Finally, some Senate Republicans are talking as if a filibuster of Barack Obama's radical nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is "possible." And after monitoring this week's testimony we conclude they are justified if they proceed.
Kagan is outside the mainstream of American judicial thought and she is inexperienced as a judge. The stakes are simply too high and the damage that could be caused -- for years to come -- should she be confirmed, are simply too great.
Consider this: Elena Kagan is a radical. Barack Obama and his allies in the left-wing media have made every attempt to paint Kagan as a "moderate," but this truth is evident if you listen to her answers. She has a life-long history of extreme and radical left-wing political activism and her personal history clearly indicates that she will not hesitate to pursue Obama's far-left wing agenda from the bench.
The Washington Times perhaps stated it best. In an editorial, the Times writes that Kagan "is too political, too leftist, too inexperienced and too disrespectful towards existing law to be confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court." Admittedly, we don't know much about Barack Obama's stealth nominee to the Supreme Court. She has little courtroom experience and almost no paper trail, but, as the Times put it, "What we now know about her should disturb fair-minded Americans."
The tides in the U.S. Senate are shifting.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier said that a filibuster of Kagan was "highly unlikely." But now he has flipped, and said that a filibuster of Kagan is "possible." The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, told CBS News that a filibuster is "not off the table" and that it is "conceivable."
Clearly Kagan is a Socialist who is hostile toward freedom of enterprise.
In her 129-page Princeton thesis, Kagan practically weeps over the demise of Socialism in the United States. The following passage from her conclusion sums it all up: "In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future... of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. ... Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?"
A "golden past"? "Socialism's greatness"? This unbridled passion for Socialism is arguably enough to disqualify her from sitting on our nation's High Court, but we're just scratching the surface when it comes to Barack Obama's mystery nominee.