Progressivism: A Vapid and Hollow Charade
GOP senators should filibuster the Kagan nomination. I know, they’d lose. But they would hopefully awaken somnolent American citizens to the loss of their natural rights.
In a rare blip of actual substance, Kagan revealed she would not move to overturn a law mandating every citizen eat a congressionally-prescribed amount of vegetable every day. If Congress can tell us what to eat under threat of prosecution, what can they not do? (See George Will’s questions for Elena Kagan here and here)
Prosecute Kagan for Lying to Congress
Kagan also professed ignorance of the term “Judicial Progressivism.” This and her her studied agnosticism on natural rights (upon which our nation was founded), are enough to indict her for lying to Congress.
She was dean of Harvard Law School and she knows nothing of these issues? Either Harvard got ripped off big time, or she’s a liar.
If a Man Can Grant it to You, A Man can Take it Away
Jacob Sullum, in his excellent Reason article explains the importance of natural rights:
* - Kagan years ago called Supreme Court nomination hearings, "Vapid and hollow charades."
In a rare blip of actual substance, Kagan revealed she would not move to overturn a law mandating every citizen eat a congressionally-prescribed amount of vegetable every day. If Congress can tell us what to eat under threat of prosecution, what can they not do? (See George Will’s questions for Elena Kagan here and here)
Prosecute Kagan for Lying to Congress
Kagan also professed ignorance of the term “Judicial Progressivism.” This and her her studied agnosticism on natural rights (upon which our nation was founded), are enough to indict her for lying to Congress.
She was dean of Harvard Law School and she knows nothing of these issues? Either Harvard got ripped off big time, or she’s a liar.
If a Man Can Grant it to You, A Man can Take it Away
Jacob Sullum, in his excellent Reason article explains the importance of natural rights:
Constitutional interpretation aside, Kagan's reluctance to endorse the concept of pre-existing rights was troubling because without it we cannot draw moral distinctions between legal regimes.I include the two George Will articles because they are good thought pieces that help us ordinary folks think through constitutional concepts with concrete, real-world questions.
How can we condemn a dictator for legally authorized oppression, or say that our own Constitution is better now that it bans slavery than it was when it tacitly approved the practice?
The traditional American answer is that people have certain rights by virtue of being human, regardless of what the law says.
* - Kagan years ago called Supreme Court nomination hearings, "Vapid and hollow charades."
Comments
Post a Comment
RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.
All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.