Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Democrats’ Star Impeachment Law Professor Was Too Radical For … Obama

Democrats’ Star Impeachment Law Professor Was Too Radical For … Obama

Shows just how extremist Democrats have become in their impeachment obsession

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-WAinF2tM

Earlier this week, we covered Stanford law professor Pam Karlan’s testimony during the Democrat impeachment circus: Democrats’ Star Impeachment “Witness” Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds.  As noted in that post, Karlan once stated that she “had” to cross the street to avoid walking in front of the Trump hotel.

Karlan, who worked in Obama’s Justice Department, was reportedly considered by Obama for the Supreme Court in 2009. Obama ultimately rejected her, allegedly because she was too radical.

Via Heavy:

Back in 2009, Karlan was one of the frontrunners to be nominated to the Supreme Court. An outspoken champion of gay rights, criminal defendants’ rights and voting rights, she was viewed by many as the Antonia Scalia of the left.

Barack Obama instead took the Bill Clinton strategy and selected a shortlist of judges with moderate sensibilities which included two federal appeals judges, Sonia Sotomayor of New York and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, and two members of his administration, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Sotomayor was eventually nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court.

“If you talk about somebody who’s a true liberal, a very strong progressive and a visionary architect of the law and jurisprudence, then you’re talking about somebody like Pam Karlan at Stanford. And nobody is seriously talking about Pam Karlan.” Thomas C. Goldstein, partner at Goldstein & Russell., told the New York Times in 2009.

Barack Obama’s decision to select judges with more moderate sensibilities angered liberals but did not surprise Karlan. “Would I like to be on the Supreme Court?” she asked in graduation remarks at Stanford Law School in 2009. “You bet I would. But not enough to have trimmed my sails for half a lifetime.”

Justice Sotomayor was nominated to replace retiring Justice David Souter in May of 2009 and confirmed that August.

It’s worth noting that at that time, Obama had supermajorities in both Houses of Congress and could have, theoretically at least, nominated and had confirmed to the high court any angry, unhinged leftist he wanted.  He chose . . . not Karlan.

Indeed, love or hate her politics, Sotomayor is not an angry, unhinged person and conducts herself in a way that maintains the dignity of the Supreme Court.  I am reasonably sure that she would neither attack the president’s 13-year-old child in a House hearing nor chuckle about crossing the street to avoid Trump hotel cooties.

At the time, the New York Times lamented the fact that “Favorites of Left Don’t Make Obama’s Court List.”

Pamela S. Karlan is a champion of gay rights, criminal defendants’ rights and voting rights. She is considered brilliant, outspoken and, in her own words, “sort of snarky.” To liberal supporters, she is an Antonin Scalia for the left.

But Ms. Karlan does not expect President Obama to appoint her to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. “Would I like to be on the Supreme Court?” she asked in graduation remarks a couple of weeks ago at Stanford Law School, where she teaches. “You bet I would. But not enough to have trimmed my sails for half a lifetime.”

While there are clear political advantages to Mr. Obama if the perception is that he has avoided an ideological choice, Ms. Karlan’s absence from his list of finalists has frustrated part of the president’s base, which hungers for a full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer to counter conservatives like Justice Scalia.

It has been more than 40 years since a Democratic president appointed someone who truly excited the left, but Mr. Obama appears to be following President Bill Clinton’s lead in choosing someone with more moderate sensibilities.

Too extreme for Obama?  When he had supermajorities in both Houses? When he was still in the “honeymoon” phase of his presidency in May of ’09?  And when he still promised the “fundamental transformation” of our great country?

Fast forward to 2019, and this radical Obama SCOTUS reject is a star witness for the Democrat impeachment circus.

It’s surreal how completely the Democrats have removed themselves from any semblance of rational thought when it comes to their impeachment obsession.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

GeorgeCrosley | December 6, 2019 at 7:08 am

Karlan, like too many Democrats now, is proud to be deranged.

