The news leaked recently that President Obama will be nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be his next appointment to the Supreme Court. Kagan is most famous for trying to bar military recruiters from discussing judge-advocate positions with Harvard Law Students or participating in anyway in the Harvard Law School in the school’s campus interview program.

She’s served in political appointment positions in the Clinton White House, but the Senate pocket-vetoed her nomination to the court of appeals and she really has no record to draw an inferences from in regards to her positions on policy, her views on jurisprudence, or her skills in influencing other judges on a panel.

One wildcard: There have been constant unconfirmed rumors that Kagan is gay. Is it possible that placing a likable and competent homosexual on the Court might make voting against gay marriage on the equal protection theory more difficult for one of the Catholic or conservative justices who would otherwise be very likely to vote against the theory when Olsen and Boise come looking for relief from the Supremes? I’m not sure, but regardless of her sexuality, her ability to influence other justices through the power of her personality is probably the biggest reason why conservatives should be queasy about her.

Any thoughts? The media will try to paint her as a moderate because she really doesn’t have a record on the court to demonstrate her activism. Will the media succeed? Will Republicans even try to organize a filibuster? Does anyone from Maine have a read on whether Snowe or Collins would object to a female appointment? Would they object to Kagan if they were convinced that she’s the next step in a progressive movement to capture the court and drastically rewrite the Constitution?

ObamaCare is no doubt a step in the wrong direction, but there is an even greater threat on the horizon: The Left’s capture of the Supreme Court. A recent Los Angeles times article calls it “generational change.”

We may be a little premature on this, but rumors continue to persist that Justice Kennedy a moderate who sometimes votes with conservatives and Justice Stephens, a moderate who mostly votes with liberals, but sometimes votes with conservatives will be resigning from the Supreme Court. Likewise, conservatives Rehnquist and Scalia are no longer spring chickens and it is not inconceivable that age-related problems could force them from the court while Obama is still President.

The result would be the end of the United States as we know it. The press is stressing that 88 year-old Stephens is a liberal who will no doubt be replaced by another liberal and that the change does not mean much for “ideological balance of the court.” We dissent. That is an unhelpful surface generalization. Stephens may be a liberal, but the activist judges Obama could appoint take constitution-shredding liberalism to an entirely new level.

Let’s face it the Supremes have not always been the protectors of the Constitution that the Constitution deserves, but they may be all the protection that is left. Stephens and Kennedy were not strict constructionists, but they were still judges in the traditional sense. Institutionally, our Congress and Executive Branch don’t even think twice before trampling the Constitution — in fact, it’s not uncommon for legislators or bureaucrats to remark that they’ll have to let the Supreme Court decide whether their more contentious actions are constitutional or not. (Remember the Republicans who criticized McCain-Feingold for being unconstitutional and then voted for it anyway on the grounds that the Court would address their concerns?) The activists that Obama has signaled he is willing to appoint will act no differently towards interpretation of the Constitution than Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank. They believe in policy first and they don’t hide that preference.

Note: The Featured Article on NetRightNation today explores one of Obama’s potential appointments in depth. Feel free to click on the thumbnail link below if you want to see why we’re concerned:

Update: Here’s a video that should be going viral featuring Obama’s prospective Goodwin Liu explaining why you and I need to give something up because of our responsibility to make things better after slavery during a panel discussion of reparations. His comments get two thumbs up for the role of Lefty professor, but two thumbs down for the role of judicial nominee.

In the wake of Scott Brown’s decision to cast a preliminary vote in support of Obama’s second stimulus bill, I’d like to point out that, although I did run a television commercial from the Tea Party Express PAC, which supported Scott Brown, I never really pushed for Scott Brown at Daily Uprising. I just couldn’t get excited about him. Why not? Here are my reasons:

In my experience, those who call themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” are often looking to create a political identity that is least offensive to the largest number of people. It’s the type of thing young lawyers might say at the firm cocktail party when politics comes up and partners might be listening. Certainly, it is possible and even logically consistent to be both of those things, but those who identify themselves that way are too often seeking broad based popularity that is inconsistent with actually being a principled fiscal conservative. My libertarian friends and fellow bloggers who actually best personify what it means to be “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” don’t typically have a need to pause to distinguish themselves as socially liberal when arguing for free markets. To be a real fiscal conservative in today’s world you have to be ready to make some unpleasant decisions, bruise some egos, and end up making enemies who will put your political career in jeopardy.

Other socially liberal politicians who’ve defined themselves as fiscally conservative are Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnie is in the papers today bashing the tea party movement and praising Obama’s first stimulus plan.

