wrote last month of the candidates he said would be favored by the Left:  "insiders doubt Mr. Obama would pick any of them now"); and (3) Kagan has already proven herself to be a steadfast Obama loyalist with her work as his Solicitor General, and the desire to have on the Court someone who has demonstrated fealty to Obama's broad claims of executive authority is likely to be great.  {more}
And unlike nearly all the other potential nominees, Kagan is not likely to face sharp attacks from conservatives. At Harvard, she won glowing praise from prominent conservatives for bridging the ideological divide. {more at JTA}

Here's a little from Elena Kagan is Unfit for the Supreme Court ...
The President will want a highly qualified nominee, obviously.  Beyond that, the calculation for the White House will be almost entirely political.  Rahm Emanuel will have overriding control - if not minute-by-minute involvement - just as he did with Justice Sotomayor.  And as with that previous confirmation, the calculus will be one of the political costs and benefits of the highly qualified candidates at the political moment in time. {more}

A NY Times report on Kagan before the Supreme Court ...
Solicitor General Elena Kagan defended the law at issue in the case, which bars providing material support to terrorist organizations, as “a vital weapon in this nation’s continuing struggle against international terrorism.”
Even seemingly benign help is prohibited, Ms. Kagan said.

Hezbollah builds bombs,” she said of the militant Islamic group. “Hezbollah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs. That’s the entire theory behind the statute.”{more}

The Obama administration's representative before the high court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, urged the justices not to hear the case that Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson brought against the Bush administration over the exposure of Mrs. Wilson's employment at the CIA. 

From Kevin MacDonald  on Kagan ...
Jews as one-third of the Supreme Court seems sure to raise the eyebrows among people like me who think that Jewish identity often makes a big difference in attitudes and behavior. And if there is one area where mainstream Jewish political identity has had a huge effect (besides anything related to Israel), it’s in attitudes and behavior related to multiculturalism. This is true of the Jewish mainstream across the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right. A major theme of The Culture of Critique is that Jewish identities and interests were apparent in all the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements of the left that have rationalized multiculturalism, massive non-White immigration, and the general displacement of Europeans: 
Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology. (Ch. 5 of The Culture of Critique; emphasis in original) 
Kagan seems to have lived a charmed life, with perhaps a whiff (or even a stench) of ethnic networking. At least one of the journalists writing the LA Times panegyric is Jewish (David G. Savage), and the two legal scholars who are quoted in the article (Fried and Tribe) are both Jews. In addition, Kagan was appointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar’s book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.

The only thing Kagan has going for her seems to be that important people admire her. She’s good at networking, and it would seem that many of her most prominent admirers are other Jews — liberal and conservative.

This points to corruption in the Jewish sector of the American academic elite. Kagan’s path to the academic heights of the legal profession and perhaps to a position on the Supreme Court is not based on a solid record of scholarship or any other relevant experience, but on ethnic boosterism from other Jews. As I noted elsewhere, Jews are represented in elite American academic institutions at levels far higher than can be explained by IQ.

For Kagan, the crusade to restrict speech is motivated by her feminist and leftist political attitudes. Indeed, her 1993 paper was originally presented at a conference titled, “Speech, Equality, and Harm: Feminist Legal Perspectives on Pornography and Hate Propaganda." She sees her job as a legal scholar to find a way to ensure that these goals are achieved while paying lip service to the legal tradition of the First Amendment. Indeed, she sees heavy-handed attempts to restrict free speech, such as the Stanford speech code, as counter-productive because they make “the forces of hatred into defenders of Constitutional liberty” and because they are so unreasonable they invite criticisms of the rest of Stanford’s race and gender policies.

They say politics is the art of the possible. For Kagan, law is also the art of the possible. There are no principles. Only better or worse tactics for achieving her policy goals. {more}

Kagan a lesbian?
"Why are people pretending that Elena Kagan is not a lesbian. She’s not out but that does not change her sexual orientation. She has a female partner. This is an open secret at Harvard Law School among students and faculty. I cannot speak for the broader legal community yet, but I’d have to believe her professional colleagues know as much or more than the students and professors she works with. The real irony would be if she did not get the nomination because she is not open, when the conventional wisdom has always been she has tiptoed through life in the closet for the very sake of winning a confirmation."

An all Catholic and Jewish Supreme Court? No Protestant justices on the court for the first time ever?
In fact, six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That's half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Depending on the Stevens replacement, there may be no Protestants left on the court at all in a majority Protestant nation where, for decades and generations, all of the justices were Protestant. {more}


  1. So Kagan spent time at the University of Israel's Harvard Campus?

    How chummy was she with the infamous hate-monger Dershowitz?

    Smooth move for Obama, since he knows that not many in the Senate will ask too many questions about a 'Chosen One.'

    She's never argued a case at trial? Guess expereince actually being a lawyer doesn't count.

  2. And is she related to the Kagan's that are signatories to the PNAC?

    Why is it difficult, if not impossible to find out who her parents were?

    Is that a chapter some prefer to remain buried?

  3. An all Catholic and Jewish Supreme Court!


    - Aangirfan

  4. Once we have an all Jewish Supreme Court do you think the Christians will catch on, or will they just call it a Judeo-Christian court?

