The Root: The Race Card And The Kagan Hearings

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128235037

Just because Elena Kagan is white didn’t stop Republicans from injecting race into her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The second day of the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court was marked by some substantive dialogue, respectful banter and even an exchange of ethnic humor between the nominee and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans and Democrats alike seemed to have forgotten the previous day’s tensions. But for many of us who’d sat in stunned silence while Republicans members of the committee used their opening statements to unleash an orchestrated disparagement of the record and legacy of Supreme Court justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall, the wounds still felt raw.

The invocation of Marshall (35 times by Republicans) was a surprising new low, even for the shameless opportunism of modern confirmation hearings. At first it seemed astonishing as senator after senator — Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) — disparaged nominee Kagan’s “association” with Thurgood Marshall. But the abandonment of the “Marshall as slur” tactic on day two suggests that the Republican senators’ opening-day sucker punch may have backfired.

Other news: the sun rose at sun-rise. News at 11.:rolleyes:

[quote="jjdrury81, post:1, topic:203943"]
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128235037

Just because Elena Kagan is white didn't stop Republicans from injecting race into her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The second day of the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court was marked by some substantive dialogue, respectful banter and even an exchange of ethnic humor between the nominee and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans and Democrats alike seemed to have forgotten the previous day's tensions. But for many of us who'd sat in stunned silence while Republicans members of the committee used their opening statements to unleash an orchestrated disparagement of the record and legacy of Supreme Court justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall, the wounds still felt raw.

The invocation of Marshall (35 times by Republicans) was a surprising new low, even for the shameless opportunism of modern confirmation hearings. At first it seemed astonishing as senator after senator — Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) — disparaged nominee Kagan's "association" with Thurgood Marshall. But the abandonment of the "Marshall as slur" tactic on day two suggests that the Republican senators' opening-day sucker punch may have backfired.

[/quote]

It seems to me that Liberals are always playing the race card. Because Marshall was black, therefore any criticism of him has to automatically be racist, just as we cannot disagree and criticize the president without being racist.

Gimme a break. :shrug:

Race Card?
The issues at hand have nothing to do with race.

The issues here are Kagan’s judicial philosophy and the judicial philosophy of her self-described hero - Thurgood Marshall.

Republicans have every right to be concerned that she’s another “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” activist judge.

The only one playing the race card is the author of the editorial.

[quote="Brooklyn, post:3, topic:203943"]
...therefore any criticism of him...

[/quote]

What were some of the criticisms?

In what ways was Marshall an “activist” judge?

americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/obama_silent_as_louis_farrakha.html

Did you read the article, which is really nothing more than an opinion piece slamming the Republicans?

[quote="Brooklyn, post:8, topic:203943"]
Did you read the article, which is really nothing more than an opinion piece slamming the Republicans?

[/quote]

The article didn't go into detail concerning the Republican criticisms.

There are no examples of this.

The Republican Party has simply decided to use a man that is generally considered one of the best lawyers and activists that this country has ever had to build their empire of fear and mistrust of the President.

Yes, you’re right, The article didn’t go into detail on the criticism of the Republicans. The reason for that is, it would have shown that the article, trying to purport the criticism as racist, was a total lie. So this is all the author could say:

"The second day of the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court was marked by some substantive dialogue, respectful banter and even an exchange of ethnic humor between the nominee and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans and Democrats alike seemed to have forgotten the previous day’s tensions. But for many of us who’d sat in stunned silence while Republicans members of the committee used their opening statements to unleash an orchestrated disparagement of the record and legacy of Supreme Court justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall, the wounds still felt raw.

The invocation of Marshall (35 times by Republicans) was a surprising new low, even for the shameless opportunism of modern confirmation hearings. At first it seemed astonishing as senator after senator — Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) — disparaged nominee Kagan’s “association” with Thurgood Marshall. But the abandonment of the “Marshall as slur” tactic on day two suggests that the Republican senators’ opening-day sucker punch may have backfired.

For Republicans, the issue of race is good for confirmation hearings."

That is how the author tied the Republicans bringing up Marshall to racism. Marshall is identified as a "civil rights icon ", trying to infer that the reason the Republicans brought him up was because of that. Because of Marshall’s status as a “civil rights icon”, no one has any right to criticize. Who is really playing the race card here, the Republicans or the author of this hit piece?

You didn’t mention what the Republicans actually criticized. So, how can you argue that the Republican criticisms are reasonable, if you don’t mention what the Republicans said in their criticisms?

[quote="Brooklyn, post:11, topic:203943"]
Yes, you're right, The article didn't go into detail on the criticism of the Republicans. The reason for that is, it would have shown that the article, trying to purport the criticism as racist, was a total lie. So this is all the author could say:

"The second day of the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court was marked by some substantive dialogue, respectful banter and even an exchange of ethnic humor between the nominee and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans and Democrats alike seemed to have forgotten the previous day's tensions. But for many of us who'd sat in stunned silence while Republicans members of the committee used their opening statements to unleash an orchestrated disparagement of the record and legacy of Supreme Court justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall, the wounds still felt raw.

The invocation of Marshall (35 times by Republicans) was a surprising new low, even for the shameless opportunism of modern confirmation hearings. At first it seemed astonishing as senator after senator — Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) — disparaged nominee Kagan's "association" with Thurgood Marshall. But the abandonment of the "Marshall as slur" tactic on day two suggests that the Republican senators' opening-day sucker punch may have backfired.

For Republicans, the issue of race is good for confirmation hearings."

That is how the author tied the Republicans bringing up Marshall to racism. Marshall is identified as a "civil rights icon ", trying to infer that the reason the Republicans brought him up was because of that. Because of Marshall's status as a "civil rights icon", no one has any right to criticize. Who is really playing the race card here, the Republicans or the author of this hit piece?

[/quote]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well, start by looking at his opinions/decisions on cases that involve abortion. He clearly found an imaginary constitutional right to taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

Second, look at his jurisprudence. He believed in a “living constitution” and described his judicial philosophy as “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up”.

Where did Marshall argue this?

Second, look at his jurisprudence. He believed in a “living constitution” and described his judicial philosophy as “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up”.

These are nice quotes, but show me where this led to “activism” of the judicial kind.

[quote="jjdrury81, post:10, topic:203943"]
There are no examples of this.

The Republican Party has simply decided to use a man that is generally considered one of the best lawyers and activists that this country has ever had to build their empire of fear and mistrust of the President.

[/quote]

Oh yes, conservative criticisms are never based on principle, only hatred and vitriol for the President. If John Boehner called your statement "childish partisanship", I would agree with him.

[quote="Ahimsa, post:15, topic:203943"]
Where did Marshall argue this?

These are nice quotes, but show me where this led to "activism" of the judicial kind.

[/quote]

You will find a small list in this Roll Call editorial:
rollcall.com/news/47602-1.html?type=printer_friendly

However, I suggest you do a little research of case law on your own.

[quote="Ocean52680, post:16, topic:203943"]
Oh yes, conservative criticisms are never based on principle, only hatred and vitriol for the President. If John Boehner called your statement "childish partisanship", I would agree with him.

[/quote]

:rotfl::tiphat::clapping:

So, by “activism” you really mean to refer to Marshall’s views on public funding of abortion, for instance, via the EPC of the 14th Amendment.

I don’t see how this is “activism” (rather than differing judicial philosophies), but I can understand that “activism” is code for the abortion issue.

That’s my point. The author slammed the Republicans as racists for criticizing Thurgood Marshall, without ever pointing out what those criticisms are. How can I point out what the author is talking about if she herself doesn’t do it? I can’t read her mind. Your argument is with the author of the opinion piece, not me.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.