Yesterday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a statement about Obama nominating Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. His major complaint against Kagan seems to be this:
her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution “as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective'”
OMG, how can a nominee to the Supreme Court believe that the original constitution was defective?
Well, it turns out that Kagan was only quoting an actual Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, who in a 1993 article was using the example of how the original constitution only counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Kagan was praising the Supreme Court for fixing that.
So ironically Steele, who is black, is attacking Kagan for supporting blacks as full people.
UPDATE: More information.
9 Comments
Glenn Beck has already quoted Ms. Kagan’s college thesis as if she was giving an opinion (socialist, of course), when read in context it’s clear she was presenting one side of a two-sided argument. It could even be argued she was playing devil’s advocate regarding the early 20th century socialist movement. I haven’t yet heard how Hannity has spun it to prove she’s a “radical” and “socialist”.
Holy shite! I decided to look up Hannity’s early response and he tried long and hard to push bitter pantload Dick Morris into criticizing Kagan, but Morris has actually known her since his Clinton days and insisted that she is a moderate conservative, much to the chagrin of Hannity.
When you can’t find the facts you want, make shit up.
and if they say it long and loud enough, people will believe it. Sad, but true.
Bill, it’s to the point that they only have to say it once and a whole lot of people will believe it and not even use their Google thingy to verify. Or is Google part of the liberal conspiracy too?
Google allows you to look up liberal propaganda. On the other hand it allows you to look up first hand sources of good American conservative knowledge.
Justice Marshall was known for making this statement (he made it more than once), at least among those who follow the speeches of Supreme Court justices. I would have thought that this would have been “good American conservative knowledge” but I guess I’m wrong about that.
That’s not at all what Steele means. Take a fucking Logic class.
John, you must be a newbie here. Just making an assertion without backing it up with cogent arguments or references may work in other places, but it will just get you ignored in here. And while I don’t mind swearing that much, gratuitous swearing makes you look even more childish.
You claim that is not what Steele means. Well, he was attacking Kagan for agreeing with a statement made by Justice Marshall about how the original constitution was defective because it only counted blacks as 3/5 of a white person. Seems pretty clear that it is Steele who doesn’t know what he was talking about — either he had no clue about Marshall’s original statement, or he did and was ignoring it in an attempt to win cheap political points by making it look like Kagan doesn’t believe in the constitution. So which is he, an idiot or a liar? Your choice.