Up in Smoke: Failed U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Douglas Ginsburg to Join Faculty at New York University School of Law

In 1986, D. C. Circuit Court Judge Douglas Ginsburg was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan. He would have replaced retiring Justice Lewis Powell, except that President Reagan withdrew Ginsburg's nomination after revelations emerged that he'd smoked marijuana as a faculty member at Harvard Law. (NPR's hatchet-woman Nina Totenberg revealed the information, of course, and Ginsburg confessed.)

I discuss Ginsburg's failed nomination every semester during coverage of Supreme Court nominations. Ginsburg was selected by Reagan after Robert Bork was rejected in his Senate confirmation vote. And I can never forget the Newsweek cover story from back in the day, "The Ginsburg Fiasco: Up in Smoke."



In any case, he's in the news, at BLT, "D.C. Circuit Judge Ginsburg to Join NYU Law Faculty." (At Memeorandum and Volokh.)

Humberto Leal, Mexican Citizen, Executed in Texas

At New York Times, "Mexican Citizen Is Executed as Justices Refuse to Step In."

More at Memeorandum.

Progressives Raise Pressure for Ginsberg Retirement

Althouse blogs this report from the Associated Press: "Justice Ginsburg's Future Plans Closely Watched." And this is fascinating:

Ginsburg, the second woman on the bench, has only to look at the first for a cautionary tale about retiring. Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement in 2005 in part so she could take care of her ailing husband, John. Two months later, Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in office.

Meanwhile, John O'Connor's health declined much faster than his wife anticipated and he soon was living in a nursing home in Arizona. Would she have quit the court had she known what awaited?

In retirement, O'Connor has maintained a busy schedule, hearing cases on federal appeals courts as well as advocating for Alzheimer's funding, improved civics education and merit selection, rather than partisan election, of state judges.

O'Connor, now 81, also has said she that she regrets that some of her decisions have been "dismantled" by the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito, who took her seat in 2006, has voted differently from O'Connor in key cases involving abortion rights, campaign finance and the use of race in governmental policies.

O'Connor regretted retiring not long after she left the job. She was pressured out at the time, and she's spoken out against it in later interviews.

High-Tech Lynching: Progressives Attack Clarence Thomas Alleged Ethics Breach Because He's a Black Conservative

It's one of the greatest apostasies from progressivism. To be black and conservative is to reject everything about the politics of racial grievance and victimology. And for 20 years we've seen Clarence Thomas bear the brunt of the left's attack on black conservatism at the Supreme Court. I mentioned it today, the story at New York Times, "Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics." And I linked Althouse, but folks need to go over there again, because she hammers the progressive hypocrisy: "The NYT goes after Clarence Thomas over 'an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship'."

And here comes the Soros-funded Think Progresss, "Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done":

Justice Clarence Thomas is an ethics problem in a black robe.

And he's being subjected to a high-tech attack in a white robe.

Despicable, but it's the progressive left we're talking about, so there you go. Just terrible people.

Via Memeorandum.

Supreme Court Allows In-State Tuition to Illegal Immigrants

At Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court allows California to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants."

And also, "Supreme Court ruling on California immigrant tuition rates could affect other states' policies."

And checking that link we see a picture of students with "DREAM" signs, like "The DREAM is Coming." More like the open borders nightmare is coming. See: "America’s Bad DREAM."

RELATED GRAPHIC: "Illegal immigrants and state universities."

Supreme Court Upholds Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007

At Los Angeles Times, "'Business death penalty' for hiring illegal workers is upheld by Supreme Court." (Via Memeorandum. Also at New York Times, "Justices Uphold Law Penalizing Hiring of Illegal Immigrants.")

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers can lose their license to do business.

The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.

The court's decision did not deal with the more controversial Arizona law passed last year that gave police more authority to stop and question those who are suspected of being in the state illegally. But the ruling is likely to encourage the state and its supporters because the court majority said states remained free to take action involving immigrants.

Thursday's decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that federal law said states may not impose "civil or criminal sanctions" on employers.

PHOTOS: "South O.C. Patriots Rally for Arizona!"

'Internationalism Run Amok'

From Gov. Jan Brewer's statement denouncing the 9th Circuit's ruling yesterday. And here's some internationalism run amok:

Ninth Circuit Rules Against Arizona's SB 1070

The main story's at WaPo, "Court upholds block on parts of Arizona immigration law" (via Memeorandum). Also, William Jacobson has the court's ruling: "9th Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Arizona Immigration Law."

But see Andrew Malcolmn, "Next move in the Arizona illegal immigration law fight: An immediate Supreme Court petition?"

