I'm shaking my head right now.  Senate Republicans essentially rolled over during the Sotomoyer hearings, I guess out of fear of alienating the Hispanic vote, and to a lesser degree the women vote.  Now, we have another Obama nominee that basically going uncontested.  Sure, there are some Senate Republicans that are asking the "hard" questions, but Kagan is executing the artful dodge.  The hearings are essentially a farce.  The Republicans get their chance to get their digs in for street cred with conservatives and others in their party that haven't become squishes or full blown RINOs.  The Democrats get to praise the nominee and toss softballs to her as not to embarrass her.  Most political pundits believe that she'll be confirmed with no problems.  WHY?!  Her record is atrocious.  Her senior thesis, her legal briefs while in the Clinton administration, and other writings have all shown that she will not be an impartial judge.

She booted out military recruiters from Harvard Law School campus.  She denies it.  The Harvard Crimson says otherwise.

Just one day after a federal appeals court blocked the Pentagon from cutting federal funds to universities that limit military recruitment on campus, Harvard Law School moved to reinstitute its policy of barring the armed services’ access to students.

Law School Dean Elena Kagan said yesterday that the school would require all on-campus recruiters to pledge to not discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy bars gays and lesbians from serving openly, and the Pentagon has refused to sign the Law School’s pledge.

Let's not mince words here.  Is it shoddy reporting by the Harvard Crimson or did Kagan just lie in front of Congress?  Sen. Sessions gave her a raking over the coals about it, but nothing else seems to have been said - and her answer/record didn't effect her chances at being confirmed.  Kagan even lamented lifting the military recruiting ban in a quote in the Harvard Crimson shortly after the Supreme Court ruling upheld the threat of federal funding being withheld to those barring military recruiters:

“I believe the military’s discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong—both unwise and unjust. And this wrong tears at the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have,” she wrote.

I guess we can count one vote on the Supreme Court for federal recognition of gay marriage.

Other Senators had glowing reviews about her performance in front of the committee.  Some of those rave reviews were by Republicans. 

I understand that Kagan is a liberal (or a socialist sympathizer as outlined in her senior thesis - I have a copy of it and if it wasn't for copyright laws, it'd upload it) and that she is replacing another liberal Supreme Court Justice.  Maybe the Republican Senators are looking at it as simply replacing one liberal with other another and therefore the balance of the Supreme Court would not be upset.  I look at it differently.

The Republicans should fight tooth and nail against any liberal replacement  on the court.  They have the votes to filibuster, but not the guts.  If the Republicans, even with their 41 seat minority, can swing the court to the middle or to the right, even on one case, the filibuster would be worth it. 

Another troubling statement during the hearings by Kagan was when she called the recent 2nd Amendment ruling "settled law".  It doesn't trouble me that she thinks the recent ruling should be used as precedent, but it was what was unsaid.  What else does she consider "settled law"?  Roe v. Wade?  How about Citizens United if the Disclosure Act were to pass Congress and find its way through the courts?

Finally, look at the age of Sotomoyer and now Kagan.  The liberal nominees/Justices keep getting younger, while sitting conservative or moderate judges keep getting older.  As a result, years from now, the Supreme Court's leaning could change further to the left, because I guarantee that if these two liberals stay on the court and the shoe is the on the other foot, the Democrats would filibuster any judge that even smelt of Alito, Roberts, or Thomas.

Remember, there is a method to Obama's madness.  Destroy capitalism to institute his version of FDR big government.  Destroy Constitutionalism to institute to strengthen government's control over the people.  Obama knows that what he does today will have ramifications for years to come and he is steadily placing people who fall into line ideologically with him in places where they can have the most effect - especially the Supreme Court.  With Sotomoyer and Kagan, you have 2 sure votes in the liberal column for at least the next 25 years. 

Meanwhile many of the Senate Republicans are willing to punt until they have larger numbers in the Senate.  They don't want to seem too obstructionist during an election year.  Is it obstructionist to fight against the further deterioration of the Supreme Court actually reading the Constitution, understanding the history behind the reason the Constitution was written the way it was, and then ruling based on those two conditions.  Instead, we will soon have two Justices that will "interpret" the Constitution based on their backgrounds, their political beliefs and their "empathy".  Too many times, politicians think of the now and how something will effect them in the near term, versus the long term impact of their decisions or votes.  Unfortunately, it will be up to historians such as myself to write the books of where we started (or continued) to go off course from where our Founders wanted us to go.