Why do established lifelong left-wing liberals who are nominated to the Supreme Court always try to convince the Senate Committee and the American people that they’re actually centrist or even conservative?

By the time the nominee is sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, they are pretty much an open book as far as their views, opinions, and writings go. Yet, the nominee always winds up playing this phony cat and mouse game with the senators. Why don’t liberal activist lawyers and judges just tell the truth for once about their liberal worldviews and judicial philosophy? Are the senators on the committee and the informed slice of the American public really supposed to believe that Barack Obama would nominate a centrist or conservative to sit on the SCOTUS?

These ridiculous hearings point out what most of us already know; the Judiciary is just as politicized as the Executive and Legislative branches. Everyone understands that regardless of what the nominee says, he or she will rule on cases without any fear of the public or of the other branches of government once they put on that black robe. These judges can’t be recalled after they’re confirmed. They can’t be called back before congress and asked to explain why they ruled a certain way. They don’t have to answer to anybody!

Note to so-called Independents and Centrists: That’s why Presidential elections are kind of important!

Today Elena Kagan tried to say all the right things to all the right people. Some Republicans pushed her on certain issues, while the Dumbocrats threw her non- controversial softballs. (No homophobic innuendos intended!) Senator Tom Coburn engaged her about the loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause; Kagan responded by acting dumb and pretending she didn’t understand the questions. On the other side, the clown-faced phony, Patrick Leahy, kissed Kagan’s ample tukus every chance he got. Once in a while Kagan even seemed almost embarrassed at his obvious false flattery (butt kissing).

During the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings Rush Limbaugh made an excellent observation. He noticed how the Democrats (and Sotomayor herself) were playing up the ole work-ethic and pulling yourself up by the boot-straps angle in regards to Sotomayor’s climb to the SCOTUS. Rush commented on how left-wingers like Sotomayor never credit affirmative action or other liberal social programs for playing a part in their success even though they champion those very same programs for others. Instead, they always credit conservative principles such as hard work and industriousness for their success. That’s how phony and dishonest these liberal progressives are. Even in the age of Obama, they refuse to stand up and defend their core principles and values. Instead, they attempt to pass themselves off as just your average run of the mill centrist American.

Elena Kagan is a left-winger who was appointed by a President who is most likely a Marxist. When she finally puts on her black robe, she will judge the cases before her through the prism of her left-wing ideology regardless of what she’s now saying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So what else is new?

Senator Scott Brown (R?) from Massachusetts, along with his Democrat counterpart John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) introduced Kagan to the senate committee. I realized that the Dems were using the newly elected senator to score political points using his current popularity to try passing Kagan off as a centrist. Since Brown has become addicted to TV cameras after being elected to the senate, he was more than happy to oblige.

When Scott Brown began reading his prepared statement I was sort of surprised to find that he made George W. Bush sound like Sir Laurence Olivier. He stammered, stumbled, and fumbled his way through his written remarks; he sounded like Barack Obama without his teleprompter. I couldn’t help but think that he was pretty disappointing to the many Republicans who are still infected with Scott Brown fever. My fever subsided about a week to ten days after he was elected. I know, I know, he’s still one hundred times better than Ted Kennedy, but then again who isn’t?

During his remarks, Brown played up the Massachusetts connection with Elena Kagan saying that the he was “very proud that our nation’s first female Solicitor General has such deep roots in Massachusetts.” She attended Harvard Law School and then served as the school’s dean for less than six years – Deep Roots? If that wasn’t stretching the Massachusetts connection far enough, he then went on to say that “she has made significant contributions to Massachusetts, and I thank her for that.” I have always found it patronizing when politicians use the “state pride” schtick to score points. When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for the SCOTUS I was anything but proud that she was from NY. Like Sotomayor, Kagan was born and raised in NYC; along with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, this will make all three females on the Supreme Court New Yorkers. Where’s the diversity there?

Brown also described Kagan as being “undoubtedly brilliant.” Why is that Senator Brown? Is it simply because she attended Ivy League schools? Be careful there senator, you’re beginning to sound a bit elitist for a “man of the people.”