One next move might be to get back out to Phoenix for some protests. Those were the days:

Photos: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."

Real Marriage is the Union of Husband and Wife

Now that DADT has fallen, radical progressives will escalate their attacks on DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). It's not likely that Republicans in the new Congress will be sensitive to progressive concerns, but the Obama administration will face continued attacks for "selling out" the progressive base to the political center. Not only that, we have Prop. 8 working its way up to the Supreme Court, and my sense is that if Anthony Kennedy is the deciding vote, the Court will strike down Prop. 8 with arguments along the same lines as Lawrence v. Texas.

In any case, progressives could very well prevail on gay marriage at the federal level eventually, although not without a fight. And taking up arms anew are Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, in their new paper, "What is Marriage":

Real Marriage Is—And Is Only—The Union of Husband and Wife

As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity. All three elements point to the conjugal understanding
of marriage.

1. Comprehensive Union

Marriage is distinguished from every other form of friendship inasmuch as it is comprehensive. It involves a sharing of lives and resources, and a union of minds and wills—hence, among other things, the requirement of consent for forming a marriage. But on the conjugal view, it also includes organic bodily union. This is because the body is a real part of the person, not just his costume, vehicle, or property. Human beings are not properly understood as nonbodily persons—minds, ghosts, consciousnesses—that inhabit and use nonpersonal bodies. After all, if someone ruins your car, he vandalizes your property, but if he amputates your leg, he injures you. Because the body is an inherent part of the human person, there is a difference in kind between vandalism and violation; between destruction of property and mutilation of bodies.

Likewise, because our bodies are truly aspects of us as persons, any union of two people that did not involve organic bodily union would not be comprehensive—it would leave out an important part of each person’s being. Because persons are body‐mind composites, a bodily union extends the relationship of two friends along an entirely new dimension of their being as persons. If two people want to unite in the comprehensive way proper to marriage, they must (among other things) unite organically—that is, in the bodily dimension of their being.

This necessity of bodily union can be seen most clearly by imagining the alternatives. Suppose that Michael and Michelle build their relationship not on sexual exclusivity, but on tennis exclusivity. They pledge to play tennis with each other, and only with each other, until death do them part. Are they thereby married? No. Substitute for tennis any nonsexual activity at all, and they still aren’t married: Sexual exclusivity — exclusivity with respect to a specific kind of bodily union—is required. But what is it about sexual intercourse that makes it uniquely capable of creating bodily union? People’s bodies can touch and interact in all sorts of ways, so why does only sexual union make bodies in any significant sense “one flesh”? Our organs—our heart and stomach, for example—are parts of one body because they are coordinated, along with other parts, for a common biological purpose of the whole: our biological life. It follows that for two individuals to unite organically, and thus bodily, their bodies must be coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole.

Here is another way of looking at it. Union on any plane — bodily, mental, or whatever—involves mutual coordination on that plane, toward a good on that plane. When Einstein and Bohr discussed a physics problem, they coordinated intellectually for an intellectual good, truth. And the intellectual union they enjoyed was real, whether or not its ultimate target (in this case, a theoretical solution) was reached—assuming, as we safely can, that both Einstein and Bohr were honestly seeking truth and not merely pretending while engaging in deception or other acts which would make their apparent intellectual union only an illusion.

By extension, bodily union involves mutual coordination toward a bodily good—which is realized only through coitus. And this union occurs even when conception, the bodily good toward which sexual intercourse as a biological function is oriented, does not occur. In other words, organic bodily unity is achieved when a man and woman coordinate to perform an act of the kind that causes conception. This act is traditionally called the act of generation or the generative act; if (and only if) it is a free and loving expression of the spouses’ permanent and exclusive commitment, then it is also a marital act.

Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to which it is integral are valuable whether or not conception results and even when conception is not sought. But two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate. This is a clear sense in which their union cannot be marital, if marital means comprehensive and comprehensive means, among other things, bodily.

2. Special Link to Children

Most people accept that marriage is also deeply—indeed, in an important sense, uniquely—oriented to having and rearing children. That is, it is the kind of relationship that by its nature is oriented to, and enriched by, the bearing and rearing of children. But how can this be true, and what does it tell us about the structure of marriage?

It is clear that merely committing to rear children together, or even actually doing so, is not enough to make a relationship a marriage — to make it the kind of relationship that is by its nature oriented to bearing and rearing children. If three monks agreed to care for an orphan, or if two elderly brothers began caring for their late sister’s son, they would not thereby become spouses. It is also clear that having children is not necessary to being married; newlyweds do not become spouses only when their first child comes along. Anglo‐American legal tradition has for centuries regarded coitus, and not the conception or birth of a child, as the event that consummates a marriage. Furthermore, this tradition has never denied that childless marriages were true marriages ...

