Memo from the desk of Mitch McConnell, re: Elena Kagan

Dear fellow GOP Senators, We will soon begin deliberations on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and it is of the utmost importance that we stand united in our opposition to her. There are many reasons for us to resist her rise to the highest court in the land, but the case was best summarized yesterday by Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation who writes "Obama wants to transform this country from a right of center country, to a European style socialist country. He knows the congress is going to go from Democratic controlled to either Republican controlled or split evenly. To get much of his agenda enacted or saved, he is going to need control of the judiciary." Mr Phillips then goes on to emphasize that we should oppose "any nominee who comes through from Obama even if that means for the next two years, we only have eight justices." I believe we all understand the inherent truth in these words. Unfortunately, we cannot speak bluntly to the American people during an election year without suffering cynical accusations of obstructionism from both our Democratic opponents and the liberal mainstream media. Therefore it is important that we get our talking points together so that we may present objections that the average voter can easily understand. Kagan has virtually no paper trail, meaning there are few past writings for us to attack. And almost everything she has written is within an academic context, making it far too boring to read... Just what is she trying to hide? This, however, is not an easy matter. Kagan has virtually no paper trail, meaning there are few past writings for us to attack. In addition, almost everything she has written is framed within an academic context, making it far too boring to read. Just what is she trying to hide? Therefore, I've seen fit to put together an opening list of topics for your use. I am sure that many of you have thoughts of your own, and I look forward to discussing them with you both individually and together as a group. 1. As I said above, Kagan has virtually no paper trail. I think this is odd, and with proper presentation, I'm sure that the American people will think it odd as well. 2. On the other hand, Kagan was unable to hide her 2003 memo blasting the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which is the law of the land. If this doesn't show an activist slant, I don't know what does. 3. As dean of Harvard Law, Kagan allowed military recruiters on campus when the Solomon Amendment allowed federal funds to be withheld from non-complying universities. One year later, when the law was struck down, she once again banned the recruiters, proving she hates the military. 4. Re: 3, this may also be seen as a clear indication that she has absolutely no regard for national security. 5. Also, re: 3. a flipflopper. 6. Kagan could prove to be every bit as liberal as Justice Stevens, effectively keeping the court in stasis. 'In Stasis' is the key phrase; research show that most Americans react negatively to the phrase, believing it refers to being buried alive. 7. Jim Inhofe opposes her, and most Americans believe he was right about global warming. 8. Kagan would be the first nominee in the past 41 years with no judicial experience. I realize that until recently many of you were advocating the selection of someone outside of the judicial arena, but it need not be seen as a negative if we emphasize that the GOP is the party of flexibility, while the Democrats are the party of rigid thinking. 9.Three women on the Supreme Court? At the same time? What the hell is up with that? White men are quickly becoming a minority. 10. Re: 9. Depending on your state, this may be phrased as 'What does Obama have against black men? Even George Bush nominated a black man. 11. In 1980, when Kagan was only 20 years old, she got drunk on vodka and cried after liberal Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman lost her race for the Senate. Holtzman, as you may recall, went on to write 'The Impeachment of George W. Bush: a practical guide for concerned citizens'. Enough said. 12. Re: 11. We don't need a drunk on the Supreme Court. 13. Also, re:11. Or a crybaby. 14. Kagan has no children. Democrats may site this as a positive since Kagan has never been married, but if you're going to select someone so far out of the traditional experience of American women, why not just choose a man? 15. Maybe she's never been married because, re:14, Kagan is rumored to be a lesbian. Even if this turns out to be nothing but innuendo, she certainly looks like a lesbian, and that should be enough to give us pause. 16. Re: 15. What the hell sort of a haircut is that anyway? Yours in victory 2010, Mitch McConnell