Tweet
Imagine the outrage from the left if a Republican president nominated someone to the Supreme Court who:
argued that the ruling that gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their incarceration in federal court should not apply to those captured in other countries and shuffled off to the Bagram military prison in Afghanistan;
urged the Supreme Court to block a federal trial judge’s order to free into the United States Chinese Muslims who’ve been held unjustly at GITMO for nine years and can’t be returned to their homeland for fear they’d be tortured;
advocated for prosecution of a former administrative law judge who wants to turn a U.S.-designated terrorist group away from violence by advising it on how to use lawful and peaceful means to advance its political agenda.
For good measure, throw in the nominee’s defense of Congress’s “sensible action” in concocting a dubious land swap to allow a cross to remain in the Mojave Desert.
The howls from liberals would be deafening. Yet we’ve heard nary a peep from Democrats because the nominee who advanced these views is none other than Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court.
And Republicans – shouldn’t they be championing a nominee who has more often than not taken positions in court that mirror their own? Out of the question! Such a move would come dangerously close to a Charlie Crist-like heretical hug of the president, and that simply can’t be tolerated, especially not in the face of midterm elections.
So Democrats bide their time and bite their tongues and Republicans scramble to distort Kagan’s record at every turn. The confirmation hearing in the hands of these professional politicians isn’t nearly as much about Kagan and her qualifications as it is about shaking the pom poms of their respective teams. D-N-C! R-N-C! Sis boom bah! Pass the Pepto-Bismol.
By Eva Rodriguez | June 27, 2010; 8:48 PM ET
PostPartisan - Why Dems should hate, and the GOP should love, Elena Kagan
argued that the ruling that gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their incarceration in federal court should not apply to those captured in other countries and shuffled off to the Bagram military prison in Afghanistan;
urged the Supreme Court to block a federal trial judge’s order to free into the United States Chinese Muslims who’ve been held unjustly at GITMO for nine years and can’t be returned to their homeland for fear they’d be tortured;
advocated for prosecution of a former administrative law judge who wants to turn a U.S.-designated terrorist group away from violence by advising it on how to use lawful and peaceful means to advance its political agenda.
For good measure, throw in the nominee’s defense of Congress’s “sensible action” in concocting a dubious land swap to allow a cross to remain in the Mojave Desert.
The howls from liberals would be deafening. Yet we’ve heard nary a peep from Democrats because the nominee who advanced these views is none other than Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court.
And Republicans – shouldn’t they be championing a nominee who has more often than not taken positions in court that mirror their own? Out of the question! Such a move would come dangerously close to a Charlie Crist-like heretical hug of the president, and that simply can’t be tolerated, especially not in the face of midterm elections.
So Democrats bide their time and bite their tongues and Republicans scramble to distort Kagan’s record at every turn. The confirmation hearing in the hands of these professional politicians isn’t nearly as much about Kagan and her qualifications as it is about shaking the pom poms of their respective teams. D-N-C! R-N-C! Sis boom bah! Pass the Pepto-Bismol.
By Eva Rodriguez | June 27, 2010; 8:48 PM ET
PostPartisan - Why Dems should hate, and the GOP should love, Elena Kagan
Comment