Is it unreasonable to expect the Dean of Harvard Law School to know that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) is not a discriminatory “military policy”, but is instead a policy and regulation instituted by President Bill Clinton when the Supreme Court upheld the law stating that military service is not a right and that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Isn’t it also reasonable to presume that a law school dean would understand that the military must follow the policies of the commander in chief despite their (or her) personal feelings about those policies? Apparently, Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan was not aware that. Or, if she was aware, she believed that it was not compulsory for the military to obey.
Her approach to opposing DADT was also quite telling. She moved to ban recruiters from the Harvard campus because the “military policy” of not allowing open homosexual service according to her is, “a moral injustice of the first order.” Ms. Kagan apparently places personal ideology before compliance with the law (for the military DADT has the full affect of the law) – a dangerous attribute for a Supreme Court Justice. Dangerous for the country, that is. Her reaction shows that she believes that compliance with federal law is not compulsory if one disagrees with it ideologically. Maybe she should have moved to ban Bill Clinton from campus.
Why would Ms. Kagan direct her anger toward the military? Why not direct it toward the politicians responsible for DADT in the first place? I will tell you why. First, the military, like the state of Arizona, is enforcing a federal law that most liberals would prefer not be enforced. Secondly, liberals, like sharks, usually do not attack one another. To move their agenda ahead, they always need a villain and the military has always been a favorite villain for liberals. To repeal a law for which they are responsible, they must characterize it as something all liberals disdain, a “military policy.” It is easy to vilify a military that cannot speak out on its own behalf in such matters, especially when you lack the courage to take on the real culprits who you hope may someday appoint you to a high office.
Now Ms. Kagan is headed for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States and after the political posturing is done, she will secure the lifetime appointment to protect and defend your Constitution and the President will be one vote closer to a court packed with justices who support radical activism ahead of law.
“I will seek someone in the coming weeks with . . . an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people,” – President Obama
Did the President fulfill his own criteria for selecting a justice? There is no independent mind here. What is here is lock step liberal thinking in line with the President and his puppeteers. Record of excellence and integrity? Excellence is in the eye of the beholder. Integrity? If she were honest the target of her ire would be the people who wrote and passed the law she considers to have produced “a moral injustice of the first order” and not at those who are compelled to obey the law. A fierce dedication to the rule of law? Apparently not. A keen understanding how the law affects the daily lives of the American people? The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to ensure that our nation’s laws adhere to the provisions of the United States Constitution and not whether they are favorable to one group or another. Decisions must come down on the side of law. That is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
A Supreme Court Justice with an ideological approach to the law that takes precedence over the United States Constitution is most definitely an injustice of the first order.