Kagan consensus builder?
Unhappy pouter and betrayer of the court, sad that bullying didn't work and she has no powers of influence.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
For generations, the Court understood to preserve the institution they need to instill confidence in the neutrality of the justice system and agree:
- the jurists are civil behind the scenes
- put the interests of the nation above personal ones
- evidenced by their unwillingness to talk of decisions or ill of their other jurists
Of course, that's never been true of the left side of the court, but the conservative/constitutionalist side of the court was civil enough to lie about it. Now that the left side is tantruming, that grace is evaporating.
Why isn't it true on the left side? The side that puts "progress" and political agenda above the oath of office (to protect the constitution), is going to naturally be more divisive. It's not activist to say they should do nothing or do less (just respect the constitution). But if you want progress, you need to convince others that things are so bad that progress is worth the risk of change. When the right loses, they point out the truth of the law/situation/issue. When the left loses, they have to double-down on thier lies/exaggerations to try to motivate more being willing to change and impose on others more. This is why it is the activist judges that are talking smack about the conservatives controlling the court, leaking documents, and pointing out their frustration or questioning the merits of the majority decisions while lying to the public about what is at issue and why. In other words, being Democrats.
So Scalia and Ginsburg were famously willing to overcome their differences for a shared love in opera or the institution. But replacing the left side of the court with more and more over-emotional lesbian activists, hasn't helped. Not that there's a problem with the lesbian part, but the activist part does fertilize bitter irrationality, and being a disenfranchised outsider increases the bitterness and extremism.
Compromise with what?[edit | edit source]
Kagan does things like whine that the Court's job is to compromise, and they're failing at it. These are the words of an ignorant leftist with no clue as to the rule of Justice. Remember:
- The rape victim shouldn't have to compromise with the rapist
- In right and wrong, liberty/slavery, good/evil, or Constitutionalism/Activism, there is no compromise necessary
- You are either defending the Constitution, or you are trying to legislate from the bench (be an activist/progressive, or in other words, undermine the law of the land)
- Compromise should never be a goal -- representing the law is the goal, and if one side is wrong, compromising with the wrong side is the worst thing you can do
The progressive can get educated, or be wrong -- but the fact that they can't persuade the justice-seeking to allow a little injustice to appease the other side, is a failure of the progressive goals, not of the other side to get along.
That's what Kagan is railing against. And the fact that she does, shows she's not a good jurists. The problems lie with her, not the court. And she can't get pouty and leave fast enough for the good of the nation. Though I expect she'll be as bitter and useless as an ex-jurist as she was as a jurist.
Dobbs[edit | edit source]
Her temper tantrum seems to be focused around Dobbs, and the court ruling that the constitution supersedes the left's agenda, and as the constitution says, all things not in the constitution should be left to the states. Since abortion wasn't enumerated in the constitution, it's up to the states to decide. Leftists (Kagan) are outraged that they don't get to tell others what to do, and that's the root of her frustration. Waaa! I can't get my way, and they won't put my feelings above the law of the land.
All her whining needs to be seen in that context.
It's not activism to re-center the court back on what the original intent of the constitution is -- even if you really, really like the idea of killing viable babies. And that's what the Politico haigiography is about -- convincing (or supporting) their gullible readership that Kagan's unhappiness is about Conservative Activism running away and her being unable to control it. Which is ass-backwards. In the real world what's happening is that the Constitutionalist side of the court is putting originalism over leftists legislating from the bench, and returning us back to the law of the land over the law of the leftist oligarchs... and the progressive left is unhappy that they are forced to live under the constraints of the law.
So Kagan whines about precedent -- but Dredd Scott was precedent, and bad precedents need to be broken. What she never does well is defend why Roe was good law, or why any of the activists decisions have legal merit. Virtually all honest legal experts admit Roe was a horrible and unconstitutional ruling, even RGB admitted that. But Politico and Kagan? It's beyond their ethical carrying capacity to tell the truth and offer that context.
Since they can't argue facts, they argues feels. "We gave people a right, and now we took it away". False you ignorant twat, rights are inalienable (granted by God or nature) -- you just recognize them or not. The court doesn't grant rights. And in this case, the power of states to self-govern overrides the power of the federal government to decide for states and individuals what is right. That's the problem that the far left refuses to admit, and thus you can ignore them as either clueless or dishonest. Right up to their Supreme Court Justice picks such as Kagan, and her little tantrums that progressive bullying is losing to the law of the land, and she's helpless to stop the march towards liberty.
- Politico: How Justice Kagan lost her battle as a consensus builder of course this ignores that she has no record of ever being a consensus builder.