  5. While I have no reason to want to support Kagan, I have to say that this whole piece was too vague to make a point. You quote MacDomald as claiming that:

    "For Kagan, the crusade to restrict speech is motivated by her leftist and feminist attitudes... She sees ... heavy-handed attempts to restrict free speech, such as the Stanford speech code, as counter-productive..."

    My usual experience has been that pornography is an issue which unites Christian fundies and some feminists together, with both advocating that pornography should be outlawed. Has Kagan advocated that? It didn't sound like she had. So what exactly is MacDonald's point here, if anything? All that I could gather was that MacDonald was posing with a kind of ideological holier-than-thou by attacking her for using pragmatist arguments against free speech restrictions. But there wasn't actually anything presented which could show that she had done anything bad for free speech. She had simply warned against making "the forces of hatred into defenders of Constitutional liberty" as a pragmatist argument against speech codes, whereas presumably MacDonald is some high-principled thinker who never invokes pragmatism when defending free speech. Yeah, right, sure. You'll need a better argument to score real points against Kagan. Maybe one can be made, but this isn't it.

  6. The point of this post was really nothing more than to ask a few questions and get folks to do further research if she is the nominee. MacDonald's view is one, yours is another and that's what open debate is all about. Thanks for the input.

  7. Anonymous I told Sauron you were the owner of the ring.

    The dog poet is on fire today!

  8. People who believe in fairy tales should not be allowed to become Supreme Court justices.

  9. Another GodDamn Jew to Lord it over we Goy... I am so sick of this "democracy"

  10. She looks like Mike Myers and Jon Lovitz's bastard son. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

    I see that some people can't seem to understand that she should be opposed simply because she's a Jew! Yes, that's a good enough reason. All Jews should be opposed in all positions of influences unless they have proven, by their words and their deeds, that they have completely rejected Jewism, Judaism, Talmudism, Kabbalism and Zionism as Satanic devices.

    I couldn't much care if the court is 2/3 Roman Catholic, but if that's what it takes to wake up the comatose Protestant majority, then good. If they complin that 2/3 of the court represnts 1/3 of the population, then maybe they'll also start wondering how come 1/3 of the court represents 1/50 of the country. Of course they'll be told that each justice is appointed according to their merits, and that they don't represent their tribe or Church, but each of them is "unbiased". Still, perhaps even the dumber Protestants will start to wonder, "If they're all so unbiased, then how come we keep hearing ho important it is that there be women and minorities on the court? And is there really not one qualified Protestant in this entire country?"

    From last week: "Easy Prediction: Next U.S. Supreme Court Justice A Jew or Jewey"

    At “What Do You Believe?”, we Name the Jew, for You.

    Puppet Obama’s short list for the next Supreme Court appointee, most likely to replace Justice Stevens who will be 90 years old on April 20th:

    1. The Jewess Kagan.

    2. The Shabbos Goy/Crypto-Jew/Convert Wood: First husband was the Jew Sufit. Dissenting opinion in Bloch v. Frischholz, 533 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2008): The majority of a panel of the Seventh Circuit held that a condominium associate could prohibit residents from putting objects on their doors without violating the Fair Housing Act. The result was that Jewish residents could not put mezuzot on their doorposts. Dissenting, Wood argued plaintiffs had established a claim for intentional religious discrimination under the Fair Housing Act because there was sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the rule was being applied in a way that would constitute a constructive eviction of observant Jews. The en banc Seventh Circuit reheard the case and unanimously reversed the panel majority in Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009), siding with Judge Wood’s position. Wood was able to rally the whole court around a position protective of religious freedom and practice.

    3. The Shabbos Goy/Crypto-Jew/Convert Garland: Married to the Jewess Rosenbaum (granddaughter of Samuel Irving Rosenman; lawyer, judge, Democratic politician, and speech-writer and advisor to Puppets Roosevelt and Truman 1936-1948; the first official White House Counsel 1943-1946). Grew up in intensely Jewey Skokie, Illinois, the old hunting ground of the pedophile Jewish Nazi Frank Collin/Cohen (now the New Age quasi-Mormonite witch and pseudo-historian Frank Joseph).

  11. Yep in Canada the fix is also in:

    'Brian Akira' is one of the neo-Herzlian buttsniffers on Incog Man's site.

    He claims to be Japanese, but wants to suck up to the white supremacists.

    The agenda is to advocate for expulsion/robbing/murdering Jews. All Jews.

    It's all there in black and white, with a lot of exposure on the intellectual dishonesty of the neo-Herzlites:

  12. Neo-Herzlian agenda of Pharisee Akira and the rest of the HasbaRatchik suckups: Expell/Rob/Murder Jews. All Jews.

    I see that some people can't seem to understand that she should be opposed simply because she's a Jew!

    Incogman's Hasbarat-nest exposed, it's all here in B&W:

  13. Speaking of the apocalypse there is a lot of questions on the entire Polish leadership supposedly being wiped out altogether.

    I won't try and post the whole article as I have been cautioned on this before by anonymous Jim.