The big difference between Justice Scalia and Karlan is that Justice Scalia had honored and followed the Constitution as written while Karlan would destroy and rewrite and twist the Constitution to conform to her extreme and warped political views.

She’s just another angry, hate filled liberal. Her ‘joke’ about Barron Trump even turned off some dems, hence her non-apologetic apology. Her 15 minutes are, I hope, over.

At least she makes no attempt to hide her fetid rage. Contrast that with equally enraged Pelosi’s syrupy and transparent invocations of religious piety. Does anyone seriously believe she prays for the President in a meaningful way?

Would want her ad a next door neighbor, that’s for sure. SHREW.

We have Trump to thank for flushing out the crazy commies and their many enablers from behind their masks. We can now see the true face of the enemy. Are we still conspiracy theorists?

I’m willing to bet cash that two ideas went through the Judiciary Dems’ little minds.

Before their little 3:1 stunt – Let’s get Pamela Karlan as one of the law professors. Obama was considering her as a Supreme nominee, so when her brilliance shines out on national television, we can piggyback on that to tell the voters how they should elect a Dem president.

After – Oh, God thank you for not having Karlan in the Supreme Court, because she made our positions look so stupid and hollow…

I guess many of you do not understand Catholics. Yes, they pray for the people that give them problems. They pray that God will give them guidance and help them understand that person that either change your views of them or them to be more understanding. I understand what she is saying.

That said, not sure how she can take a position on life with supporting abortion and say she has Catholic values. But then, Catholics have a good understanding of sinning, so there you have it.

It was obvious that Trump is a real thorn in her side. It is good news to hear that she is praying for him.

    I’m a catholic and I don’t think there is anything accurate in your comment. I don’t think Catholics have any special understanding of or concern for sin more than any other mainstream christian denomination. I don’t think Pelosi prays for President Trump. I think Pelosi is a consummate and practiced liar. I think the only time she worries about God and prayer is when facing her own mortality and her very advanced age. I think she is just as likely to worship satan as she is to worship God.

      MarkSmith in reply to garybritt. | December 6, 2019 at 1:18 pm

      You are welcome to disagree with me, but my experience with the Catholic Church is to pray for those things that bother you. I believe that is what she was praying for. Her comments were from my view probably the most honest I heard her speak.

      Trump is a thorn in her side. It is creating all sorts of problems for her. I have no doubt that she is pray for help about Trump. It may be mean spirited as some here suggest, but my traditional experience is not to focus on the evil person, it is about how to deal with the person.

      Not telling you how to Prayer, but I was taught (as a Catholic) to pray for the person that is a problem to either have them come to see things your way or for you to see things in a different way.

      She was just expressing her frustration and it was telling how conflicted she is. It shows she is open to a solution. But then everyone has there own view on this.

      Her outburst shows that Trump is winning on this. I would cut her some slack on this, unlike the loser Karlan who is an elitist blowhard snob.

        There are many false assumptions in this latest comment by you. You assume Pelosi is prayerful and good catholic. She isn’t. You assume she is a person of faith with a good heart. She isn’t. Pelosi is every bit as fake and hateful as Karlan. She is just practiced at lying and hiding her hatefulness of those who disagree with her. You are projecting onto Pelosi the beliefs and behaviors you might have. Pelosi isn’t you. Pelosi is a liar and power hungry, money grubbing politician. Nothing more. President Trump is perhaps the only politician in Washington who is a money grubbing person. He’s already made his wealth the old fashioned way. He earned it.

        There is also an undercurrent your latest post that President Trump is somehow wrong or in the wrong. He isn’t.

        Pelosi doesn’t give squat about this country or its citizens. If she did. She would have passed USMCA 10 months ago. She would work with Trump on securing the border and amending our broken immigration laws. She would work with Trump on trade deals and so many other things that he is alone fighting for and getting Yuge! results for our middle class and working men and women. Trump has done more to help minorities in 3 years than Pelosi has done in her entire career/life.

