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.
Kagan may actually believe that our First Amendment rights come from the federal government. In her view, they are not innate and are not God-given, and the government does us a "favor" when it allows us to speak out because the government has the right to censor speech.
According to the aforementioned Washington Times editorial, "Kagan argued before the Supreme Court that the law should be read to allow the government to prohibit the publication of political pamphlets."
It's no secret that Kagan banned military recruiters while she was the Dean of the Harvard Law School and, in doing so, slapped our brave men and women in uniform in the face during a time of war because she objected to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. What many DON'T know is that Kagan acted alone and that her actions were a direct and blatant VIOLATION of United States law.
According to The Family Research Council: "[N]ot only was Elena Kagan key in kicking military recruiters off campus, directly violating U.S. law, she did so more or less independently - not even consulting the dean of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers. The law she violated was the Solomon amendment that insists that if your university accepts federal funds it should also accept military recruiters. She called the current policy of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' which was created by her future boss President Bill Clinton and supported by the Democratic Congress at the time, 'a moral injustice of the first order.' She was so outraged that she did not work with the Pentagon to find a solution, instead leaving that work to others, which was fine to Military leaders at the time who found her hostility to them prevalent. If Ms. Kagan has such disdain for passed legislation she disagrees with that she is willing to violate the law instead of seeking a solution, does she really have the temperament to have a permanent seat on the U.S. Supreme Court?"
Of course, the foregoing should not be shocking when one considers Kagan's admiration for judges who legislate from the bench as she has detailed in these confirmation hearings.
Republicans must filibuster the Kagan nomination to protect our precious U.S. Constitution.