    There are some interesting questions here:

    "The main winner is Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk who has wiped out the entire opposition to his pro-euro, pro-IMF, pro-New World Order policies, even though they appear to be some allies sacrificed on the plane, including the pro swine flu vaccine ombudsman.

    Nevertheless, the backbone of Polish opposition to the NWO appears to have been killed."

    Poland’s top leaders have defied the NWO by refusing the swine flu vaccination and postponing joining the euro, a “must”, according to IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

    They have paid a heavy price.

    It is less likely that the Polish Health Minister will dare refuse vaccine the next time WHO declares a pandemic after this incident.

    It is less likely that Greece’s central bankers and opposition parties will push for Greece to leave the eurozone or operate a domestic currency in parallel with the euro.

    But a day after the crash, many unanswered questions surround the event.

    Polskaweb has said that an assassination cannot be ruled out.

    But the official ceremony marking the Katyn anniversary was held earlier in the week on Wednesday and attended by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Russian head of state Vladimir Putin.

    The Polish President Lech Kaczynski was not invited.

    How come Presidnt Kaczynski and half of Poland’s government flew to Katyn three days after the official anniversary?

    Why did the 100 top Polish leaders all fly on the same plane?

    t is conceivable that the 100 top Polish leaders were rounded up in a purge and killed or kidnapped inside Poland and that the airplane accident in Russia was staged to explain their deaths.

    But another witness reported hearing an explosion.

    Why was the plane flying so low that it hit a tree? Weren’t the instruments measuring altitude on board working?

    Other reports say Kaczynski himself intervened to force the pilot to land. How likely is it that the pilot would listen to the president and not follow standard procedures?

    How likely that the entire army leadership would allow Kaczynski to force the pilot to land. The head of the Polish air force was also on board according to the official story.

  14. Kenny,

    Would you please remove the slanders here that have been made against me.

    Re: "'Brian Akira' is one of the neo-Herzlian buttsniffers"

    I am not a "Neo-Herzlian", or even a "Herzlian", and have never expressed any support for Herzl or for Zionism.

    That is slander.

    And I have never engaged in the activity alleged.

    That is slander.

    Re: "[Akira] wants to suck up to the white supremacists."

    I have never expressed any belief in White supremacism, nor failed to criticize any sort of racial supremacists.

    That is slander.

    Re: "The agenda is to advocate for expulsion/robbing/murdering Jews. All Jews."

    I have never advocated the expulsion, robbery or murder of anybody, Jewish or not.

    That is slander.

    Re: "Neo-Herzlian agenda of Pharisee Akira...: Expell/Rob/Murder Jews. All Jews."

    Besides the repetition of the four previous, I am also not a Pharisee.

    That is slander.

  15. ever heard of 'Grimblebee'?
    I wonder why Grimblebee doesn't bitch to you directly?

    btw - great article, and blog!


  16. Gimblebee/Winter P:

    "I gave up on Mike Rivero's WRH blog long ago because it was overflowing with antisemitic invective."

    Rivero is a Jew, who works in Hollywood. His latest job is on the Jew Abrams mega-kabbalistic "LOST" series.

    No doubt another Jew disinfo agent provocateur.

  17. I commented at that WinterPatriot site:

    "Rivero is a Jew, who works in Hollywood. His latest job is on the Jew Abrams mega-kabbalistic "LOST" series."

    This is what got past the censor:

    "Rivero is a Jew, ** [edit: you're welcome to post comments but please be advised that inflammatory terminology may be redacted without notice. -njt] **"

    It's "inflammatory" to identify Hollywood as Jewed, and JJ Abrams as a Jew, and to decrive LOST as Kabbalistic?

    What planet do these people live on!?

  18. WP has been one my favorites ever since he was a regular at Brad Blog and was kicked off for his 9/11 posts. That told me a lot about the BB site.

    Rivero is often accused of being something or the other, mainly because he's an atheist. His is still one of the best news sites. I've never seen any shows such as 'Lost' so I'll have to take your word that it Kabbalistic.

  19. About those slanders ...

    + + +

    Re kabbalistic Jacobism:

    See the Jew Abrams manipulate the "goyim" until they have to choose beteen the "good" and "bad" demiurges:

  20. OK Akira, if not a truce a cease-fire for the Incog Alumnus.. and check out the Ponerology stuff, with an open mind. Evil exists and is measurable.

  21. I like cease-fires. Sometimes they can lead to a more lasting peace.

  22. Yesterday Kenny's post became prophetic. I for one am totally disgusted. He is right--what is good for Obama and the Harvard set is NOT what's good for the country.

    This is true regardless of what your political affiliation is so long as you don't own a corporation, aren't Zionist, aren't ever going to work at Harvard or in Washington DC, and aren't solely focused on tokenism. The dems have once again totally supported a policy of appointing libido- and culturally- neutered suits for the Supreme Court. Common Law rights are down the tubes and with it, any democracy for the future. We live in a plutocracy.

  23. anon@ 11:09,

    I wouldn't call it prophetic, just a logical extension of where we're heading. Getting the people in place. Molding the policy with judicial approval. Making us believe this is all OK.

  24. This "woman" is repulsive. Just another Obama/globalist puppet.