Previously I have written about the dismal performance of our free and independent press in performing their duties as the watchdog for our republic.  I have bitterly complained that the liberal bias shown by the mainstream media gave us a socialist president with their blind dogmatic regurgitation of the leftist talking points.  Now the hand that fed them, slaps them on the nose while yelling “bad dog.”

The newest extremist put forward by the socialist administration is Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nominee.  I have several problems with Ms. Kagan, and it seems members of the media do also.  The first interview was done with a Whitehouse staffer asking the questions!  I feel pretty confident that most media outlets would not ask difficult questions of the nominee, but having your own staff play the part of reporter is outrageous. 

The video has been edited and cut together.  It is easy to see that the administration is only showing us what they want us to see.  I, being the helpful guy I am, decided I would try to recreate the parts of the “interview” that were deleted.  Here, to the best of my knowledge, are the parts of the “interview” that are on the cutting room floor:

Administration Junior Staffer Lackey Interviewer:  What is your opinion of military service and the role of the military?

Radical Supreme Court Nominee:  As my good friend Senator John Kerry pointed out, we all know military personnel are baby killers and do nothing but help to oppress people throughout the world.  That is why I banned them from recruiting on the campus of Harvard when I was the Dean.

Whitehouse Little More Senior Editor:  That is a great point Ms. Kagan, but unfortunately that warmonger Bush got us involved in an illegal war that we are stuck in.  We have to try to convince people we like the military or they won’t feel safe.  We will have to skip this answer.

Administration Junior Staffer Lackey Interviewer:  Ms. Kagan, what aspects of the First Amendment do you think we should repeal first?

Radical Supreme Court Nominee:  As I have argued before, the motive of the government is the most important factor when restricting free speech.  Government can restrict speech if the speech may cause harm.  Harm is defined as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words. 

Whitehouse Little More Senior Editor:  When you’re right, you’re right.  We have to stop people from saying naughty things, especially if they are talking about us.  Let’s do this, we will cut this answer out and after you are confirmed, you can side with the savior’s new leftist solicitor general in getting rid of this silly amendment. 

I’m sure there was more, but you get the idea.  We are getting another radical that no one knows anything about and the media will give a pass to because they are not doing their jobs.  We need a free and independent press to protect our freedoms.  We are not getting that.  I would ask each of you to pray for the health of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.  If we lose one of them, we are in big trouble.

Sounds like the ideal candidate, right?  Then something went wrong.  For some reason, the path she took to success is not the one that she believes everyone should, or is even capable of accomplishing.  That American dream is realized through hard work and discipline.  It would seem to me that someone with her background would encourage people to work hard for success, not have some judge dictate that they should be successful to the detriment of others.

Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor has shown she is a judicial activist.  She practices “Restorative Justice”.  This is a belief that the person needs to be restored to some level that the judge feels is appropriate.  (Thanks to Bobby F. for the academic lesson on judicial activism.)  If you want to be an advocate, don’t be a judge.  There are thousands of people that need the assistance of good lawyers to plead their cases.  Many are truly wronged, and our system of laws was created to provide due process.  Judges interpret the law, not produce it.

As I stated in my previous post, the socialist President would not make a mistake on his nominee.  He gave us the most liberal of the short list of candidates we were privy to.  I hope that this is a ploy to make us revolt against this candidate and then he will nominate a more moderate Judge.  Like the Bork nomination.  Put forth the most objectionable candidate first, then when that doesn’t work, make the next one tougher for the Senate to reject, since they already rejected one.

The Republicans should  filibuster this candidate.  Anyone who believes her gender or ethnic heritage will be useful in deciding cases does not understand that judges interpret the law.  Here is a quote from Judge Sotomayor:     ”I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  What!?!?  Is she serious?  Shouldn’t we have judges that actually make decisions based on the law?

I also found another stat very interesting.  Judge Sotomayor has had 6 cases she has ruled on go to the Supreme Court.  In five of the cases her position was overturned, and in the 6th, the court came to the same conclusion as her but stated her reasoning for making the decision was wrong.  SHE IS 0-6!   I have the same number of wins in the Supreme Court as she does!

America does not need this radical in the highest court in the land.  This is just another example of the horrible decision the citizens made by electing our socialist President.

With a huge staff, and plenty of advisors, he nominated Justice Souter to the Supreme Court.  On one of the most important decisions a President can make, 41 came up with Souter?  I hope someone on the staff that vetted him got fired.  Now that he is gone, I will bet that the socialist’s staff will not mistakenly nominate a conservative.  One thing we can count on is the liberal establishment has a long list of liberal activist judges just waiting for the opportunity to turn the Country left.

The only solace we have is that we are exchanging one liberal for another.  This process would be far more distasteful if 41 or his staff had done their jobs properly.  Too bad he didn’t quit when he considered it after Bush v. Gore.  He looks a little frazzled and overwhelmed:

So get ready for a pro-choice, big government, activist judge with an extreme liberal pedigree.  Thank God for Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and sometimes Kennedy.  We wont lose it now, but pray for their health.  One more loss and we will be feeling it for the next 30 years.