Do We Really Want Commissar Kagan?
Print Friendly and PDF

H/T, DD, for alerting me to a devastating essay on Elena Kagan: Komrade Kagan By Mark Alexander The Patriot Post Thursday May 13, 2010.

This is a thorough and well informed discussion about the reasons for alarm at the prospect of a Justice/Commissar Kagan.

What I want to focus on is what Kagan has written about Thurgood Marshall, the now deified Black who was ostensibly the NAACP’s counsel in Brown v Board of Education and subsequently the Supreme Court Justice for whom Kagan clerked for a curiously brief time in 1988.

Brown v Board of Education, of course, was the most regressive piece of social legislation America has ever seen. By swamping the whole American public school system with ineducable blacks it effectively destroyed the ladder of opportunity for talented whites in those schools and not coincidentally deeply entrenched the advantages of those with access to private education, or, as in the case of Elena Kagan, intellectually segregated public schools like New York’s Hunter College High.

That it actually was legislation, a fact essentially taboo in conventional discourse, is documented on here and here and here. (Please help keep us alive! )

Marshall’s most significant judicial contribution was recorded by left-lunatic Justice William O. Douglas in his autobiography as quoted in Time:

Justice Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the court "simply because he was black," …Marshall's contribution to the reverse discrimination debate: "You guys," Marshall tells his brethren, "have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it's our turn."

When the Dogs Stopped Snapping By Evan Thomas Monday, Sept 29, 1980

Writing of Marshall, Kagan apparently said

"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.”

She concluded

The Constitution today ... contains a great deal to be proud of. But the credit does not belong to the Framers ( emphasis). It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty,' 'justice,' and 'equality.' Our modern Constitution is [Marshall's]."

How much more explicit does she have to be? The Constitution says what she wants it to say. A “Justice” Kagan will scorn the “Rights of Englishmen" She will not scruple to use her Priest-King-Rabbinical status role to advance the interests of the groups to whom she relates. Discussion of immigration restraint will be “Unconstitutional” and unlawful.

And you can forget Free Speech.

Supreme Court Justices have become America’s most powerful and invulnerable legislators. Do we really really want Commissar Kagan?

Print Friendly and PDF