I haven’t really been that interested in Supreme Court nominees since the Clarence Thomas debacle. Well, not until this current administration. My objections to the Sonia Sotomayer nomination were grounded in her decision in the Connecticut firefighter case and its subsequent overturning by the SCOTUS. That ruling, as we all know, was essentially what people are calling “reverse racism” but is actually just plain old-fashioned racism (where on earth did we get the idea that you can’t be racist against white people?).
And if that’s not troubling enough, her decision reveals that she is not really interested in what people are calling “equal justice” (where on earth did we get the idea that “justice” is inherently “unequal” and needs a redundant qualifier?). That was the heart of the problem with her for me. She met BO’s bizarre “empathy” requirement for a justice of the Supreme Court: don’t be bothered with pesky things like the rule of law . . . when a minority, poor person, or other otherwise socially-, economically- or otherwise-challenged person is involved. In such cases, toss the law out the window and/or “revise” it via wild and faulty interpretation to make it unrecognizable (no minorities passed the firefighter test ergo the entire test must be racist). According to BO and Sotomayer, we are indeed a nation of laws–two sets. One for the white people in “upper income brackets” (like those multi-million dollar firefighters in Connecticut) and one for everyone else. This somehow translates into the epitome of “fairness” for this progressive nightmare of a president.
This brings me to my current problem with the Elena Kagan nomination. Not only is she dismissive and derisive of the original Constitution (that quaint document from the stone ages), but she trumpets Thurgood Marshall’s
declaration that “the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’ … The Constitution today … contains a great deal to be proud of. ‘(B)ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality.'” Kagan said, “Our modern Constitution is (Marshall’s).” (source)
Those pesky concepts of liberty, justice, and equality are sooooo outdated. They need to be redefined or “refined” as the progressives would have it. Justice isn’t just if it’s impartial: “Blind justice” is such a sophomoric concept, after all. Yes, she’s another fairness is treating different people/groups differently type who sees the role of the Supreme Court as providing “special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged.” David Limbaugh quotes her more extensively:
Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Following Marshall’s death, Kagan wrote a glowing tribute to him in the Texas Law Review. Two passages from her article deserve particular scrutiny. She wrote, approvingly: “In Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission.” Kagan said Marshall told her the other justices had rejected his proposal for a new Supreme Court rule: “When one corporate fat cat sues another corporate fat cat, this Court shall have no jurisdiction,” Kagan wrote. “However much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.”
The new definition of “justice”: two rules of law, separate application of the law, “special solicitation” to one group over another.
Limbaugh goes on to warn that we not gloss over or scoff at the “despised and disadvantaged” descriptor of those who should have a special set of laws just for them:
But don’t just gloss over the leftist buzzwords “despised or disadvantaged.” What groups do they mean by “the despised”? Perhaps they mean those who don’t agree with their radical idea of unconstitutional wealth redistribution “despise” recipients of such extreme wealth transfers. Or maybe they’re implying that conservatives “despise” minorities. Don’t scoff. I’ve heard such toxicity before from leftists.
As Jonah Goldberg notes, “Obama and the vast majority of Senate Democrats believe that Lady Justice should peek from under the blindfold every now and then.” So much for being impartial. Or fair. Or just.
Kagan appears to share BO’s vision of a fundamentally transformed America in which those who are not “despised or disadvantaged” (in their eyes) should be and that it’s up to the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, to ensure that they . . . um, we are.
(cross-posted at Potluck)