Another SCOTUS summer

This morning President Obama nominated US Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Her approval by the Senate is virtually a lock.

At least the MSM won’t be able to whine about yet another dangerous, foreign-power-obeying Catholic on the SCOTUS.  50 year old.  Ms. Kagan is Jewish.  She is not married. 

During her stint at Harvard Law Kagan banned military recruiters from the Harvard campus because of the U.S. military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy.  She thought that policy discriminated against homosexuals. 

I suspect we will hear a great deal more about this during the summer.  It is one of the only things she has done which gives a clue to her views.

However, states that Kagan is pro-abortion because, among other things, she "vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics which promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers."  On this point, however, even if Kagan is found to be pro-abortion, so was Justice Steven, whom she will replace.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. AnAmericanMother says:

    This is an extremely odd appointment, all politics aside.

    She has almost no courtroom experience (other than her recent appointment as solicitor-general – and there I think she’s appeared only once before the USSC), and NO judicial experience. She has mostly worked as an academic, but she has published very little.

    You’ll often find somebody who’s thin in one of these areas — but all three? No courtroom, no judicial, no academic track record?

    Very strange indeed.

  2. gloriainexcelsis says:

    I also understand that a CBS reporter noted that she was “openly gay,” then retracted it to say that she was “still closeted.” Apparently she has a well-known partner from Harvard. So- she is pro-abort, pro-homosexual, and has stated that the president should have more regulatory powers, as one of Obama’s czars has also promulgated. Let us pray.

  3. Jordanes says:

    If she is a homosexual, that grievous flaw in her moral character alone disqualifies her from consideration, apart from her pernicious opinions.

    To think that we could have had a chance to get two “conservative”-leaning justices on the Supreme Court if the Kmiecs of the Church hadn’t sold out and voted for Obama, and if fewer people had cast symbolic votes for third party candidates who had no chance of winning . . . .

  4. AnAmericanMother,

    Unfortunately, we have a President with a similar non-track record!

    As an interesting aside, if she is confirmed, and I suspect that she will be, the Court will consist of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews!

  5. moon1234 says:

    A Catholic who is gay, pro-abortion, etc. is NOT a Catholic. Both recent women on the court are Catholic in name only. A Catholic who forsakes his birthright is no Catholic at all. It is time that people start taking back their Namesake from those that would sully our Lord’s church.

  6. Jon says:

    The farmers fired on Lexington Green for less provocation.

  7. Eric says:

    I hope all that didn’t vote for McCain because he wasn’t “pro-life enough” are happy.
    We now have this person on the bench for at least 30 years.

  8. Bornacatholic says:

    Good Lord. Folks think McCain would have appointed a pro-lifer?

    McCain would have been “bipartisan;” he would have “reached across the aisle;” he would have wanted to “avoid divisiveness:” he would have selected a person who would “uphold stare decisis.”

    Enough of If-we-had-only-voted-republican meme.

    You can not trust any politician and until The Catholic Church begins to publicly excommunicate every single pro-abortion individual – citizen or elected criminal – then what authority does any Catholic have to criticise the SCOTUS?

    Amy democrat can identify infamous “catholics” who are pro abortion and publicly identifies themselves as Catholics and publicly receive Communion.

    By its actions, (lack of action, really), The Catholic Church shows it really isn’t serious about abortion.

  9. DisturbedMary says:

    The first gay person on the SC.

    Goodbye traditional marriage, religious freedom, don’t ask don’t tell.

    Hello religious persecution, pre-school sex education, thought crimes.

    But not to worry, she’s really a uniter, not a divider. She gets along with everyone. Everyone LIKES her.

  10. Peggy R says:

    Moon, there is on only one “Catholic” woman–and indeed one woman–recently appointed to the court by The One. This woman is poisonous, rumoured to be gay. This is another grossly unqualified affirmative action appointee. [Soda-meyer (as I call her) was a slob and very inarticulate. She had a less than stellar grasp of the English language.] I can’t believe black Americans are not upset. There are plenty of liberal black jurists and lawyers that would please The One…and I am sure there are many qualified and fair black jurists as well. I think the WASP crowd–even on the left–was lamenting the departure of the last WASP from SCOTUS this year. I guess a white pro-gay Jewish woman will have to do.

