newsalarmonline.com

I like her style:

A British woman stripped down to her bikini and strutted defiantly through a swanky Dubai mall after an Emirati woman covered head-to-toe in black confronted her for wearing a low-cut shirt, police said Thursday.

Mall security detained both women and took them to a police station for questioning Wednesday. They were released later in the day after the Emirati woman lodged a complaint for public indecency against the Briton, said a police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Police said the British woman, whose name was not released, was shopping in the five-star Dubai Mall when the Emirati woman approached her and criticized her for wearing a shirt she felt violated the conservative dress code followed by most women in this Muslim country.

The two argued, then the Briton stripped down to her bikini and walked through the mall filled with luxury shops and near hotels with swimming pools.

Given the way Britain has surrendered to creeping Sharia law it’s a wonder you could find a British woman this courageous.

Another fan of Sharia law is the newest member of the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. Someone suggested yesterday that perhaps she should strut through Dubai in a bikini so she can see Sharia law in action.

Well, now that I think about it, I’m not sure I’d wish that on our worst enemy.

In a perfect world all Supreme Court justices would think like Antonin Scalia:

BOZEMAN — The Supreme Court should abandon the notion of a “living constitution,” an approach that has resulted in the nation’s charter being rewritten time and again by unelected judges who are unqualified to make decisions on morality, Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday.

Instead, the court should go back to its practice before the last half of the 20th century, when the constitution and the meaning of laws were considered static and could be changed only by an amendment of the people, he said.

“Nothing that I learned in my courses at Harvard law school, none of the experience I acquired practicing law qualifies me to decide whether there ought to be, and hence is, a fundamental right to abortion or assisted suicide,” Scalia said.

The modern court’s “living constitution” doctrine has resulted in the Supreme Court acting as moral arbiters for the nation, he said.

Scalia, 74, spoke before a crowd packed into the 220-seat auditorium at Montana State University’s Museum of the Rockies.

As long as Supreme Court justices are deciding the nation’s morals, be prepared for each new appointment to be a political event, with each nominee’s appointment being judged on the basis of his or her views, he said. He guessed that if he were up for nomination today, he would not get 60 votes to be confirmed.

He followed his speech with a candid question-and-answer session, fielding questions that included which dictionary he uses to define words in the constitution — an 1848 Noah Webster dictionary he keeps on his desk — and how he can defend the court’s recent decision to allow corporations the same rights as individuals in elections.

“Corporations are groups of individuals,” Scalia responded. “This wasn’t a conservative versus liberal thing. This was an original reading of the constitution thing.”

He also had some thoughts about the presence of Supreme Court justices at the State of the Union speech:

And when he was asked whether it was a violation of decorum to have the justices dressed down at the State of the Union address, he said the annual presidential speech has simply become political theater consisting of a series of applause lines.

“I haven’t gone to that silly spectacle for the last 15 years, I think,” he said. “I don’t know why the Supreme Court should lend dignity to that silly occasion.”

What does the left see as a perfect justice? A “wise Latina” and whatever that is they just nominated, both bound and determined to rewrite the constitution to fit liberal social policies.

From Big Peace:

The Center for Security Policy’s web ad raising questions about Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nominationtargets her dedication to Shariah law:

“As Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan banned military recruiters from campus because US law said they couldn’t enlist homosexuals. Well, she invited the Saudi’s ‘recruiters’ to promote their legal code–Shariah– which calls for homosexuals to be murdered and women to be treated like animals.”

If Kagan had genuinely objected to the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies, she would not have sponsored a November 2008 lecture promoting the Malaysian Shariah and secular (Section 377) anti-gay laws of “Do Ask, Do Tell, Do Flog and Do Imprison for 20 Years.”

There’s a lot more background at Big Peace.

It’s too bad that fools like Kagan fail to realize that under Sharia law they’d be the first to say goodbye to their heads.

Looks like the fifth vote for many conservative Supreme Court opinions is planning to stick around for awhile:

WASHINGTON – President Obama may get liberal Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, but conservative swing-voter Anthony Kennedy says he’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years – through the end of Obama’s first term, sources said.

That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court’s conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.

Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court’s four rock-ribbed conservative justices.

Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech.

Obama called the ruling “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power … in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

He was so angry that he took the unusual step of blasting the decision in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address, with Kennedy and five other justices looking on.