          MarkSmith in reply to garybritt. | December 6, 2019 at 10:03 pm

          Actually you don’t know what I assume, but I will help you out:

          There are many false assumptions in this latest comment by you. You assume Pelosi is prayerful and good catholic.

          I assume that she is prayerful, yes. It is a given if you are a cradle Catholic. Even more so I would guess since she was raised in an Italian family. No reason not to believe otherwise.

          As for a good catholic, her actions on abortion do not reflect that. Not sure where you got the idea that I would think she is a good Catholic? As for the term “Good Catholic” I would not use that. It is such a judgemental term that my non-Catholic friends really take issue with. IMO, there is no such thing as a good Catholic, just a good role model that is Catholic. Nancy is not a good Catholic Role model.

          You assume she is a person of faith with a good heart. She isn’t. Actually you make a leap to assume that, but there is no reason to believe that her political gamesmanship is not separate from her faith. I have not heard her attacking the church.

          Pelosi is every bit as fake and hateful as Karlan.

          Provide it for Pelosi. There is a lot of video and writings of Karlan that show she is hateful.

          She is just practiced at lying and hiding her hatefulness of those who disagree with her.

          She is the majority leader of the House. Common, lying comes with the job. I don’t know if I can say she has hatefulness, I consider it a matter of her position.

          You are projecting onto Pelosi the beliefs and behaviors you might have. Maybe so, but I thought I was relaying my experiences as an Italian Catholic that is likely similar to hers. What I learn growing up does not sound any different than what she said about being prayerful.

          Pelosi isn’t you. Pelosi is a liar and power hungry, money grubbing politician. Nothing more.

          That seems to fit her role. I don’t have facts to support that. I do feel strongly about her political positions and total disagree with her.

          President Trump is perhaps the only politician in Washington who is a money grubbing person. He’s already made his wealth the old fashioned way. He earned it.

          Not sure if that is what you wanted to say. My experience with dealing with the Unions and construction project are not the most ethical. Trump is not a saint from my prospective. I think you are being naive to think that Trump “made it the old fashion way” Trump worked the system. Read his books.

          There is also an undercurrent your latest post that President Trump is somehow wrong or in the wrong. He isn’t.

          Not sure where you got that, but I am guessing it has to do with Trump’s comment that he does not believe she is prayerful. I think it is a bad decision to go there and say she is not.

          Instead of doubting her, the best strategy would be to say it is great that she is praying for him because he needs all the prayers to get him though the witch hunt.

          Pelosi doesn’t give squat about this country or its citizens. If she did. She would have passed USMCA 10 months ago. She would work with Trump on securing the border and amending our broken immigration laws. She would work with Trump on trade deals and so many other things that he is alone fighting for and getting Yuge! results for our middle class and working men and women. Trump has done more to help minorities in 3 years than Pelosi has done in her entire career/life.

          I don’t know if she give a squat about this county or not. I am pretty sure she is the majority leader for her effectiveness supporting the Democrat platform. I would be careful about “Trump” results. Personally, he has not help me get farther ahead, but he did help stop my huge losses because of Obamacare. He is my best hope for breaking the system so things can be right.

          The focus needs to be on how he is exposing the corruptions, not some spiteful BS about if Nancy is sincerely prayerful. It is a waste of time and a set back to the more important things.

          You make lots of assumptions about Pelosi and her faith because she is an Italian Catholic. I grew up in Chicago area in neighborhoods with high percentages of Italian Catholics. What you describe about them and their faith and religious practices does NOT match what I experienced hanging out with many a catholic Italian boy and girl. Again you are projecting yourself and your unique family situation onto Pelosi. Pelosi’s family faith didn’t keep her father from being a crook. It doesn’t keep her husband from being one. She is simply a liar that uses her supposed catholic faith as a PROP for public consumption. It apparently fools some people. I’m not one of them.

