To Divide and Conquer with Elena Kagan! Paranoia or reality?

Obama recently nominated, Elena Kagan, a Jewish gay women, to replace Justice Paul Stevens on the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Stevens served as the leader of the so called progressive wing of the SCOTUS. Stevens was also the only Protestant serving on a court otherwise dominated by minorities, five Catholics and two Jews.

Ones racial/religious affiliation has been thee factor in nomination decisions of the past 60 years, and is key to understanding the evolved method of choosing candidates for the Supreme Court. Today’s Supreme Court already reflects a skewered demographic. Sotomayor, who just happens to be Latino, was seen as part of an effort to demographically rebalance the court. Ostensibly her nomination, established the vision of the Obama administration vis-a-vis the SCOTUS -a Jews nomination runs counter to this vision. It is now very likely that for the first time in American history SCOTUS will be without a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) representing the majority religion and demographic in this country.

One would think that politically expediency is as play. Thus like in the case of Sotomayor nomination, the race/religion of the nominated would galvanize the voting base of that community in support of the nominator. Nominating Sotomayor made political sense; if you factor in our unseen immigrant population, Latinos are the largest minority in America. On the other hand the relevant strength of the Jewish voting public is relatively shrinking. Always a single digit minority the American-Jewish community does wield disproportionate political-power, but not so much as to compel a voter-hungry politician to disregard 50 percent of the real population. Moreover, Ruth Berta Ginsberg already represents the Jewish community.
Even though some speculate the Ginsberg is on her way out, it doesn’t justify a Jewish pick over a Protestant, even for a couple of months. What then is behind the Obama administrations reasoning?

The first and most simplistic explanation is that this is somehow tied to the recent gaff between Washington and Jerusalem which has spurred the administration to affirm its commitment to Israel via commitment to the Jewish community. It is even possible, though highly unlikely, that all this is just talk. This talk is intended to both strengthen Jewish support for the administration, which could then in actuality nominate a Protestant.

(Never mind that this is a flawed, but popular, conception of the relationship between Jews in America and their support for Israel. American-Jewish support for Israel is not intended to be at the expense of American success, on the contrary. Ignoring the Protestant majority undermines unity, which undermines America’s core strength. That is not good for America and therefore it is not good for Israel. In realty the American-Jewish community has every incentive to see America succeed. It is this blessed country that gave us opportunity, as it does all. Jews support Israel because, for amongst other reasons, a strong Israel is good for America. But we do not expect or want to ever see international politics intrude in something as important and private as the SCOTUS nomination process).

Still even the mere talk of a Jewish nominee, simply makes no sense. Clearly the court needs to represent the breadth of America society, but the majority should not be ignored even in conversation.

Another simplistic explanation is that Obama wants to assuage the far left and address the dearth of a gay representative on the court. This interpretation is more congruent with the administrations past behavior. Just as Sotomayor was chosen because she represented an unrepresented minority on the court, Latinos, so to should does this nomine.

The coarsest of perspectives, is that Kagan is an old Obama crony –Kagan served as dean of Harvard laws school, and taught at Chicago law. I mention this only for educational purposes, as it is clearly a likely coincidence.

Yet another reason offered is that Kagan has a flexible ideology. In other words when it comes to expanding executive power Kagan

“defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress” http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

On the other hand

“Kagan's record on social issues will likely be perfectly satisfactory, even pleasing, to most progressives. She is, by all appearances, solidly pro-choice and in favor of gay equality”. http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

The result is an easy confirmation, in a time when everything Obama attempts is challenged to the end. Conservatives will find it easy to support an individual who espouses the same views that underpinned Bush 2 conceptions of broad executive powers. At the same time Progressives will support her based on her social-progressive views.

Still do any or all of these explanations trump the need to have 50 percent of our population represented on SCOTUS? Is it really impossible to find a gay WASP, with credentials? Would not the addition of the WASP element engender an even greater promise of bi-partisanship?

Another way of understanding this enigmatic move, is to ask what does Obama gain with this nomination?

Of course this question is premised on the notion that a president looks for some degree of extrinsic reward in any major action undertaken.

Kagans views on major issues like the Obama administration in general are clouded in a disturbing degree of ambiguity. This makes the lack of a plausible motivation behind Obama choice all the more disturbing.

What we can be sure of is that if a Protestant is not chosen whoever is chosen along with their community, will attract the hidden ire of large segment of the population.

I don’t know if this a paranoid conclusion. At the same time to think that the Obama inner circle over looked these questions is equally delusional. Considering Obama’s roots it is not too far off, to divide and conquer our country and use an individual from a certain community to do it?! Paranoia or reality? (UPDATE ITS ALREADY STARTING http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/pat-buchanan-too-many-jew_n_576948.html,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/the-big-lie-about-the-fcc_b_576094.html )