This is basically the argument I've made against same-sex marriage following the passage of Prop. 8 in November 2008.

There's a rebuttal from Kenji Yoshino at Slate, "The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why it Fails." And then the "What is Marriage" authors respond: "The Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why it Doesn’t Fail."

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson Strikes Down ObamaCare

Actually, just a part of ObamaCare.

R.S. McCain has the story, and also lots of stuff at Memeorandum. I'm reading through the debate, but Josh Marshall's shock is ticklish:

A year ago, no one took seriously the idea that a federal health care mandate was unconstitutional. And the idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to "economic activity" seems preposterous on its face. But the decision that just came down from the federal judgment in Virginia -- that the federal health care mandate is unconstitutional -- is an example that decades of Republicans packing the federal judiciary with activist judges has finally paid off.

Well, it's still a pretty close balance at The Supremes, so let's hold off a bit on all of this while the appeals process works itself out. That could take a while, but the political wheels continue to turn. (And no doubt Jimmy Carter is smiling somewhere.)

Added: Check Doug Ross on Josh Marshall, "Idiot Blogger: No One Took ObamaCare Constitutionality Question Seriously, Except for 20 State Attorneys General and Hundreds of Scholars."

Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination Case Heads to Supreme Court

This thing is huge.

At NYT, "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wal-Mart Appeal":

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart Stores had discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion. The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.

The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability.

If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case. Arguments in the case are likely to be heard this spring, with a decision expected by the end of June.

Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the plaintiffs, who worked in 3,400 stores in 170 job classifications, could not possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has granted review in this important case,” Wal-Mart said in a brief statement. “The current confusion in class-action law is harmful for everyone — employers, employees, businesses of all types and sizes and the civil justice system. These are exceedingly important issues that reach far beyond this particular case.”

There has been no ruling yet on the plaintiffs’ claims that they were discriminated against, and the ground rules for how those claims will be heard have not yet been determined. Resolution of the merits of the plaintiffs’ case will now await a decision about whether it may go forward as a class action.

In their brief urging the justices to deny review, the plaintiffs said Wal-Mart’s objection to class-action treatment boiled down to the enormous size of the class. But size is “legally irrelevant,” the brief said.

“The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest employer,” the brief said, “and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner.”

Brad Seligman, the main lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Monday that plaintiffs welcomed the court’s review of the limited issue and were confident that the justices would rule in their favor.

“Wal-Mart has thrown up an extraordinarily broad number of issues, many of which, if the court seriously entertained, could very severely undermine many civil rights class actions,” Mr. Seligman said.

In April, an 11-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled by a 6-to-5 vote that the class action could go forward.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for the majority, said the company’s policies and treatment of women were similar enough that a single lawsuit was both efficient and appropriate. He added that the six women who represent the class, four of whom have left Wal-Mart, had claims typical of the other plaintiffs.

Supreme Court Hears Opening Arguments in Snyder v. Phelps

At NYT, "Justices Take Up Funeral-Protest Case."

Plus, coverage at SCOTUS blog, "Bonus Round-Up: Snyder v. Phelps." Also, Lyle Denniston, "What Role for Emotion?"

And Dahlia Lithwick heard arguments in person, and has a report (via Memorandum). Althouse agrees with Lithwick.

PREVIOUSLY: "Westboro Baptist Church at the Supreme Court."

Westboro Baptist Church at the Supreme Court

Oral arguments are schedule for later today.

And it's unusual, but I agree with LAT, "The Right to Speak Offensively":

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that sorely tests the principle, articulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. nearly a century ago, that "we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe."

The case involves the Westboro Baptist Church, a deranged anti-gay religious group that routinely shows up at the funerals of American soldiers to express its bizarre belief that U.S. combat deaths are divine retribution for America's tolerance of homosexuality. In 2006, the group picketed the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq. The protesters held signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You're Going to Hell' and "Semper fi Fags."

Snyder's father sued the church for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and other civil wrongs, but a lower court held that the picketers were protected under the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court is now being asked to reverse that decision.

The justices may be tempted to rule against the protesters out of understandable sympathy for Snyder's father. They should resist the temptation. Allowing even private figures to recover damages for distress caused by the political or religious speech of others would be a dramatic departure from the court's protection of free expression no matter how offensive. And it would have reverberations in settings far removed from military funerals.