Some probably think I’m being harsh on Brown for his initial vote… because a tax cut was involved. Payroll tax relief for businesses who hire new employees is a form of tax cut, but it isn’t one that would please Hayek or Von Mises. When government tries to direct decision-making in any markets including the labor market, we get unintended consequences and end up with less efficient means of production. Just as social services welfare has a potentially negative effect on personal decision-making, this kind of corporate welfare has a potentially negative effect on business decision-making. Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of cutting taxes, but not as an incentive package coupled with more “stimulus spending” for Democratic interests. Scott Brown was riding a title wave of good will — if he couldn’t oppose the Jobs Second Stimulus Bill on principle at this point in his career, it’s hard to imagine we’ll be able to count on him in the future.

Populist candidates almost always turn out to be lousy leaders. From Hitler to Obama, I’m weary of the results when leaders get elected based on quips like “the People’s seat” and or their fondness for everyday people stuff like pickup trucks. I drive a Jeep Wrangler because I enjoy it and because it is the least lawyerly car I could imagine, but I’m not ready to imply it means I’d make a good Senator.

For those who believe that I’m being too harsh given the politics of the Northeast, I’ll just remind them that a United States Senator is elected to a six year term. This decision isn’t about re-election, this is about Brown showing his true colors.

Mashable is reporting that the FBI wants to require your internet service provider to monitor and log your web browsing activity for up to two years in the unlikely event that they should want to subpoena your browsing history.

We understand the tension between law enforcement and privacy advocates — after all, while we can imagine the potential for abuse, we can also see how evidence of a child pornographer’s internet activity could be useful in obtaining a prosecution that will help to stamp out some of the most disgusting and terrible crimes committed in our society. What we don’t understand is the technical backdrop for the request. Do ISPs currently log this information? If they don’t, wouldn’t this be an extremely burdensome request to place on service providers who are already starting to feel the squeeze as expensive upgrades loom and content providers push out more streaming video and high bandwidth applications?

I only mention this because when Shelly Roach reported leaks or rumors about the Obama administration shopping a new treaty requiring ISPs to keep extensive records of internet use by individuals, I thought the idea must be dead on arrival just because of the increased costs, but now, with Mashable’s article, I’m beginning to wonder whether the hardware is already in place and possibly already being used by many private ISPs.

We began covering “conservative activism” for Daily Uprising when the phrase seemed oxymoronic. At the time, we might as well have been talking about “principled politicians” or a “balanced budget” because combining the words “conservative” and “activism” seemed like just another pairing that sounds good in theory, but almost never happens in reality.

Today, however, “conservative activists” are very much real, numerous, and an undeniable force. While we were covering the 9/12 “March on Washington,” we asked one tea party activist from Missouri, who we found decked out in costume and smiles, whether she believed that conservative activism would be a “flash in the pan or a lasting movement.” Her answer was revealing: “This is just too much fun to fade away.”

Indeed, these are “fun” times.  We no longer think we need to ask whether conservative activism works.  Instead, our current interest lies in how we can keep it fun.

So, without further ado, here is the first of our top five suggestions on how to keep conservative activism fun:

1.  Don’t demoralize your troops by focusing on efforts to educate the masses.

Don’t loose perspective of the real impact your work will have by trying to educate the masses. Mass education through activism can be a strangely appealing myth for idealogues, but it is a goal that often brings frustration and misery to your fellow activists. Focusing on building and strengthening your community and targeting the egoistic weaknesses of politicians makes much more sense and is much more fun for your fellow activists.

I have a distinct memory of watching far left wing zealots march with mildly offensive and contentious signs in front of the Federal Building in Westwood, California. I was a young conservative student at neighboring UCLA at the time and, while I don’t remember the specific issue that rankled the moonbats, I do remember the reaction of other students: by and large, they distanced themselves from the crazies with signs. The activists probably thought that they were bringing “public awareness” and persuading people that there was some wrongdoing or injustice going on. The reality was that even generally liberal students didn’t want to be associated with a message that crazies were promoting. All these activists did was suck exhaust, put up with rudeness from passersby, and provide their cause with a fringe gloss.

We’d prefer to see our conservative activists return from successful events energized and recommitted to future involvement in the political process instead of stinging from arguments with strangers. They should be motivated to talk to friends about their happy experience and try to bring others who might share somewhat similar sensibilities into the fold. Real persuasion has always been much more likely to happen on an interpersonal level, anyway.

…

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss Rule #2:  Avoid internal power struggles.