Target of convenience
Posted by aogMonday, 19 April 2010 at 10:26 TrackBack Ping URL

Brothers Judd cites an editorial about Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s opposition to military recruiters while she Dean of Harvard Law School. What gets missed by the author and even by Judd is that it wasn’t the military who decided on the policy for which Kagan punished them. It was decided by Congress. If Kagan had had the courage of her convictions, she would have banned Congressional money and staffers, not the USA military, from Harvard. But that would have been inconvenient for her, so she took out her pique on a target that couldn’t fight back and had no control over the issue. It’s the same as if she would expel a graduate student for doing immoral research as directed by his professor, while keeping the professor on because he’s a Name. Yeah, that sounds plausible.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
pj Monday, 19 April 2010 at 12:04

Like so much about the left, the issue is who they hate, not who is violating their so-called principles. They hate the military, they don’t hate Congress. The gay issue is just a pretext which makes acting out on their hate appear moral.

erp Monday, 19 April 2010 at 12:46

IMO gays in the military isn’t a moral issue. It’s an issue of getting the right people to fight our country’s wars and that goes for women in combat as well.

M. Thursday, 29 April 2010 at 15:34

This is a bit disingenuous. DADT may have been decided by Congress, but it replaced a rather stricter policy — ask and boot them out — that was (and likely still is) the military’s preferred option, or at least the preferred option for those who represent it as an institution. The military in this case is hardly some innocent, powerless waif doing the bidding of those mean old homophobic Congressmen. I don’t agree with Kagan’s decision myself, but she did not misdirect her convictions.

Post a comment