Obama’s What???

How amusing! We’ve moved from “Obama’s Katrina” to “Obama’s Harriet Miers.” Yes, wingnutty Republicans are invoking Harriet Miers in discussing Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Sorry, Redstate and the rest of you, the answer to “Will this be President Obama’s Harriet Miers Moment?” is “No!”

That brings me to my latest limerick:

Obama’s What???
By Madeleine Begun Kane

“Obama’s Katrina,” they say.
“Obama’s H. Miers,” they pray.
To the wingnuts give thanks
For reminding the ranks
Of the many ways Bush went astray.

Related Posts: U.S. Supreme Court Humor

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Obama’s What???”

  1. The BoBo says:

    While I wuldn’t say she’s a Harriet Miers – I don’t see her as being qualified. As a JD – would you agree with her statement that all “suspected” citizens should be detained indefinitely under military jurisdiction if it is possible they may have provided funds to a terrorist organization? I thought most of you JD’s were about civil liberties and the rights of the individual in that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Secondly, she broadly defines terrorist organization. Would such powers be a direct affront to our constitutional rights as American citizens? I wouldn’t support any nominee (even the most conservative of individuals) that made such a statement. She is a very bad pick. BTW – she made this statement only 90 days ago. If I’m not mistaken, isn’t she also the individual who banned recruiters from the Harvard campus and filed an amicus brief before the supreme court on behalf of Harvard saying that the school should not be subject to the same federal laws as other federally funded universities? This lady has no respect for our constitution and should not be allowed to sit on our most supreme court and shred it to pieces.

  2. Obama tries to compromise,
    yet republicans criticise
    his moderate choice
    as democrat voice,
    so fair play too, they must despise.

  3. Nate Levin says:

    Very good, Mad! Reminders indeed.

  4. Veralynne says:

    @TheBoBo I agree. What concerns me is that we’ve not heard word one from mainstream media regarding abortion, gay marriage, corporate personhood, “activist judge,” or any of the other words and phrases we ALWAYS hear when a nomination is made. Charlie Rose didn’t even ask one ALMOST hard question of the panel he interviewed about her today! Experience as a judge doesn’t concern me–her other experience is more than adequate. What concerns me is that the court is WAY too flaming right wing and she’d not offer balance, despite her supporters claiming she’s progressive! I don’t feel that at all. Scary times.

  5. Veralynne says:

    There once was a judge named Kagan
    Over whose nom all were ragin’ :)
    A gay marriage judge?
    On pro-choice she won’t budge?
    Who knows? No one’s broaching those subjects!
    (After Groucho Marx)

  6. madkane says:

    Thanks everyone for your comments and verse!