Kagan is anti-military

Another friend of Elena Kagan takes a shot at defending her against the charge that she’s anti-military in today’s Washington Post. Walter Dellinger writes;

Under Kagan’s predecessor at Harvard, the highly respected corporate scholar Robert C. Clark, military recruiters acknowledged that they were not able to comply with the school’s generally applicable anti-discrimination policy and could not use the placement office’s services. In 2002, the Bush administration asserted that a federal provision called the Solomon Amendment required the law school to grant military recruiters an exemption from its anti-discrimination policy. Faced with a threatened cutoff of federal funds to the whole university, Clark announced that the placement office would begin assisting military recruiters. When Kagan became dean in 2003, she continued this practice.

In November 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional, which meant there was no longer an enforceable, federally mandated exception to the law school’s anti-discrimination policy. Kagan announced that military recruiters were once again ineligible for assistance from the school’s placement office. In the fall of 2004, after the Justice Department challenged the 3rd Circuit decision and the Supreme Court agreed to review the lower court’s ruling, Kagan announced that the school would once again comply with the government’s demand for placement-office support for military recruiters.

In short, Kagan did whatever she could do within the law to continue the flow of dollars from the government. Dellinger makes it seem as if she made accommodations for the military, when the truth is that she only did that when she had to do it.

As soon as the 3rd Circuit made the decision that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional, she withdrew her support of military recruiters. If she had continued the support of recruiters, despite the court’s decision, that would indicate she’s not anti-military. See how that works?

When she had to decide between gays and the military with no government interdiction, she chose gays.

Honestly, I don’t care – she is a through-and-through liberal who adheres to a Liberal agenda. That she doesn’t support the military is just part-and-parcel of being a Liberal and that’s why she shouldn’t be a judge because she’ll write intellectually vacant opinions and try to justify those opinions with the tiny words that occur in the Constitution.

My bitch about Dellinger is that he’s trying to cover for her, just like the countless others who’ve told us she’s not gay – it doesn’t matter. They think they can cover up the fact that she’s grossly unqualified for the Supreme Court by filling in these tiny irrelevant issues. No American Liberal is qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues