(Sure, and Pat the Catholic has a problem with 6 Catholics on the bench...NOT!!!) Buchanan was baptized into the Catholic Church and studied at Blessed Sacrament School and Jesuit-run Gonzaga College High School. Are liberals anti-WASP? Posted: May 13, 2010 7:36 pm Eastern By Patrick J. Buchanan "A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian-American." CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed "Kagan's record on diversity as one that a 'white Republican U.S. president' would be criticized for." This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court. Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals. Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity? Don't miss Buchanan's classic book "The Death of the West" But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population. Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North. What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis? And not in nearly half a century has a Democratic president nominated a white Protestant or white Catholic man or woman. The last was Byron "Whizzer" White, the all-American running back from the University of Colorado, nominated by his friend Jack Kennedy. White cast one of the only two votes against Roe v Wade. What of the record of Republican presidents? Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford made seven nominations. All were white Protestant males: Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harrold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens. The diversity Nixon sought was first to put a Southerner on the court. He succeeded in his third try, with Powell. And he sought to put the first woman on the court, but pulled back from nominating Judge Mildred Lillie of California when the American Bar Associated rated her unqualified. With Ronald Reagan and Bush I came Republican diversity. Reagan's first choice was Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman ever nominated. His second was Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American. When his third nominee, Robert Bork, a Protestant, was rejected, Reagan chose Bork's Jewish colleague on the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia, Douglas H. Ginsburg. When Douglas Ginsburg was pulled because of a marijuana incident in college, Reagan chose the Irish Catholic Anthony Kennedy. George H. W. Bush picked David Souter, a Protestant from New Hampshire, and Clarence Thomas, the second African-American to sit. George W. Bush chose John Roberts, a Catholic; Harriet Miers, the first Evangelical Christian of our era; and Sam Alito, the second Italian Catholic. If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith. If Kagan is confirmed, three of the four justices nominated by Democratic presidents will be from New York City: Kagan from the Upper West Side, Sotomayor from the Bronx, Ruth Bader Ginsburg from Brooklyn. Breyer is from San Francisco. (Column continues below) What kind of diversity is this â either in geography or life experience? While Sotomayor went to Yale Law School, the other three liberals went to Harvard, though Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia. Seems a fairly narrow range for a party that once claimed to be America's party. Ruth Bader Ginsburg tied for first in her class at Columbia, but neither Obama nominee is academically distinguished. Sotomayor called herself an "affirmative action baby" who, at Princeton, was urged to read children's books in the summer to improve her reading and writing skills. Kagan never served as a judge, never litigated a case before being named solicitor general, never wrote a book or anything else anyone has turned up that manifests real legal scholarship. From her Princeton thesis on the sad demise of 20th-century socialism, to her tears at the defeat of the radical liberal Senate candidate Elizabeth Holtzman in 1980, to her hostility to the U.S. military on the Harvard campus while dean of the law school, Kagan has revealed herself to be one more Ivy League leftist anxious to use a lifetime seat on the court, winning the plaudits of her peers by imposing her ideology on a nation that has never voted for it. Conservatives will not soon get another opportunity like this to take down Ivy League pretensions to represent and rule America.
LOL! LOL! LOL! Dumbass, Pat Buchanan is not even a WASP. LOL!LOL!LOL! Did you even read the article? LOL! Why are all the marxists so fixated on race? You guys are the most race obsessed freaks on the planet. How qualified someone is to be a judge has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT RACE THEY ARE! Unless of course you prescribe to the leading "wise latina" theory. LOL!!!
Yes, I read the article. I also read the title of his article: "Are liberals anti-WASP?" So Pat is Catholic...so technically it doesn't make him a WASP...it makes him a WASC. Which is so much different... "Buchanan has English, German, Scots Irish, and Irish ancestry." Does that mean Buchanan is not a WASP? You might want to read this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant
LOL!! LOL!!! Fucking idiot doesn't even know what a WASP is!!! Yet another demonstration of social ignorance from the village ankle grabber. He thinks Pat Buchanan is a WASP LOL!!! LOL!! Yes and when you read the wikipedia article, it says : "Catholics, Mormons and Jews are not considered WASPs, nor are people of Hispanic or Asian descent." LOL!!! The racist ankle grabber dunce strikes out yet again. LOL!!!
