(03.) ELENA KAGAN, POLITICAL ACTIVIST, SOCIALIST, ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST
Page One of Two.
The Senate hearings began Monday, June 28, 2010. Kagan’s nomination occurred May 10, 2010.
The nomination of Elena Kagan is offensive to our nation and this site does, indeed, believe that that was the incentive to Obama in nominating Kagan to the Supreme Court: Kagan’s offensiveness to and about our Constitution. Kagan, like Obama, assumes that the Constitution is a reference or a series of instructions as to government and as to who and what the U.S.A. is, but that the Constitution is (should be) changeable to accommodate socio-political whims and wants by — mostly — the Left (since it’s the Left who nearly expressly holds such an opinion – Conservatives and most Moderates don’t disrespect Constitutional integrity as that so the derision of Constitutional integrity is nearly expressly a Leftwing penchant).
And yet in the hearings and through accommodating, appeasing media — and from the Democrats hurling Kagan forward toward confirmation to the Supreme Court in this hearing at this time — it continues to be denied that Kagan is a political activist and even Kagan has been tortuously deceiving anyone in ear and eye shot in and from the hearing by denying such about herself, while she also makes proud, loud declarations such as this one:
“The Constitution, Kagan said, “just says what you’re supposed to do and how things are supposed to work,” but it’s open to change.”
That statement — the first among two that reveal Kagan as unsuitable to the Supreme Court — succinctly and specifically defines Kagan as a political activist. Her protestations as those from the accommodating Democrats rushing her toward the bench — and similar ridiculing denials from Barack Obama in the same regard (he’s amused at the American public’s disagreements with and about his nominee) — the protestations that Kagan is not a political activist are quite clearly disproven by her very statements in support of an inconvenient Constitution, one that needs change, should be changed, the bench the way to do just that.
Kagan’s Constitutional philosophy? She thinks our U.S. Constitution is “a living document” — that means, it’s not absolute, it’s not there to be applied, it’s there to be referred to but interpreted and modified from the bench, it’s a document in service to the socio-political whims of the court. That’s the definition of political activism and of Kagan as a political activist.
But it’s also the definition of one who is not qualified for the Supreme Court, if for any court.
The second revealing statement made by Kagan — an entire exchange in this regard — was when Kagan was questioned by Senator Jeff Sessions about Kagan’s refusal to allow U.S. military recruitment on Harvard Law campus, while Kagan was Dean at that institution.
(Here’s a testy article by the Left attempting to frame Sessions badly for confronting Kagan — though it is clear that Kagan is illogical or deceitful or both in response to Sessions’ confrontation while Kagan seeks to evade declaring her position in response to Sessions’s question: “Jeff Sessions Uses Camera Time To Call Elena Kagan A Liar“.)
Sessions confronted Kagan with the fact that U.S. military recruitment on college campuses was legislatively enacted by Congress, — that it “was law” — yet Kagan refused to respect and abide by that law in her refusal to allow military recruiting on the campus of Harvard Law.
Kagan maintains a preposterously fictional tale (in the hearings, in media, well documented) that “(she) didn’t block military at Harvard.”
Yet she carried forth in today’s hearings when questioned by Senator Sessions that she did, indeed, do that very thing while at Harvard Law. She insisted her rationalizations in the hearings as to why she did, indeed, “block military at Harvard” while she declares in media that she “didn’t”.
When asked by Senator Sessions about her behavior while at Harvard (blocking U.S. military in recruiting on that campus), Kagan responded, ludicrously, that she “was trying to enforce our (Harvard Law’s) (so-called) ‘anti-discrimination policy’” (that forbids groups on Harvard Law campus who maintain the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — which the U.S. military does).
Kagan went on to iterate in response to Sessions’ questions — as to Kagan’s vehement animosity for the DADT policy — an elaboration rationalizing her bias and animosity by promoting desires Kagan assigned to “gays and lesbians” in regards participation in the military.
She affirmed that she refused to follow the law as enacted by the U.S. Congress. She affirmed her determination to not follow such a law, she illustrated her animosity for following that law and by her adamant responses, she affirmed what Senator Sessions’ questioned her about — whether or not she was being truthful in her ongoing protestations that she “didn’t block military at Harvard” — all that adamant protestation that, in fact, affirmed she was lying by attempting to support both a affirmative and a negative tale in her responses to the same question.
