The only chance yo have is to get together and cunningly start praising the heck out Kagan—-like keep repeating her “I love the Federalist Society” line—-triggering a Pavlov-like leftist backlash who then turn on Bam and pull a Harriet Miers.

I know, its unlikely…mostly b/c republicans aren’t that smart and even if they were they’d still have to outmaneuver a man who administered a beat-down to both the Clintons and the VRWC. Odds aren’t good.

But its the only chance you have.

“TREASON

This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

I’d settle for impeachment …

So, our now POTUS, acting Commander in Chief, also with no significant life experience outside of academia, and no personal military experience or related sense of identification and gravity, other than a casual campaign comment that he thought about enlisting at one time… appoints another notoriously anti-military left-wing liberal to a post of critical long-term importance for the republic; that, after “she has argued … in writing and speeches… to the Supreme Court against the Soloman Act, but her arguments were rejected by even the most liberal justices.” Hopefully, the Republican Party will hold a rigid line of solidarity against this mockery, if only to make an important statement about the fiduciary responsibility which the Democrats have betrayed in favor of their radical-left ideological conspiracy against mainstream America; and whileChina, Iran and North Korea have established a strategic alliance that focuses on missile and nuclear development, according to a new report.

William F. Buckley, Jr.’s famous quote was never so appropriate.

I thought that was Stephen Breyer.

I’d start by asking in detail about her duties as dean, and then segue into grilling her on the lack of “diversity” in her HLS faculty appointments. I’d twist her arm in a rapid-fire series of questions about why she hired no minorities (IIRC), in hopes that she would open the door by bringing up the qualifications of candidates.

I wouldn’t let on then that I had her; I’d give her more rope, and bore in on what she considered to be the requisite qualifications, until she mentioned experience and/or publication record. Then I’d let her off that hook by acknowledging her point and agreeing with her that I could see how something as important as an HLS faculty appointment certainly demanded considerable legal experience.

That’s when I’d go for the jugular. I’d have researched every relevant faculty appointment to see if any of them had the same or more practice experience or publication history than Kagan. If so, after a digression to relax her a bit, I’d come back in an apparent non sequitur to ask out of the blue if she thought X was qualified for the Supreme Court not someday, but right now.

Either way she answers, she’s stuffed. If she says “no,’ then we spend some time on why. If she says “yes,” then we spend some time on what distinguished her from all the other potential candidates similarly situated. Tough question to answer.

If there is no person who fits the bill, I’d stick with the experience angle more generically, as to why experience and publication record was important in filling a legal faculty position, and proceed from there.

But always waiting for the hanging curve ball, when she says experience doesn’t matter. That’s when I’d get on Barry’s !##$ list in perpetuity.