Want To Buy A Bridge?

Some liberal talking heads are already toeing the narrative that Elena Kagan is a little bit conservative.  That she could (possibly) shift the court to the right.  Really?  Hardly.

This narrative is deployed to impress upon the disinterested, distracted, or dumbfounded that any opposition by the right to her nomination is evidence of just how right wing they must be to object to the "more moderate/conservative" nominee they paint in the picture of Kagan. 

But the very existence of the narrative gives away the store.  None of these left wing quacks can tolerate a moderate.  There is zero tolerance in the left wing media.  If she posed the slightest risk of shifting the court to the right they would never allow her to get nominated let alone confirmed.  The very suggestion without some head-exploding opposition makes it obvious.  She has to be another left wing radical.

So is she?   Probably.  Kagan is a Harvard liberal elitist who breathes the same air as Obama; she thinks the egg heads at the top of the political food chain must make the decisions for the little people.  And as an Egg head, one that worked with Clinton, and as a long time friend of Obama, she probably believes in central planning and judicial activism as well; using the court to legislate the liberal agenda that most of the country objects too.  That makes her a constitutional threat.  And the longer the liberal talking heads suggest she is good for both sides, or a potential unknown, the more radical she has to be.

Comments

[Anon]

Wow, this is the woman who lamented that socialism was considered unacceptable, not so long ago.

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2010/05/solicitor-general-elena-kagan-has.html

Ms. Kagan, while attending Princeton University as an undergraduate, entitled her senior thesis "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In her thesis, Ms. Kagan wrote, "In our times [this was 30 years ago], 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?" (p. 127).