    I do not like 2 never-married, no children feminists (one possibly gay) on the SCOTUS court. They’ve got the urban, east coast lifestyle and victim politics in their blood, not justice, not “real life” experience. Real life experience (so to speak which Obie claims to value) goes beyond career outside of government…and heck, she’s only been an academic, at that…but they haven’t raise kids, run businesses. They don’t have any family experience. The areas of law in which they’ve worked are limited–especially Kagan. Now, Soda-meyer was at least a prosecutor, but this Kagan woman hasn’t even practiced much law, it seems.

    Dr. Eric–I indeed held my nose, but did what I had to do.

  11. Jordanes says:

    Bornacatholic said: Good Lord. Folks think McCain would have appointed a pro-lifer?

    He might have. With Obama we all knew we would get appointees like Sotomayor and Kagan, but with McCain there’d have been a chance for a halfway acceptable nominee.

    McCain would have been “bipartisan;” he would have “reached across the aisle;” he would have wanted to “avoid divisiveness:” he would have selected a person who would “uphold stare decisis.”

    Yup — maybe someone like Roberts or Alito.

    Enough of If-we-had-only-voted-republican meme.

    The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Hopefully people in 2012 won’t again make the mistake of lodging a virtuous protest vote while the babies are being slaughtered . . . .

  12. Bornacatholic says:

    I didn’t vote for Obama, I voted for McCain but I suffered no illusion he would have put a prolifer on the court had he the chance.

    He wouldn’t have. He is on record as not wanting Roe-Wade overturned (so are the supremes for that matter. They ain’t gonna overturn it)

    I couldn’t stand McCain but I knew who Obama was (thanks to the internet).

    McCain can always be counted on to fool conservatives into thinking he is one of them.

    As to the truth hurting, yes; it does. Almost always it does.

    When the republican party had total control of Washington – POTUS, Senate, House, – they could have Constitutionally restricted the SCOTUS from hearing abortion cases – just for one instance of inaction – but they didn’t.

    But those who vote continually vote for republicans are never expected to explain why their votes are not subject to the same scrutiny as those who are castigated for voting their conscience – such as voting for Howard Phillips, or Ron Paul or Alan Keyes.

    The fact is there is very little to show for prolifers who have plighted their troth to The Stupid Party. They keep voting for those who keep lying to them. Maybe there is no shame attached to that failed pragmatism but I fail to see why there isn’t.

    The republican party wants the issue on the table for every election period. It does not want Roe overturned.

    And in the meantime, the Catholic Church does not excommunicate those who vote for and promote abortion but Catholic laymen are to be castigated for voting their consciences?

  13. robtbrown says:


    Can you name a post Roe Dem nominee to SCOTUS who ever voted in favor of chipping away at or overturning Roe v Wade?

    The Repub SCOTUS record is spotty, but Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts have all been solidly pro life. Unfortunately, Bush41 struck out with Souter, and Kennedy lost his nerve.

    There is also the matter of abortion and exec orders.

  14. Bornacatholic says:

    Can you name a post Roe Dem nominee to SCOTUS who ever voted in favor of chipping away at or overturning Roe v Wade?

    Not off the top of my head. The Evil Party is ideologically pro-choice while the Stupid Party is pragmatically pro choice.

    To me it makes no sense for the single issue voter to vote for a party that can be counted on to continue the legal killing of the unborn because, if it regains power, it will legally kill fewer than the other party.

    There has to be other reasons for voting for the we-will-continue-to-legally-kill-the-unborn in-fewer-numbers-than-they-do Party.

    If this was about the issue of cannibalism, could we boast about voting for the republicans because they refused to serve Croatians and Haitians whereas the democrats had an unrestricted menu?

  15. Bornacatholic says:

    This is how politics works in America. The Republican Party boldly avers:

    We revere all of Creation;
    And we’re the only party in the nation,
    Who refuses to serve Croatians and Haitians,
    or the halt and the lame from the lesser nations.

    So, the anti-cannibalism activists gin-up support for the republican party because the democrat party has an unrestricted Menu.

    And in voting for the legalised-cannibalism-but-with-sensible- restrictions party we get to cheer for ourselves and jeer at the holier-than-thou who vote for candidates who abjure cannibalism and we can castigate those voters for making a mistake with their virtuous protest vote instead of congratulating them for refusing to cooperate with evil.

    Next time, maybe we ought consider virtue over pragmatism.

  16. JuliB says:

    And I believe all 3 women on the SC will be from NYC!

Comments are closed.