So I was watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC Tuesday morning. I've gotten to where I actually like "Morning Joe" in a sadistic sort of way – spending an hour listening to the opinions of the collection of plagiarists, freaks and nitwits that appear daily on that show tells me all I really need to know about why our country is in such a sorry state today.
Anyway, on this particular morning, the show's hosts – Joe ("Morning Joe" – get it?) Scarborough and Minka Breszinski were interviewing Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. When asked to describe his view on the judicial philosophy that would be employed by leftist Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Sen. Whitehouse was only able to use the words "pragmatist" and "consensus builder" over and over again: "I think it would be one of a pragmatist and consensus builder," the Senator said, "She has been a pragmatist and consensus builder her entire career. She was a pragmatist and consensus builder at Harvard, and was certainly a pragmatist and consensus builder as Solicitor General. So I think you'll see a philosophy of pragmatism and consensus building when she is on the court."
Ummmm...ok. Can somebody please let the good Senator know that "pragmatism" and "consensus building" do not a judicial philosophy make? Not to criticize them, of course – "pragmatism" is a perfectly honorable personal trait, one in fact that we all should aspire to achieve in our own lives. And "consensus building" is a fine pursuit to employ in life. Why, if every one of us was a "consensus builder", we'd all end up agreeing about every damn thing, and wouldn't that be wonderful?
But somebody really ought to let Senator Whitehouse and, presumably, Ms. Kagan know that "pragmatism" and "consensus building" are not essential elements of the judicial philosophy of a justice on the United States Supreme Court. See, the job of being a Court Justice involves a) hearing arguments from both sides in a case before the court, and b) deciding which side wins the case in the context of the text of the United States Constitution. This is not supposed to be a bargaining process between the justices that involves "pragmatism" and "consensus building". The Constitution says what it says, and the justices are charged with deciding which side of each given case is constitutional. Period.
Yet, Sen. Whitehouse wants us to believe that character traits that would be admirable in any member of, say, congress or the Texas legislature, are the essential elements of what makes a fine Supreme Court justice. This is sheer and utter nonsense.
Of course, in fairness to Sen. Whitehouse, this nonsense regarding Ms. Kagan was put into the public domain by the White House on the day she was nominated. The President's initial statement used those same words to describe her, and those words were broadly parroted by the propaganda arm of the National Democrat Party, i.e., the establishment news media, for days afterwards. They were obviously words that had been carefully tested in focus groups in advance of the nomination.
Leftists have to use such touchy-feely nonsense to describe their judicial nominees, because they know they cannot dare discuss the truth about their true judicial philosophy. Poll after poll shows conclusively that an overwhelming majority of Americans utterly reject the leftwing philosophy of ignoring what the Constitution actually says in order to legislate social policies from the federal bench that Democrats could never hope to achieve through the legitimate legislative process set up by the Constitution.
Leftwingers must obfuscate and outright lie about their nominees, because the truth about Ms. Kagan is that she is a radical leftist who likely has never read the Constitution of the United States and has no intention of ever doing so. She is a radical who hates the military and wants to destroy American society as we know it. I mean, who else would Barack Obama nominate to the Supreme Court? It's not like this is rocket science here. So, neither she nor her supporters can ever honestly and directly discuss her actual judicial philosophy, because the truth about her judicial philosophy is that the Constitution is wholly irrelevant to any decisions she will issue from the Court.
Thus, to a person, they all fall back on nonsensical irrelevancies like "pragmatism" and "consensus building" when asked to describe Ms. Kagan's philosophy.
In this, as with everything else they do, the radical leftists who run the National Democrat Party believe we are all too stupid and ignorant to figure out the truth before they get their damage done. In 2008, they turned out to be right.
But the nation will survive the rule of Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, because the great pendulum of
American politics is swinging back towards traditional values and conservatism, as it always does when confronted by the ugly face of leftism. This too shall pass, because nonsensical talking points only fool the public for so long before reality slaps us all back to our senses.
