Some are still fooling themselves into thinking that a Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagen would somehow be anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion. Just as they used to try to convince themselves (and others) that Barack Obama would govern "from the center".
Here's the sleight of hand:
As a White House adviser in 1997, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups.
Same article gets to the truth further down:
...the memo is more of a political calculation than a legal brief, but Kagan and Reed urged Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.
"We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," they wrote.
So Kagan's legal recommendations were based on political calculations. Just the kind of person you want on the highest court in the land, right? But more importantly, what would her legal calculations be at this moment? It's not that hard to figure out:
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone “who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women’s rights,” and that this was going to be “very important” to him as he viewed our “core Constitution” as protecting the “bodily integrity” of women.
No doubt this was a conversation Kagan had with Obama, and she must have pleased the president (a man who favored, while in the Illinois State Senate, allowing aborted babies born alive to die, alone and in agony), or else he would have offered the position to another candidate, one more in line with his views.
And now that Kagan doesn't have to kiss up to the "centrist" Bill Clinton, she can act on how she really feels:
Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to “victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber . . ."
Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term "innocent life" in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?
Let the grinding of the abortion mills begin; for you will have a benefactor that supports your gruesome indifference towards human life upon the High Court...