Speaking of elitists, after Brown was through brownnosing Elena Kagan and everyone stood up and started dispersing, I noticed an interesting scenario that should remind Scott Brown of where he really stands with the Democrats. Senator John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) rushed over to greet Kagan. At this point Scott Brown already started walking away when he abruptly returned to offer his hand to Lurch…I mean Kerry. Kerry first ignored Brown’s outstretched hand for a good three seconds before finally giving it a quick dismissive shake while still looking at and talking to Kagan. I thought that Scott Brown made himself look like a lightweight amateur by coming back only to be dissed by the snobby John Kerry – who served in Vietnam!

I know for a fact that Scott Brown is no conservative. That’s alright! I know where he comes from and what he seemingly believes he has to do to stay in office. However, I strongly urge Republicans not to proclaim him the next savior of the party just yet. I believe that Scott Brown will most likely become a male version of his northern colleagues Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. He may even one day become the next Arlen Specter.

I hope that I’m wrong – but I don’t know!

The Leftists who currently run wild throughout are nation’s capital and the mainstream media are nothing if they aren’t totally – completely – thoroughly – and absolutely PREDICTABLE!

I believe that Obama’s first Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, was chosen strictly because she was “Hispanic.” It also didn’t hurt that she also happened to be a woman – that was a bonus! Out of all the leftist attorney’s and judges out there, I don’t believe that Obama would just pick a run-of-the-mill white female Democrat. There has to be a bit more to it than that! That’s the way that leftists operate – the way they think.

I believe that one of the main reasons Obama chose Kagan was because he believes, or knows, that she is in fact Gay. If this is the case, then her sexual orientation is probably well known within the “progressive community.” For this theory to be accurate Obama and his people must also believe that gay people who aren’t part of the inner progressive circle will recognize Kagan as one of their own, otherwise part of the benefit is gone.

This is what makes the phony outrage over the WSJ picture even more laughable than usual. This also begs for an answer to the following politically incorrect question: Do gay people recognize each other as such?

I would assume that in most cases they do. Otherwise that would mean the only way that gay people could meet each other is by going to “gay bars” or using gay dating services. If one were to make that claim, one would surely be branded a homophobic bigot! Living in New York, I know and deal with many gay people. Most of them know that I know that they are gay even though they never told me so. Why do these people assume that I – a straight male – would know their sexual orientation? The same people also make assumptions about me; automatically assuming that I’m married, and that I have children. Furthermore, I believe that the vast majority of gay people would want to be recognized as gay. Many believe that they should have the right to marry each other, and there’s also a vibrant “gay pride” movement in most parts of the country. So why would it, or should it, be offensive to a gay person if they’re recognized as gay?

Do I believe that Elena Kagan is a lesbian? The answer to that is yes I do. Do I base that belief totally on her looks, the fact that she isn’t married, or because she batted clean-up for her softball team? The answer is no! Although I do possess a very good sense of “gaydar” from decades of living in New York, I also base my assumption on the fact that I know Obama and his kind better than they know themselves. With them it’s always about race, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. It’s a long standing staple of the progressive cookbook – good ole identity politics!

I believe that Elena Kagan is probably a radical lefty – that’s my problem with her. I don’t really give a rat’s derriere whether or not she’s a lesbian. However, I also believe that sexual orientation had a lot to do with her being picked. (Like I said; there are thousands of other loony leftists to choose from.) Obama and the Democrats are obsessed with identity politics and diversity. With the usual help from the MSM they will now use Kagan’s “assumed homosexuality” not only as a smokescreen, but also as a hammer to bash conservatives over the head with. They will also use her “assumed homosexuality” as a shield from her far-left views. The standard talking point will be that if you are against Kagan, you’re a rabid homophobe even though you’re not supposed to think that she’s gay in the first place. Go figure!

Not only is Liberalism a dishonest and destructive philosophy – it can also be pretty damn confusing.

Not only did this absurd bill limit political free-speech, but it also made it far more difficult to unseat incumbents. Many of us remember the buffoonish John McCain predicting that this would clean up the political system. McCain continuously claimed that money corrupts otherwise pure as the wind driven snow politicians. This is the same man that Republicans chose to represent the party in the most important election in a generation? I still can’t get over it!

As usual, when government sticks their long noses into things they should leave alone, there are always unintended consequences. Instead of Corporations, and non-profit advocacy groups we got the often sleazy 527’s which only corrupted the system more by making it harder to track contributions and their sources.

Even if you’re not an expert on campaign finance law (like me) you can tell that this was a good ruling simply by noticing who’s against it.

Barack Obama, our first Marxist president described the ruling this way:

“a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Does he mean like the powerful special interests who were meeting with the Democrats behind locked doors to help ram national healthcare down our throats while securing special deals for themselves? 

Sorry Mr. President, but the ruling doesn’t drown out the voices of everyday Americans at all. Everyday Americans can still contribute to, volunteer, and campaign for the candidate of their choice. Everyday Americans can still conribute to, or volunteer for non-profit advocacy groups.  Everyday Americans are also the stockholders in many corporations and they do have a voice in where political contributions should go. Americans that don’t agree with certain Corporations giving money to, or financing ads advocating a candidate or position can show their displeasure by divesting themselves from the company, or by not conducting business with the company.

Justice Anthony Kennedy was the deciding “swing vote” in the decision siding with Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Antonin Scalia, and John Roberts.

Justice John Paul Stevens headed the dissenters which included Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor.

 Justice Kennedy wrote the following for the majority:

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Amen to that!

Thank you Justice Kennedy.

The warning should read something like this:

 WARNING!

THE PROGRAM YOU ARE WATCHING MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL VIEWERS!

THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO STOMACH QUEASINESS AND VOMITING MAY NOT WANT TO VIEW THIS PROGRAMMING!

ALSO, THIS PROGRAMMING MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO TEND TO BECOME ILL WHEN WITNESSING SHAMELESS PANDERING AND BUTT KISSING PERFORMED BY U.S. SENATORS!

IF YOU HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN, YOU MAY NOT WANT THEM TO VIEW THE EXTREME LYING AND DOUBLETALK FEATURED IN THIS PROGRAMMING! ALLOWING CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 TO VIEW THIS PROGRAMMING MAY LEAD TO PATHILOGICAL LYING, NARCISISIM, AND IN EXTREME CASES, CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR!

These hearings are such a farce! I wish they would just swear her in already and bypass all of the nauseating BS. Sure, a couple of real Conservatives like Alabama’s Jeff Sessions asked her some tough questions, but the fix is in and the outcome is set in stone!

When Senator Sessions questioned Sotomayor about her repeated statements about female “Latinas” being superior to stupid white men, she claimed that she was trying to use a colorful “play on words” on a quote by the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Conner. Justice O’Conner once wisely said that “a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same results in a case.” Sotomayor said that her attempt on a “play on words” fell flat! I would suggest that Judge Sotomayor can learn something from stand-up comics. You see judge; when a comedian uses a joke that “bombs” or “falls flat” – they don’t use it anymore! Sotomayor kept using the same bad joke over and over!

Sotomayor also defended her “flat-falling” remark as a way to inspire other women and Latinos to pursue careers in law. Oh, I see….the way to inspire people is to tell them that they are superior to others! Using that logic, I guess that the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan only wants to inspire his followers as well.

What a pathetic answer!

Before you libs jump down my throat accusing me of comparing Judge Sotomayor to a Grand Wizard of the KKK, here’s something to think about.

Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza. This is the extreme race-based group which supports and promotes drivers licenses for illegal aliens, blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, and is against any law enforcement measures targeting illegal immigrants. By the way, the term “La Raza” translates to “The Race.” Just imagine a white Supreme Court Nominee being a member of a group that emphasizes the white “race” in its title!

Am I equating La Raza to the Ku Klux Klan?

No, I am not, but they aren’t exactly the Girl Scouts of America either!

As soon as Obama nominated Sotomayor, we all knew that her confirmation would be a slam dunk. In the balkanized America of 2009 “minority” Supreme Court Nominees are a sure bet for confirmation.

This nomination has nothing at all to do with judicial qualifications. The Obama administration knew from the get-go that the next Supreme Court Nominee had to be a female – preferably a “Latina.” If John McCain were elected, I believe that he would have picked a “Hispanic” as well. The days of nominating people on merit and qualifications are long over. The days of nominating people based on race, gender, and ethnicity are unfortunately here to stay.