And that may have been the biggest of the many mistakes Obama has made as president because he ticked off guys with lifetime appointments who might be willing to wait him out. They also might be inclined to throw opinions in his face when the opportunity arises.

My guess is that either no justices will attend the State of the Union next year, or perhaps one or two of the liberals. The rest will stay home and enjoy watching the next Republican majorities on TV.

I know that title is a bit confusing but I’m referring to an article by Jonathan Rauch, a guy who has written books in support of gay marriage and is himself in a legal gay marriage.  In the piece Rauch encourages Elena Kagan to support California’s Proposition 8, the measure which outlawed gay marriage in California, on the basis that California voters’ rights to define marriage outweigh the rights of gay marriage supporters.

ELENA KAGAN uttered neither the word “gay” nor “marriage” in her opening statement at the Senate confirmation hearings on her nomination to the Supreme Court, but she addressed the issue nonetheless. No, she didn’t say how she will vote when gay marriage comes before the court, as it may soon. What she did say was this:

“The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

Ms. Kagan may not have had gay marriage in mind when she made that statement, but it could not be more relevant. She seems to be saying that protecting minority rights is the Supreme Court’s job description, but also that a civil rights claim doesn’t automatically trump majority preferences. This is something absolutists on both sides of the gay marriage debate don’t like to hear, but it has the virtue of being right.

While the Senate considers Ms. Kagan’s nomination, Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court in San Francisco is deciding how to rule in a major lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that revoked and banned same-sex marriage in California (while leaving the state’s marriage-like domestic partner program intact). Judge Walker may declare that the United States Constitution gives gay couples the right to marry — a decision sure to start a political firestorm (possibly just in time to give the Democrats an additional headache in this year’s midterm elections). Whatever he decides is likely to be appealed, presumably up to the court that Ms. Kagan seems likely to join.

This case is not primarily about the merits of gay marriage. It is primarily about who gets to decide. The plaintiffs say marriage is a civil right, and when a civil right is assailed, the Supreme Court has no choice but to take command. If the Supreme Court doesn’t protect minority rights, it abdicates its job.

Proposition 8’s defenders retort that gay marriage is not a civil right, because it is not marriage, or not marriage as defined by most Californians. If the court does not defer to the voters’ wishes, it oversteps its bounds.

Ms. Kagan seems to reject both forms of absolutism. Civil rights, she implies, are important, but so is judicial modesty, and a sensible judge balances the two. A sensible judge can say something like, “Same-sex marriage may indeed be a civil right, but not all civil rights demand immediate judicial intervention, and other important interests militate against imposing this one on the whole country right now.”

Viewed in that light, the argument for upholding California’s gay marriage ban has merit — not because the policy is fair or wise (it isn’t) but because it represents a reasonable judgment that the people of California are entitled to make. Barring gay marriage but providing civil unions is not the balance I would choose, but it is a defensible balance to strike, one that arguably takes “a cautious approach to making such a significant change to the institution of marriage” (as the lawyers defending Proposition 8 write in one of their briefs) while going a long way toward meeting gay couples’ needs.

There’s more at the link. Given the threats of violence that have been directed at others who have supported Proposition 8 I’m guessing this guy will be getting some interesting mail in the next few days.

From Politico:

Republican senators have already blamed the breezy confirmation process for Elena Kagan on simple math, saying Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court is already ensured with 58 Democrats in the Senate.

But the GOP has more than just a math problem with Kagan. It has a passion problem — the party, which has used judicial nominations to stoke the culture wars for more than a decade, appears to have lost its edge on judges.

Now some conservatives worry that if Republicans can’t gin up a real battle over a left-leaning high court nominee from President Barack Obama in an election year, how can they be expected to grind out fights on dozens of lower-court nominees who are getting lifetime appointments to the federal bench?

“Maybe we have fallen down on the job,” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told POLITICO. “I think a lot of Republicans tend to say, ‘Well, the president gets whoever he nominates.’”

This is yet another example of the Republicans playing by rules the Democrats refuse to follow. Yes, when our guy is president we believe he should get who he nominates, but the Democrats don’t think that way and will fight with every trick they’ve got. If the GOP Senators can’t bring themselves to fight for their voters with the same passion, they need to step down and let’s get some people in there who will not handicap themselves against their political enemies.

