Archive → May 12th, 2010
Netanyahu turns to Torah in Jerusalem debate
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in a recent address to the Israeli Parliament, took the top fat burners to the political debate over who has the most spiritual connection to Jerusalem. He indicated that the Tenakh (Old Testament) refers to Jerusalem over 850 times. He then pointed out that Jerusalem is mentioned only 142 times in the Brit Hadasha (New Testament) and – maybe – once in the Koran.
Jerusalem is home to the Islamic Al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third-holiest site.
In explaining his turn to the Scriptures for connection to the city of Jerusalem, Netanyahu explained he was attempting to underscore the significant connection between the land and people of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967′s Six Day War; they had previously held West Jerusalem since 1948, when the United Nations re-formed the state of Israel as a homeland to the Jewish people in the wake of the Holocaust of World War II.
Another race, another Scott
Another Republican named Scott could send a Democrat back to his diet pill reviews. I’m speaking of the Wisconsin governor’s race, where GOP hopeful Scott Walker is the Republican front-runner. Walker, assuming he wins nomination, will be facing whoever emerges from the Democratic pack to replace retiring Wisconsin Democratic governor Jim Doyle.
Walker will likely be facing current Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, the Dem front-runner. And in tough economic times, and with Obama’s popularity dropping like a rock with the economy, Walker might just be what the GOP needs to avoid back-to-back Democratic administrations in the Badger State.
Walker gained notoriety as an economic conservative, giving back over $370,000 in salary over his eight-year career as a Milwaukee County executive. His reason? He didn’t feel he should make more than the state’s governor. That’s giving back over $46,250 a year… more than many Wisconsin residents earn in a single year.
With those kinds of economic principles, and the fact that he applies them even to his own life, Walker could easily follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown in pulling off a surprise victory in November. And if he does, and if Walker proves conservative on other key GOP issues, his name could quickly be featured among the likes of Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Jim DeMint, John Thune and David Patreaus as someone to look at as a potential White House contender in 2012 and beyond.
The real reason to be wary of Elena Kagan
Let’s get the big, driveway alarm-activating statement out of the way up front: I’m not overly concerned with the alleged lesbian orientation of President Barack Obama’s current Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. Here’s why: with the exception of a couple issues, I don’t see it as an element that would color her potential judicial decisions beyond what any politically-liberal Barack Obama-nominated Supreme Court justice would otherwise be like.
Let’s face it; Obama won the White House and with that comes the privilege of nominating people he feels might be like-minded to the Supreme Court when there’s a vacancy. Even if the allegations are true, as an alleged lesbian, I sincerely doubt there would be much difference between the way she, or any other potential Obama appointee, would rule on cases.
So, for me, her sexual orientation is a bit boring and a distraction from any real, genuine, meritorious objections to her nomination. Are there any?
You bet.
The main one, and what I think makes her not the best choice for confirmation, is just her general lack of experience in a judicial role.
Otherwise, her resume’s an impressive one. Dean of the Harvard School of Law. Assistant Solicitor General arguing the Obama administration’s position before the Supremes. She’s a woman of accomplishment. But ready to ascend to the bench of the highest court in the land?
Not yet.
Kagan is the sort of nominee that would be better-suited to starting out on an appellate court level, gaining judicial experience, learning the difference between being a legal advocate and being a fair and even-handed judge. Such a move would be kinder to Kagan, and of greater service to the Supreme Court.
Many media reports stuffily point out that many Supreme Court justices have come from non-judicial backgrounds. This is true, though no current Justice comes from a non-judicial background. And what the media fails to point out is the rather thin record of any of those Justices from non-judicial backgrounds going on to stellar, legally and Constitutionally-sound careers on the court.
The last non-Judicial Supreme Court nominee was Harriet Miers, a one-time White House legal counsel to then-President George W. Bush. Miers withdrew herself from consideration because of the uproar caused by her lack of Judicial experience.
That is the parallel I see in the Kagan nomination; she is Barack Obama’s Harriet Miers. And on the same basis of lack of judicial experience, Kagan should follow in Miers’ footsteps and withdraw her name from consideration. If she wishes the ascend to the bench, her accomplishments are certainly sufficient to merit a lower-court seat. Give her some time there, and I’m certain that if there’s any truth to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s alleged pancreatic cancer diagnosis, President Obama will have a chance to appoint at least one more member to the highest court in the land during his first term. Hopefully not soon, for Justice Ginsberg’s sake… but it’s an eventuality.
Why rush Kagan to the top? With her resume, even a brief lower-court career would certainly help her fill out the holes in her otherwise-impressive resume for a seat with the Supremes.
