This morning, President Barack Obama has nominated Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. Now the common debate begins for this process amongst opposing sides as to whether the prospective life-long appointee to the nation's highest court is a pragmatic choice or fueling an ideology. Without a judicial background to examine, many have been quick to observe her work at universities as a possible warning sign of whether she'll objectively interpret the law or project radical views to change the way laws are viewed.

The Weekly Standard has been one of many to observe two red flags, one as a student at Princeton and the other as Dean of Harvard Law School.

For Kagan's senior thesis, she wrote "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," where she lamented the fragmentation and internal conflict amongst the radicals of that time and their failure to unite.

"Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." (pp. 129-130)

More concerning is her outright disappointment with the failure of the socialist movement to take hold in America:

"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. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. 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?"(pp. 127)

While her views may have changed drastically over the past few decades, her work as Dean of Harvard Law School fails to show much divergence from the typical radical campus left perspective.

She worked to bar military recruiters from her campus due to the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy implemented by the Democrat Congress in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton (an administration in which she served).

As William Kritol's article illustrates from her own words, she constantly criticizes what she calls the military's policy (although it is a government policy) and seeks to punish those who serve this country.

Whether her radical campus bias will lead to courtroom bias? We don't know yet because she hasn't had judicial experience. That may make it seem easy to cover up one's ideology without any rulings to examine, but her contributions to the problem of leftism in academia will be telling signs for those who are responsible for her confirmation.

• Add New
• Search

Comments (0)

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Website:

Comment:

Title:

UBBCode:         -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2