DriveThru – Get What You Need

First it was: How will the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts impact this summer’s choice of a replacement for the almost-certainly retiring Justice Stevens? Then there was speculation that there might be TWO vacancies, Stevens and Ginsburg.

Now we hear from another Supreme Court expert, Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog that the President’s domestic policy problems this year will augur for a moderate nominee with no baggage involving controversial positions, like – Elena Kagan.

Stop. What?

Does he mean the same Elena Kagan who e-mailed the entire Harvard Law School faculty and student body (she was the law school Dean)  about her “deep distress” over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. She said she “abhorred” DADT  and called it a “profound wrong – a moral injustice of the first order.” She signed on to a Supreme Court legal brief opposing the DADT-related Solomon Amendment (requiring universities that accept federal funding to allow military recruiters on campus), a position that the Supreme Court rejected 9-0. Let me say that again. She was dead wrong  by a 9-0 vote.

And it’s not just the fact that she was 180 degrees wrong on the constitutional arguments about DADT, but the underlying cause for it that’s important. In case you’re not quite understanding this, let me say it plainly:  Her support for the homosexual agenda is so strong that it clouds her ability to think impartially on the subject. As I discussed in a previous post referenced above, she and Professor Feldblum, another much-discussed potential nominee, are near-certain votes for all things gay.

With the Perry marriage case working its way toward the Supreme Court over the next few years, I’m thinking that if President Obama is looking for a moderate this summer, a sure vote to redefine marriage is a non-starter for most Americans.

(note: to prevent a few unnecessary reader e-mails, I’m aware that the Solomon amendment case came out differently at the Third Circuit. But when you lose Justice Ginsburg and the other three SCOTUS libs, you’re not even close.)

It’s come to our attention that President Obama will “commemorate” the enactment of the hate-crimes bill this Wednesday, October 28th.

Let’s all pause and listen to the sound of a little more of your religious liberty being flushed down the toilet.

Because let’s be honest. This bill was never about addressing the “epidemic” of hate crimes against homosexuals that advocates claimed it was.  There was and is no epidemic — as my colleague Bruce made very clear in this post.

The hate-crimes bill is, at its heart, about ensuring that those who believe in God’s design for male-female sexuality are scared into silence and coerced into acceptance.   Gay rights activists—emboldened by an ally in the White House and Democrat majority in Congress—are pushing for the complete normalization of homosexuality in every arena of society.

And they’re not done yet.

They want private employers to be banned from making hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions about homosexuality (note to for-profit, Christian business owners and employers: beware).  They’re also demanding more benefits for homosexual partners of federal employees, even after President Obama extended benefits by executive order.  And let’s not forget their holy grail: repealing the longstanding military policy of preventing homosexuals from serving in the military.  Or perhaps their holy grail is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.  (You know, that pesky thing that defines marriage as – oh my goodness! – between one man and one woman).

So when Wednesday rolls around and President Obama and his gay activist allies are celebrating their victory over religious liberty in the White House, do a little pondering on this: elections matter.