More details at the link.

The Westboro people are pretty much freaks, but they have the right to spew their hatred.

Cameras in the Supreme Court

Making the case at Reason:

HAT TIP: Glenn Reynolds.

Bork Elena Kagan

She deserves it. And maybe this is a payback for this, at least in the karmic scheme of things (via):

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Black Firefighter Applicants

Los Angeles Times has a report, "Supreme Court backs black applicants in firefighter discrimination suit." And from New York Times, "Black Firefighters’ Claim Was Timely, Justices Say":

In a case that carried echoes of two of its most divisive decisions in recent years, the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that black firefighters in Chicago did not miss a deadline to argue that the city used an employment test in a way that disproportionately hurt their chances.

The decision was reminiscent of one decided last year by a 5-to-4 vote, Ricci v. DeStefano. There, the court ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven claiming race discrimination.

Monday’s decision also touched on issues at the core of a 5-to-4 decision from 2007, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. In that case, the court ruled against Lilly M. Ledbetter, saying she had not filed her pay discrimination suit soon enough. (Congress effectively reversed that ruling, though not in a way that affected the Chicago case.)

This time, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a unanimous court. The facts of the case, a concession by Chicago and the text of the law at issue compelled a ruling in favor of the black firefighters, Justice Scalia wrote.

Further details at the link.

Evolving Standards of Decency? Supreme Court Limits 'Harsh' Terms for Minors

The editors at NTY are calling it "A New Standard of Decency," but yesterday's ruling on juvenile sentencing is just one more in a string of leftist decisions designed, ultimately, to chip away at capital punishment. How do we know? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, as he did for the disastrous Roper v. Simmons (2005).

Joan Biskupic has a report, "Court limits harsh terms for youths":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for crimes other than murder, in a significant 5-4 decision that says imposing such sentences violates the Constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment.
The court's 5-4 decision — which says that an automatic life sentence for a young offender who has not committed murder violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment — wipes out laws in 37 states.

It means that the 129 juveniles now serving time under such laws will, at some point, have an opportunity to make a case for parole.

Most significantly, the decision — signed by the nine-member court's four more liberal justices and Anthony Kennedy, the conservative who votes with the liberals the most — emphasizes that young criminals are different from adults. And not just when it comes to the death penalty, which the court made off-limits for juveniles in 2005.

"A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity," Kennedy wrote for the majority in the decision that found life without parole disproportionally harsh.

The decision immediately generated debate over where the court would go in the future regarding juvenile rights, including the possibility that it could strike down life-without-parole for juvenile murderers.

I can't imagine much public support for such a position, and it's going to get worse if Ruth Bader Ginsberg steps down next year, giving President Obama a chance to appoint a third radical leftist to the court during his first term. Frankly, here's a hint that the radical majority on the court won't stop the campaign of "evolving decency" with juvenile defendants:

In Kennedy's opinion for the majority, he highlighted the limited culpability of young offenders and said the usual justifications for harsh sentences, such as deterrence, do not hold up for those under age 18.

Baylor University criminal law professor Mark Osler said Monday's decision arises against the backdrop of a broader national re-examination of harsh sentences, but it is most significant in how it views offenders who are under age 18.

RTWT at the link. (And Kennedy's appeal to international legal standards is especially appalling.)

Newt Gingrich Attacks Kagan Nomination and Obama's 'Secular-Socialist Machine'

Newt Gingrich is on something of a tear this week. Huffington Post is up in arms today over the former House Speaker's slam on Obama's High Court nominee Elena Kagan:

And then there's Crooks and Liars goon John Amato, freakin' at Gingrich's FNS gig this morning, "Newt Gingrich says President Obama is Nazi-Commie "threat to our way of life":

Movement conservatives like Newt are very adept at talking around their far-out beliefs in a way that almost makes them seem reasonable. They know how to manage the language and play it like an instrument. His tone is muted, never going off pitch and always in control. That's their edge. Karl Rove does it as well.

Gingrich, who has changed his religion almost as much as his wives then uses God to justify his odious assertions about the President and what he calls his "secular-socialist machine."

Gingrich was a bit surprised, methinks, that Wallace called him out on his "wildly over the top" attacks on Obama and I think it's because Newt is parroting the exact same beliefs as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the Teas Partiers which have caused quite a bit of unrest for the GOP elders. And yet, Gingrich is one of the elders---never forget that.