Elena Kagan will not be getting Senator Orin Hatch’s vote.  Here’s the statement he released:

I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.

Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.

Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration’s extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.

General Kagan is a good person, a skilled political lawyer, a brilliant scholar, and was a fine law school dean. I like her personally and I supported her to be Solicitor General. But applying the standard I have always used for judicial nominees, I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Hatch is right on all that stuff, and there’s no reason for any Republican to support her nomination.

American Thinker also has a devastating piece on Kagan that’s worth reading.

Minnesota is really getting their money’s worth out of their junior Senator:

He’s good enough, he’s smart enough, but doggone it — he just can’t keep his eyes open for Senate confirmation hearings.

Al Franken, the onetime comedian and current Democratic senator from Minnesota, used his position on the vaunted Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to doodle a lifelike bust of Sen. Jeff Sessions, the committee’s ranking Republican, as Sessions raked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan over the coals.

But it wasn’t all fun and games for the former “Saturday Night Live” star — Franken also found time to get in a good nap during the first day of hearings Monday.

Live video from Senate chambers shows a woozy Franken getting some much-needed shuteye as Kagan explains her intellectual approach to life and teachings in her opening statement to the Senate.

But Franken, the most junior member of the Judiciary Committee, had already been forced to sit through an endless round of statements from his senior colleagues on the 19-member panel as they droned on and on and on in the crowded Washington chamber.

When it finally came time for Kagan herself to speak, Franken had apparently had enough.

“I’ve learned that we make progress by listening to each other,” said Kagan hopefully, as Franken slowly closed his eyes and appeared to doze off.

“I’ve learned that we come closest to getting things right when we approach every person and every issue with an open mind,” she said, Franken now apparently lost to the living.

Kagan herself has expressed a profound scorn for Senate confirmation hearings, which she described as empty “lessons of cynicism” — a “vapid and hollow charade” that replace important legal discussions with repetitive platitudes.

This may be one of the few areas in which I agree with the Weeble-like nominee. Confirmation hearings these days are all kabuki theater and little substance. There was a day, before TV came along, when nominees sometimes refused to appear before the committee because they felt it improper to answer questions about their judicial philosophy. They were confirmed anyway.

Franken has spent his entire life being a joke.  It’s clearly at the core of his very being, and becoming a Senator certainly hasn’t changed that.

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is not terribly impressed with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

(Please try not to fall asleep while reading this post.)

There is something profoundly depressing about the nomination of Elena Kagan.

Kagan has an impressive resume. But …

Has there ever been a more intellectually bland nominee? Probably, but not in decades. Bland is the new intellectual powerhouse.

No judicial record. Little public or scholarly record. A private record of time served in government, but those advisory positions would say little about what Elena thought, as opposed to what she advised.

Even Kagan’s seemingly bold statement on gay marriage was so carefully worded as to allow for intellectual blandness if pressed at the hearings. (She will be pressed on this, right?)

A life of carefully choreographed liberal blandness deemed necessary to achieve the goal of being precisely where she is today.

Few clues left along the bland trail of her intellectual life not only as to what she believes, but in what she believes. Does hiring conservatives as Dean of Harvard Law School mean Kagan …. oh, forget it.

Blandness in the service of getting on the Supreme Court is no vice.

Thanks Teddy, for so beating the crap out of Robert Bork that you set us on the road to Elena Kagan. Elena Kagan is the nominee we have been waiting for.

Al Franken fell asleep the first day of the hearings.

It’s working.

She’s everything you’d expect if a Weeble was nominated for the court. The day when nominees with bold opinions, such as a Judge Bork, could be nominated and confirmed are long over. Sadly, we’re likely to end up with a Supreme Court made up of people who have led a life of hidden opinions before being unleashed on the public.

Some time back I ran a piece about how women subjected to public humiliation seem to all wear the same suit.  For example, former NJ Gov. James McGreevey as he admitted being a “gay American”, and former NY Gov. and new CNN host Eliot Spitzer admitting he’d been hanging out with prostitutes:
Former ID Senator Larry Craig, after being caught in an homosexual sting at the Minneapolis Airport:
Hillary Clinton the day she finally admitted being defeated by Barack Obama:

Given all that, who did Elena Kagan wrong?

(It probably wasn’t a guy.)