Why We Have Hearings

Elena Kagan reminds me of Norm Peterson’s (Cheers) meltdown in front the brewery president just before he landed his dream job as a beer taster. Poor Elena can’t remember the simplest things—like her own handwriting

c_norm_03 elena-kagan1-320x225

Today, Democrat Arlen Specter warned that he may have to vote “no.” 

She might not be the infanticidal maniac some claim.  Instead, she seems to be devoid of any substantial legal thought whatsoever. 

The few opinions she does have are horrible.  She believes it’s okay for the government to ban books.  She believes it’s okay to submit false documents to official inquiries.  She believed judicial nominees (like her) could be compelled to answer questions about prior court opinions . . . before she decided nominees should be required to say nothing.

In short, Elena Kagan is a run-of-the-mill, academic leftist who specializes in kissing up to the boss.  Hardly the stuff of judicial legend, but possibly a disaster for freedom if she makes it onto the court. 

Let’s make a litmus test: no book burners on the Supreme Court.

Author: William Hennessy

Co-founder of St. Louis Tea Party Coalition and Nationwide Chicago Tea Party Persuasive design expertLatest book: Turning On Trump: An Evolution (2016)Author of The Conservative Manifest (1993), Zen Conservatism (2009), Weaving the Roots (2011), and Fight to Evolve (2016)I believe every person deserves the dignity of meaningful work as the only path to human flourishing.

3 Comments on “Why We Have Hearings

  1. I would like to get a bumper sticker saying “HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH”
    Does anyone know where one might be available or where they are made?

  2. We’ve seen (heard) the video’s of her arguing before the SCOTUS for a law that would effectively allow banning books, but not to worry, they wouldn’t actually do it (!), but this one may be worse.

    She wrote a wackademic article in the ’90’s (some highlights here), called “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine”, that introduced some new ‘figures of speech’ (that title alone gives me the Orwellian creeps) that ought to scare the bejeezus out of everyone, including my favorite,

    “redistribution of speech opportunities.”

    She doesn’t make the mistake of actually advocating such a thing, she merely ‘raises consciousness’ regarding the issue (which she introduced) – typical wackademic passive voice tactics.

    The rationale for it is that ‘loud voices shouldn’t be allowed to drown out other viewpoints’ – which is all the license any regulator worth their salt should need to spread the silence around.

Comments are closed.