And at that Chinese restaurant on Xmas day, she ate American flags
You really have to wonder what goes through the heads of our spirited opposition. Because seriously: What kind of hyperbolic state of hyperpartisan dissension leads them to say things like this about a potential Supreme Court justice:
Kagan Chronicles: Doesn’t Like Marriage, the Military or the Declaration – Heckuva Nominee Baracky [Family Research Council; writer: Tom McCluskey]
Look, there have been quite a few SCOTUS noms in recent memory that we didn't care for. And we've certainly barked our "Borks" in their general direction. If either sitting or potential justices have shown public hostility towards marriage equality, we've defended our right based on the constitution. If they think Don't Ask Don't Tell is good policy, then we might question how they view our basic rights in other LGBT-centric areas. And we might even question the sitting president who made the nomination. That's the process at work.
But to go to the lengths to say that someone as incredibly bright, accomplished, and committed to this country as Elena Kagan simply "doesn't like" thinks like marriage or the military or the Declaration?!? And to then link that unwarranted stance to a costly quip that Pres. Obama's predecessor made during the mismanaged aftermath of a tragic natural disaster? And all this from FRC, a group that wears its "Christian values" on its sleeve, no less? What the hell?!?
Both Kagan and her nomination are fair game. Obviously. So is the president. But to jump from "she hold stances that I don't like or with which I don't agree" right to "she hates [insert what ever good thing we think will best scare our followers]"? Well, the playground is that way, Mr. McCluskey -- the grown ups have a national discourse to protect.
comments powered by Disqus