If Peter LaBarbera, Brian Camenker and Amy Contrada are “investigative reporters,” then I’m the Mayor of Cowboy Spaceman Ballerina Ninja Turtles, and you will respect my authority as such!

Anyway, the She-Spies up there have released a report on Elena Kagan’s “Radically Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Transsexual Record” when she was at Harvard, so let’s have a look:

WARNING: Offensive Language

Apparently Contrada couldn’t refrain from dropping F-bombs throughout the slumber party, I mean “investigation.”

Many will be shocked at just how extreme Harvard has become ‚Äî and the radical sexual/gender policies advanced by Kagan. Kudos to Amy and our friends at Mass Resistance for doing the reporting that most in the liberal media refuses to do (because too many agree with Kagan’ left-wing social agenda).

It’s nice when SPLC-certified hate groups are able to play nice with each other. It shows they don’t just hate willy-nilly, but rather can unite under the common cause of hating gays and SCOTUS nominees anywhere to the left of Genghis Khan.

Anyway, the whole report is at MassResistance’s website, and you can peruse it for yourself if you’re bored to tears or waiting for a dishwasher to be delivered or something, or if you want the Cliff Notes version, go to Peter’s site. Basically, they’re angry because Elena Kagan isn’t a bigot. That’s all you need to know. What’s funny, though, is that, though I understand that, naturally, hard right extremist hate group leaders aren’t likely to fall in love with a centrist Democrat’s pick for the Supreme Court, they don’t seem to understand democracy at all. Their side lost fair and square in the last election. Unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat (and abandon their hilarious belief that they need to run further to the right to beat Obama next time around), they will lose fair and square in the 2012 elections.

So, you know, deal with it. Obama gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and neither of his picks so far have been all that radical. Actual progressives (as opposed to the caricatures of progressives that conservatives draw) wish he would name a real liberal to the court, but it hasn’t happened. If and when the Republicans take back the White House, that president will get to make SCOTUS appointments.

Civics 101!

This is a huge ruling where nondiscrimination is concerned:

An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won’t let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group’s “discriminatory practices.”

The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as being inconsistent with that faith.

But Hastings, which is in San Francisco, said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.

The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group’s First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college’s nondiscrimination policy.

Note the important factor here is that the group in question wanted to have it both ways: to be sponsored/funded by the university, yet discriminate against an entire class of people. The Religious Right will, as they commence moaning about “activist judges,” gloss over this fact, but the Christian group wasn’t hurt in any way. They simply have to play by the rules of any other organization on campus, which, to them, is sometimes the greatest offense of all.

(h/t Joe Sudbay)

Imagine attending college from freshmen year through senior year without asking a single question in class.

It is unfathomable that one could graduate after four years of such an elongated stretch of conspicuous silence. Obviously, professors and peers would lose respect for this student’s cognitive abilities and think this individual was concealing a basic lack of knowledge.

At best, they would consider the pupil intellectually incurious, and at worst, they would label him or her mentally deficient.

To the point, I was reading the newspaper this morning and stumbled upon this startling fact: Justice Clarence Thomas has not asked a question from the bench since February 2006.

This is absolutely outrageous and speaks to the man’s ignorance and arrogance. Imagine the chutzpah he has thinking that he does not have to participate in the process. If each SCOTUS member behaved in such an irresponsible manner, the court could not function.

Justice Thomas is a disgrace to the Supreme Court and it is insulting that he has a say in the most important decisions that affect our nation. It is time he starts joining the discussion or he should step down before he degrades the court any further. If he does not have the wherewithal to ask pertinent questions, we ought to question his fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court broke America. That may be a little bit hyperbolic, but not by much. If you’re a bit confused about the repercussions of this decision that came down yesterday, this decision that all of your lawyer friends (except those who somehow managed to pass the bar, yet can’t communicate beyond GOP talking points), liberal and conservative, are extremely concerned about, here’s a quick primer. In Citizens United v. FEC (PDF), the Supreme Court struck down over sixty years of precedent and ruled that the government may not regulate spending by corporations in elections. The rules were there for a reason: Because of the deep coffers of, say, Exxon-Mobil or Goldman Sachs, allowing them to spend freely to influence elections very easily overpowers our own rights as citizens. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil was never prohibited from contributing, just like any other citizen. But now the Supreme Court has essentially said that Exxon-Mobil, itself, is a citizen, and entitled to all of the same rights that you and I enjoy in electing our leaders and representatives. Let that sink in for a minute. A little more detail:

(Read More)