For absurdly spinning Elena Kagan to the right, consider Washington Post editorial writer Eva Rodriguez, who asked in Tuesday's newspaper: “Is Kagan a bleeding heart or right-wing Bushie?” Specifically, Rodriguez argued Kagan took positions “loathed by the left” that would deny the broadest menu of civil liberties to terrorist suspects:
So which Kagan are we getting: the warm and fuzzy defender of Obama's "little guy" or the hard-right ideologue who would have fit right in as a "loyal Bushie"? The truth: Maybe both, maybe neither. We don't know. At least not yet.
It’s more than a little tiresome to contemplate that every current liberal Supreme Court justice was touted by the national media as a moderate or even a conservative when they were originally announced, from John Paul Stevens to Sonia Sotomayor. Dan Rather even claimed the last retiree, David Souter, was dangerously “anti-women’s rights” when he was nominated in 1990. So it was less than shocking that the latest liberal nominee, Elena Kagan, drew the same phony “moderate” baloney.
ABC anchor Diane Sawyer greeted the nomination with goo: “She is expected to play a role as somewhat of a conciliator, the bridge across the conservative and liberal wings of the Court. In fact, she loves opera, which Justice Scalia loves.” What more evidence of her judicial philosophy do we need?