          MarkSmith in reply to garybritt. | December 7, 2019 at 10:46 am

          You make lots of assumptions about Pelosi and her faith because she is an Italian Catholic.

          Yea, just like you. Only assumption I make is when she said she is prayerful and she was raised Catholic, I believe her. Everyone grows their faith at different rates. I don’t believe she is as evil as Karlan. Shot, I give Donna Brazile a little credit too. Maybe Pelosi is using religion to cover for her evil deeds, but I think it is too complicated to assume that. As for her husband and father, who cares. It is about her. Trump has had 3 marriages and ran a beauty pageant, that is not a role model either. Success is more than just net worth. What gives Trump credibility to me is an interview he had with Pat Nixon.

          Nancy play the role of politician successfully very well. I would not underestimate her.

          I grew up in Chicago area in neighborhoods with high percentages of Italian Catholics. What you describe about them and their faith and religious practices does NOT match what I experienced hanging out with many a catholic Italian boy and girl.

          Yea, guess what, I was married at Old St. Pats. in Chicago. Maybe I know about being an Italian Catholic in Chicago too, but I digress.

          Again you are projecting yourself and your unique family situation onto Pelosi. Pelosi’s family faith didn’t keep her father from being a crook. It doesn’t keep her husband from being one. She is simply a liar that uses her supposed catholic faith as a PROP for public consumption. It apparently fools some people. I’m not one of them.

          Public consumption and faith are two different things. Trump missed a great opportunity to use what Nancy said to has advantage and he blew it. Instead of holding her accountable for praying for him, he dismissed it. If she was not sincere and he indicated that he appreciated it, it would do two things; show prayer is something to take seriously and if she was not really sincere, then it is another lie she has to be accountable to God about. Not me, God. Now lets focus on what is really important and out the spygate people. Nancy is just a pawn in the big pictures of evil. Schumer and Clinton are pretty high up on the scale of evil people.

          Pelosi apparently fools some people. I’m not one of them.

    bw222 in reply to MarkSmith. | December 6, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    As a life-long Catholic, here’s what you need to know about today’s Catholic Church – most lay people and priests (excluding Jesuits) are good people. The pope and most bishops suck.

    What’s the difference between Francis and Protestants? Protestants admit they aren’t Catholic.

What is interesting is the word HATE is what really got her. How easy it was to use that word against Trump, but to claim she had hate was pretty serious. If I was a report I would say since you have such strong feeling about the word hate, why don’t you take issue with your fellow democrats using it.

I think this is all a sign that things are cracking. Plan for more crazies to come. Harris is out. The Biden thing is huge because it exposed them all. Instead of working with Trump and claiming success, they could have possible taken the Senate and kept the House. Instead, they just have exposed.

    CaliforniaJimbo in reply to MarkSmith. | December 6, 2019 at 11:43 am

    I believe the Dems poll tested her whole speech and it came out that hate is a negative trigger. Hence her heart of love and praying for VSGPDJT. When hate was said, her diminished capacity response was a fair reflection of her fear of losing it all. She knew they were trying to duck the hate charge. To have it laid at her feet by her friends in the msm was too much for poor Nancy.
    God speed President Trump.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | December 6, 2019 at 4:50 pm

      Pelosi has plenty of hate…..

      Nancy Pelosi didn’t get where she did without major political connections. Her father and brother made it to being Mayor of Baltimore. When Nancy talks about “cleaning the swamp” she could have been talking about her ethically challenged family. Her brother was charged with rape. Her father :

      ran for Governor of Maryland in 1954, but was forced to drop out due to being implicated in receiving undeclared money from Dominic Piracci, a parking garage owner convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and conspiracy to obstruct justice

      If you think this is just old news, check out her husband. Paul Pelosi is being sued:

      California’s sports and political worlds are colliding through the dormant United Football League franchise in Sacramento, with several coaches and employees suing owner Paul Pelosi – the millionaire husband of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco – claiming he failed to pay them after promising to do so.