That take is pretty much over the top. Gingrich is a "last generation conservative." He can fire up a crowd --- recall my coverage of his American Solutions talk in February --- but I can't imagine too many tea partiers drooling at the chance to share a couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk up Al Gore's "Alliance for Climate Protection" global warming campaign. Gingrich is obviously gearing up for the 2012 GOP primaries, and last I heard he was still pushing for the GOP to be the "party of yes." But man, no doubt he'll be livin' down some of his famous bipartisanship over the next 18 months. One "Maverick" GOP presidential nominee is enough:

Surrendering the Supreme Court to the Left? Wake Up People ... Elena Kagan's Radical!

From Sandy Garst, at Shenandoah's News Leader, "Kagen Too Radical for Supreme Court Seat":

I oppose Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience, and her main qualification is supporting Obama's radical and socialist views. In her senior thesis "Socialism in New York City (1900-1933)" she said "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." One can conclude from her statement that she is disappointed America still hasn't achieved that lofty goal of becoming a socialist nation.

As dean at Harvard, she opposed allowing military recruiters on campus because she disapproved of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. The Supreme Court ruled against her.

Concerning the First Amendment, she feels that free speech should be balanced on "the value of the speech against its societal costs." In other words, if the government says it's OK, then you can say it. And most importantly, she agrees with our president that our Constituition is defective. She feels the court's role is to protect the little guy even at the expense of the law. She believes our founders had "outdated notions of liberty, justice, and equality." She is most impressed with the changes in law that have led to "... the emergence of enhanced methods of presidential control over the regulatory state."

I don't believe Elena Kagan can be relied upon to provide an impartial interpretation of the Constitution. The founders set up a republic to keep the power with the people. Kagan believes the power should reside with the ruler, preferably a socialist ruler.

Well, yeah.

Not so hard to sink in, eh?

And no need to stop with op-ed analyses from everyday folks. We have Elena Kagan's own lamentations on the disaster of Ronald Reagan's election, "Nov. 10, 1980: Fear and loathing in Brooklyn":

Looking back on last Tuesday, I can see that our gut response — our emotion-packed conclusion that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused — was a false one. In my more rational moments, I can now argue that the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore. I can say in these moments that one election year does not the death of liberalism make and that 1980 might even help the liberal camp by forcing it to come to grips with the need for organization and unity. But somehow, one week after the election, these comforting thoughts do not last long. Self-pity still sneaks up, and I wonder how all this could possibly have happened and where on earth I’ll be able to get a job next year.

A more "leftist left"?

Well, we got that now, you think?

But to hear the chattering classes tell it, Kagan's actually a conservative. See NYT, "On Speech, Kagan Leaned Toward Conservatives" (via Memeorandum).

That's bull, of course: "Elena Kagan — Worryingly Wobbly On the First Amendment."

And when Miguel Estrada, George W. Bush's failed nominee for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, wrote a glowing letter in support of Kagan, the leftist press jumped on it with glee:

Talk about a class act.

You'll recall that Miguel Estrada's nomination to a prestigious federal judgeship was blocked by Democrats and left-wing groups who grossly distorted his record and used every conceivable trick to keep the young, brilliant and, yes, conservative lawyer off the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and out of contention for an eventual spot on the Supreme Court.

But now, rather than join some of his fellow conservatives in blindly lambasting Elena Kagan, Estrada has offered an elegant and earnest testimonial advocating the confirmation of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

Jim Prevor responds at Weekly Standard, "The Right’s Supreme Court Acquiescence":

Miguel Estrada became something of a conservative hero as he endured the abuse of the left during his nomination process for the Appeals Court. There may be reasons for Republicans not to go to the mat on Kagan -- the next nominee may be worse, the Republicans may not hold their 41 votes, it may distract from issues such as the economy, etc. -- but there is no heroism in simply surrendering the Supreme Court to the left, which is the practical implication of Miguel Estrada’s letter.

Actually, no surrender. I'd rather fight than quit:

Image Credit: Bosch Fawstin.

BONUS: "Elena Kagan's Senior Thesis Princeton University," at No Sheeples Here! (But taken down at Red State following Princeton University copyright claims ... surprise, surprise, surprise!)

Elena Kagan's Senior Thesis

Available from Red State, "TO THE FINAL CONFLICT: SOCIALISM IN NEW YORK CITY, 1900-1933."

Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers.

RELATED: At New York, Times, "Want to Talk to Kagan’s Family? Permission Denied" (via Memeorandum).

Also, from Aaron Klein, "Kagan's hero: 'Most liberal activist judge' in world, " and "Kagan shielded Saudis from 9/11 lawsuit: Sided with kingdom in case brought by victims of terror attacks."