Not considered by whom? By you? By Protestants? Read the first part of the article on Wiki, please... White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, commonly abbreviated WASP, is a term used in the United States, usually in a reference to an apparent elite status. Although "Anglo-Saxon" generally refers to those of English descent, people descended from elsewhere in western and northern Europe are often included. Buchanan is professing his love for his fellow WASPs...republican, white, English/Irish, western and northern Europe descent... I know you think you are winning something...but you are not. I also find it interesting that no one has focused on this aspect of the reaction to Buchanan's comments: And here's the ADL's statement: ADL SAYS BUCHANANâS ANTI-SEMITISM UNABATED AFTER HIS REMARKS ABOUT JEWS ON THE SUPREME COURT New York, NY, May 15, 2010 ⦠The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called Pat Buchanan âa recidivist anti-Semite who doesnât miss an opportunity to show his fangs,â in response to remarks he made about the Jewish faith of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and the religious makeup of the current court. Buchanan wrote in his May 14 syndicated column, âIf Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democratsâ idea of diversity?â Buchanan continued, âNot in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian, or Polish Catholic ⦠What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis?â Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement: Pat Buchanan is a recidivist anti-Semite who never misses an opportunity to show his fangs. His remarks about the Jewish background of Elena Kagan and the religious makeup of the Supreme Court are bigoted and unacceptable in a pluralistic society such as ours. Kaganâs nomination for the Supreme Court should be considered on its merits. She is a highly qualified candidate for the judiciary, an exemplary Solicitor General and a great legal mind. As the nomination process for Kagan moves forward, we hope that all Americans will reject appeals to bigotry and anti-Semitism. Editors Note: Pat Buchananâs history of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and racist remarks is chronicled in âPat Buchanan In His Own Words,â which is available on the Leagueâs Web site at www.adl.org. The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the worldâs leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/pat_buchanans_long_battle_for.html
Lets make one thing clear. Kagan is less qualified than judge judy. She has not litigated, been a judge or written anything of note. Her only qualification is radical liberal. Obama is as much a turd as Bush was for nominating miers. the only difference is the right had the integrity to expect more form their president.
I've read mixed opinions on whether or not she is actually qualified. Not sure what really qualifies someone to render legal opinions. Truly, I don't know enough to form an opinion. I am assuming more will be revealed as we get deeper into the process. I also think a review of history will show that effective justices in the past did not have to have litigated or served as judges to render legal opinions. However, why do you suggest that she is a radical liberal? Does she lean liberal? Likely. Did Alito and Roberts tilt to the right? Yes, or course. But is she a radical liberal? I don't see it... Don't you think the ideal court is 4 right, 4 left, and one moderate? Surely you must admit that while you have your own opinions, the concept of an absolute opinion on laws written hundreds of years ago, without taking into account the changes in our society is not terrible productive. There is no way the founders could have ever predicted the technological and other changes that shape out country, if not our world. Fundamentalism has never produced a balanced society, any more than pure anarchy... So how about a balanced court? I have a much harder time with 6 justices belonging to the same religious training than I do anything else.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Monday said President Obama's choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, was not a nominee against whom he would "fight the last mile" to block Senate confirmation. "She seems like a very well-qualified person and somebody that - certainly not somebody that I'd appoint, but I don't think she'd be somebody that I would, you know, fight the last mile to try to stop her," Giuliani told POLITICO at a fundraiser for New York GOP gubernatorial hopeful Rick Lazio. "I don't think that she's that kind of extremist that you would do that," he added. Giuliani, a GOP presidential candidate in 2008, spoke hours after Obama introduced Kagan, a New Yorker and former Harvard Law School dean, as his choice. "I think the biggest issue she's going to have is the military one..about the ROTC," he said, referring to her wanting to ban military recruitment when she was Harvard because of the military's ban on gays serving openly. "I don't think she's going to have too many legal issues to deal with, in part because she's not been a judge" or practicing privately in cases. "She's got something the left is worried about, and something the right is worried about - the left is worried about her support for executive power and the right is worried about her on almost every other issue," Giuliani said, chuckling. He said while he hasn't personally studied her record, "I've always been a big believer that the president gets to select and then the Senate rejects if the person is really unqualified. "Because we elect a president, and we expect that he's going to appoint somebody that fits his basic political philosophy, and she does not seem to me to be an extremist," he said. "If he'd picked somebody that would be an extremist, then I think that would be much more of a battle." Asked whether Obama is drawing from the same rarefied Ivy League pool for his picks, Giuliani - who was raised in Brooklyn and Long Island and went to Manhattan College and New York University law school - said it wasn't fair to blame the Democratic president for that, since the other members of the court all have similar backgrounds. "Sure, it would be better to have a Supreme Court that had a little more diversity with regard to educational background," he said, but added , "They may all come from Harvard and Yale, but they seem like eight very different people." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37050.html#ixzz0nyHISST9
Nice spin - you would be qualified to render legal opinions .... but we are talking about perhaps the most important institution in our country. . it should be whether she has shown she is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.
He is a former prosecutor and yet he does not think her skill and experience as a judge is worth mentioning? She must be friends with one of his crew.