      Five employees of the Sacramento Mountain Lions – including former Raiders defensive coordinator Chuck Bresnahan, who held the same position there – say Paul Pelosi, a real-estate investor and businessman, owes them $250,000, according to the suit filed this month in San Francisco Superior Court.

      That would seem like pocket change to Pelosi. He and his wife, the top Democrat in the House, are worth $26 million, according to federal financial disclosure statements. Their investments range from real estate around the Bay Area to their vineyard and home in St. Helena.

      https://nalert.blogspot.com/2013/11/nancy-pelosis-family-and-their.html

        Is it hate, or someone that knows how to work the system even with bad family ties? I might not respect her, but I would be a fool to under estimate her because I think she hates. She might, but it really does not matter. What matters is beating her at the game she plays.

a visionary architect of the law

An artful way to describe someone who knows what she wants the law to be, and is enthusiastic about sticking it to the rest of us. A turbocharged Ginsburg on crack.

They’d doubtless have worked in “emanations of penumbras” but that’s already taken.

2smartforlibs | December 6, 2019 at 9:57 am

What a vile hate-filled individual this thing is. That kind of hate isnt natural its taught.

Not “too extreme for Obama” but too soon to drop the mask while the takeover of healthcare was being plotted.

Sometimes I wonder if Trump is forcing Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff to put on these freak show to expose the rot in or government. Why else would they put such an unpleasant person on the stage? But then I realize they find Warren and Biden electable…

amatuerwrangler | December 6, 2019 at 11:13 am

Fuzzy– thanks for reminding us that when the Dems had the White House and both houses of Congress, veto-proof no less, they still could not get “dreamer” immigration codified and had to resort to slight of hand later on to push through Obamacare. They had the opportunity to roll this country up into a package of their desires and put a big red bow on it. But they could not get it done, thankfully.

They seem to be more attached to keeping their cush jobs than they are to their own “vision”.

    Your average politician has no more of a ‘vision’ than what the last ‘real’ polling indicated it should be.
    “Job One” is to get elected to that nice cushy seat on the .gov gravy train.
    “Job Two” is remaining seated.
    Except for the fanatics like AOC, any controversy and possible offense to their constituency that might negatively affect voting for them is something they really try to avoid.

Pamela S. Karlan is a champion of gay rights, criminal defendants…” Apparently only the defendants she approves of.

Karlan, probably figuring she was on Hitlery’s short list as well, is just another one who contracted a case of full blown TDS the night of the 2016 election.

You just have to know she could taste that seat on the SCOTUS bench; the overweening desire for the power she had wanted fulfilled for so long so she could stamp her feet in the face of everyone she despises.
The pollsters were so sure and so was she.
Then to see her hopes smashed to bits on the rocks of how the U.S. actually elects Presidents?
Her wrath at Trump winning simply drove her over the edge and she is, quite literally, insane.

Nadler’s staff are a bunch of inept fools to have brought her, and the two other ‘experts’ into public view on live TV.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Miles. | December 6, 2019 at 4:44 pm

    Agreed!

    I can’t figure out how the DC police keep all the insane DEMS and Leftie Pig-gressives from grazing on the DC mall all day long.

Sotomayor always votes left. There would be no difference between her and this nut job.

    Same for Kagan. To refer to Sotomayor and Kagan as moderates or centrists is a joke. They are hard core left progressives. Just like ginsburg and Karlan. The difference between them and Karlan is they are much better at hiding their hate and disdain for those who disagree with them.

Another crazy woman leading liberal beta males around by the nose.

The involvement of the Kosher Nostra in the Ukraine hoax seems grossly disproportionate to their population numbers. Given Trump is the greatest supporter of Israel to ever inhabit the White House, how can this phenomenon be explained?

She’s a living argument for bringing back the Shrew’s Bridle.

Another cretin broadcasting from his mother’s basement.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend