The appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on Aug. 5, 2010, checked off three standard markers of the American plutocracy: she’s a woman, she’s Jewish and she’s mediocre.
In a typical inversion, after Kagan was nominated, hack (((Robert Frank))) penned an article in the Wall Street Journal (“That Bright, Dying Star, the American WASP”) hailing the rise of a “meritocracy” in which Jews could finally assume their rightful place as an elite class. Frank did a victory dance, cheering the demise of those lazy and corrupt WASPs (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant). He opined the standard line that Jews have achieved so much because of their “bookish culture.” After Kagan replaced Justice Stevens, there were no more bookish white Protestants (WASPs) left on the court.
However, even liberal wag the Daily Beast questioned this deceptive propaganda. Paul Campos wrote that “if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan’s scholarly writings are lifeless, dull and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it’s unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.”
Kevin McDonald was more direct: “When she received tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, she had exactly two scholarly articles published in law journals — a record that would ordinarily not get her tenure even at quite a few third-tier universities much less an elite institution like the University of Chicago.”
The main compliment about Kagan by others throughout her career is that she has “coalition-building skills,” whatever that means. She is also supposedly noted for quips and sharp humor, indicating glad-handing as well as in-group tribal nepotism, which was instrumental to her rise.
Manhattan-born Kagan, who identifies with conservative Judaism, attended Princeton after high school. In her senior thesis at the university, she lamented the fall of the Socialist Party in America, under historian Sean Wilentz, titled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900–1933.” She wrote, “Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.”
In 1980, Goldman Sachs Global bestowed on Kagan a scholarship to study at Oxford, from which she graduated with a master of philosophy in politics degree in 1983. She then entered Harvard Law School. Though she was described as “good with people,” she received poor grades, completing only 17 out of 21 classes. Yet, she still received a law degree.
After law school, she was immediately handed a plum position clerking for Jewish Judge Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. circuit. Then for four years, she was on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School as an assistant professor, where she published a law review article on the First Amendment and hate speech. In 1993, then Sen. Joe Biden appointed Kagan as a special counsel for Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
When Mikva became White House Counsel he brought Kagan with him, where she served as a consigliere to then President Bill Clinton on various skullduggery related to Whitewater, the White House travel office scandal, and the lawsuit by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. In appreciation, Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals. But the Republican-controlled Senate never scheduled a hearing on her nomination.
Kagan then decided to return to academia and tried to get rehired at the University of Chicago, but the school didn’t want her back. Fortunately for Kagan, Clinton’s Treasury boy — the undistinguished Jewish mediocrity and Goldman Sachs mover and shaker Larry Summers — became president of Harvard after Clinton’s term. He hired Kagan as a full professor and shortly thereafter promoted her to dean of Harvard Law. During her unremarkable tenure, she argued against “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy toward homosexuality as discriminatory, and she managed to score high marks for “fundraising.” She was reportedly disappointed she wasn’t chosen replace Summers as president of Harvard when he stepped down in 2007.
From 2005 through 2008, Kagan was a paid member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. What’s Kagan’s qualifications and experience with global markets and financial market research? None whatsoever.
Jan. 5, 2009, newly elected President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Kagan as Solicitor General. Before this appointment she had never argued a case before any court. During her 15 months as solicitor general, training-wheels Kagan argued only six cases before the Supreme Court.
Just five months later, the Associated Press reported that Obama was considering Kagan for the Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Souter. After all, the media reported, it’s not unusual for the solicitor general to take the bench. Ultimately, Obama nominated Sotomayor.
But Kagan didn’t have to wait long. In April 2010, Justice Stevens announced his retirement. The following May, Obama announced Kagan as his choice to replace him. The following video shows Kagan demonstrating her “wit” with fellow snakes at her Senate confirmation hearing, if you can stomach it.
Kagan was the first justice appointed without any prior experience as a judge since William Rehnquist in 1972. This gave her a scant paper trail to illuminate her true proclivities.
During her first year on the Supreme Court, Kagan had numerous conflicts of interests. From October 2010 to June 2011, she recused herself from 28 out of the 78 cases heard. Her first case was a pro-bankster vote, favoring credit card companies in bankruptcy cases.
Fast forward to 2018, and it’s glaringly apparent why she’s on the Supreme Court. With speech rights now front and center on social media and elsewhere, Kagan is demonstrably anti-First Amendment.
One of her rare writings from 1993 expressed her views thusly:
“Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” (60 University of Chicago Law Review 873;) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”
How the “uncoerced disappearance of certain forms of speech” that she doesn’t like is accomplished is not entirely clear. But she does believe that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts. These view are in line with the views of the ADL, the SPLC and the rest of the organized Jewish community.
In an exchange with Sen. Lindsey Graham during her confirmation hearing, Commissar Kagan also showed her proclivities to be a neocon stooge and gulag enabler. Graham praised a case Kagan’s office won in federal court that denied detainees at Bagram Air Force Base the chance to challenge their detention in federal court.
Graham also asked Kagan whether she agreed with the Obama administration’s proposition that in the current “war on terror” the definition of a battlefield is the “entire world” — a stance that has infuriated some liberals. Kagan replied that as a legal policy matter as solicitor general, she agreed.
Kagan also indicated what she thought about reading Miranda rights to a terrorism “suspect”:
“Do you think it would be in the United States’ best interest to have clear guidance to our intelligence community, give them the tools and the flexibility when they capture one of these guys, whether it be in Times Square or in Detroit, to find out, without having to do anything else at the moment, what’s the next attack?” [Sen. Graham] asked.
“I suppose on this one, Sen. Graham, that I’m reluctant to say how I would think about the question as an average, everyday citizen, because I might have to think about the question as a judge,” Kagan replied.
She reiterated that she is comfortable with trying “suspected terrorists” in military commissions.
“Do you personally feel comfortable with that?” Graham asked.
“I do. I wouldn’t be in this administration if I didn’t,” she replied.