NYPost promotes bogus claim that Kagan lied about military recruiting
June 30, 2010 9:47 am ET by Sarah Pavlus
Is Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan really a "liar"? Today, a New York Post article leads readers to believe just that, reporting:
The top Senate Republican grilling Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan yesterday accused her of not telling the truth about her role in improperly limiting military recruiting at Harvard University.
"There are not two truths about what happened at Harvard. There's one -- one truth. And the American people need to know what that truth is," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
He stopped short of calling the Upper West Side native a liar, but said she "was not rigorously accurate."
Sessions said that testimony from Kagan -- who barred recruiters from the Harvard Law School career office when she was dean because of what she considered anti-gay policies in the military -- made him "less comfortable" about putting her on the high court.
But the Post did not provide a single shred of evidence to show that Kagan didn't "tell the truth" about military recruiting at her hearing. Indeed, nothing Kagan said about military recruiting in her exchange with Sessions was false. She said, "[T]he military at all times during my deanship had full and good access." That's true. She said, "Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years, including the years that you are in particular referring to, it went up." That's true too. Same goes for her statement that Harvard was "never out of compliance with the law."
Yep, there is one truth here, and I wouldn't go looking for it in the Post.
Thing is Sessions isn't going to vote for confirmation anyway, so he's not even really important. He's firmly in the "NO" column anyway, so let's move on from what that mouth breather is yelling and screaming about. He sees it, not as one truth, as he said, he sees it, as what he PERCEIVES is the truth, and what actually IS the truth. He's unwilling to embrace what the truth is, because it goes against the narrative he's trying to embrace.
The other thing is this. SCOTUS is first and foremost protector of the Constitution, and protector of rights of Americans. With her advocacy of allowing homosexuals to actively serve and be open about that in the military services, is she not ensuring the rights that the Constitution puts forth?
Also, in regards to the military, it's not very often that a case involving the military or the DoD comes into the SCOTUS. Sure, some do, but they are in the vast minority of cases, and she will be able to rule on those cases based on the facts and arguments presented in the court itself.