Below is the text of an email I sent to Pullitzer Prize-winning columnist and intellectually dishonest George-Will-with-long-hair-and-different-plumbing Kathleen Parker. I won't link to the column she wrote that torques President Obama's statements and Solicitor General Kagan's background to make a childish set of points. WaPo doesn't need the traffic. If you read this, let me know what you think. Cheers.
To: KathleenParker@washpost.com
Subj: Facts show you are way off-base on Kagan
Msg:
Ms. Parker,
At the end of your column today, you wrote:
"But the president adheres to the ordinary-people principle, and so the question must be asked: Does Kagan meet the standard? She may have other qualifications, including her willingness at Harvard to invite conservative scholars to her faculty. But a New York City girl who attended a prep school, Ivy League colleges and law school -- who once barred military recruiters from Harvard's recruitment office and was an adviser to Goldman Sachs -- can't be characterized as anything close to mainstream America."
Your characterization of this president's criteria for judicial nominees is just wrong. Over-simplified, under-cooked or just plain spun? I can't decide which. Just for funsies, let's look at what the man actually said! (I know, I know, you didn't become a columnist to deal in the factual; please bear with me, this won't hurt a bit.)
2009, speaking on Justice Souter's retirement:
"I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time." [whitehouse.gov, accessed 4/11/10 via MediaMattersAction.org, emphasis added]
2010, speaking on Justice Stevens' retirement:
"Once again, I view the process of selecting a Supreme Court nominee as among my most serious responsibilities as President. And while we cannot replace Justice Stevens’ experience or wisdom, I will seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities -- an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. Much like they did with Justice Sotomayor, I hope the Senate will move quickly in the coming weeks to debate and then confirm my nominee so that the new Justice is seated in time for the fall term. [whitehouse.gov, accessed 5/12/10, emphasis added]
From all these (bolded) qualities and descriptors that the president has used to describe his criteria for a nominee, you choose one and pretend that it is supreme above all others. You say, "the president adheres to the ordinary-people principle," a principle which it appears you and Michelle Malkin just plain made up. Why? Who said there was one criterion? A bunch of other beltway pinstriped echo-chamber types, or somebody who actually has some day-to-day insight on this selection process?
So that's problem one-- you've latched onto an invented narrative, departing from reality in the process, because it's convenient. (Do y'all know that the 60% of Americans who are in the rational, fact-based center buy newspapers too? Could you pass that info along to your bosses please?)
Problem two: Not only did you falsify the president's statements about how he makes these choices, you then spun your own falsified version! The "principle" you claim he espoused is not a desire for an "ordinary person" with striking legal qualification, as you suggest.
The basis for your falsehood is the aspiration for a person-- ANY kind of person, with any kind of background-- who possesses "a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people." He never said he wanted an ordinary person on the court! I see your point that Solicitor General Kagan's life-- particularly her "geographic anchors"-- make her decidedly un-ordinary.
But when one ignores your false frame, and reads your judgment of Ms. Kagan next to the criteria laid out by the White House, something becomes quite clear. You are insinuating that someone who grew up in New York is not capable of "understanding how the law affects the daily lives of the American people."
Identity politics at their worst. You can do better. You should do better. I welcome conservative critique of this nominee, but I beg of you: be intellectually honest in your criticism.
Thank you, etc.