This calls into question — severely so — Elena Kagan’s mind, certainly her character. It defines her, absolutely, as a political activist who insists on her socio-political demands even when it involves defying existing laws. This is not the behavior of anyone who supports Constitutional fidelity.
These key points define Kagan not only as a political activist but, when combined with her absence of judicial experience and her dubious character issues (she lies with great ease, proven to be lying, continues to deny the confronting reality), affirm that she is not qualified for the Supreme Court. So we’re told this day by the Left that she’s going to be confirmed, no doubt about that: not qualified, a political activist deeply immersed in Socialism, lacking respect for Constitutional predetermination of content, so: a Democrat’s Dream on the Bench.
Senator Jeff Sessions’ Statement on Kagan
“Sessions says nominee ‘violated the law’”.
(Video) “‘Unbecoming an American’: Gingrich Slams Kagen Over Military Recruiters at Harvard”.
From and about Kagan’s Senate testimony on 06/29/10, there is this commentary:
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is calling the Constitution “a living document”, saying its framers wrote it to last through ever-changing circumstances.
“Either way,” she said, “we apply what they say, what they meant to do, so in that sense we are all originalists.”
This doesn’t even make sense! Words have no meaning for liberals anymore.
Liberals promote the notion of a “living Constitution” roughly translating into, “no fixed meaning to the Constitution, just whatever we nine unelected judges want it to mean to support our agenda.”
…which well clarifies Kagan’s allusions as to her wants for the withering away of existing Constitutional content in lieu of her socio-political desires and wants for “change”.
Goldman-Sachs association (“Stimulus” – wealth redistribution schemes):
Larry Summers appointed Kagan as Dean of Harvard Law when Summers moved-on to become Economic Adviser to Barack Obama, where he was key in arranging the taxpayer “bailout” of Goldman Sachs (and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and…Summers is a Keynesian economist as a Socialist who arranges massive wealth redistribution to fund the Leftwing).
And, from 2005 to 2008 Kagan was (also) a member of Goldman Sachs, legal adviser during the worst financial, ethical quagmires by that investment — and DNC aligned — group.
It does appear that Democrats have been using and are using the federal government to pad Democrats in numbers and ensure Leftwing money-churning operations that benefit…Democrat lobbying and party associates: “hope and change” and pass the taxpayers’ trillion dollars.
An individual comments on Kagan’s absence of professional publishing:
“Kagan wasn’t even a scholar as a law professor. She wasn’t publishing. I had a lot of those types of professors. They were good people, but they basically developed a good syllabus early in their academic careers and taught from it from then on. That hardly makes a scholar. If she were well regarded for her scholarship, that would be a different matter. She’s just unqualified, in my opinion.
Other Socialist/Leftwingers attempt to rationalize her Socialist opinions:
silly article (The Daily Princeton) claiming Kagan’s undergraduate thesis — “Socialists Unite” — “doesn’t mean she’s a Socialist”. Who knows what it means, apparently, when she’s a Dean of where you want to attend law school…
Here’s Kagans’ undergraduate thesis, “Socialists Unite“.
(Parts of that thesis can also be read as incorporated with commentary by others, which can be read here, and here.)
Kagan urged Clinton to support late-term abortion ban in 1997, a fact that also reveals her appeal to the likes of abortion-intensive Barack Obama.
Kagan Helped Bill Clinton Cover Up Scandals.
Some of Kagan’s documented history during the Clinton Administration as Solicitor General (and apparent legal adviser to Bill Clinton) has been released but not all of that documentation; Clinton Library continues to “withhold” the rest: “How Bill Clinton’s Library Is Blocking the Release of Some Kagan Memos“.
UGLY, LOADED: “Elena Kagan’s Goldman Sachs “Connection”.
“Law Review Article Could Spell Trouble for Kagan at Confirmation Hearing” — Senators who will be trying to pry Kagan’s closely held views out of her at the upcoming confirmation hearing will almost certainly confront Kagan with her own words from long ago said…
“The Senate has to get the information that it needs, but as well, the nominee for any particular position, whether it is judicial or otherwise, has to be protective of certain kinds of interests.”
Elena Kagan thinks ‘burning books’ — destroying published material — is acceptable because laws against it “(may not or won’t) be enforced”. If you can get away with eradicating information you find politically oppositional, then do it because no one’s going to stop you — so Kagan opines and advises.
VIDEO: “Kagan: its Fine if The Law Bans Books Because Government Won’t Really Enforce It”.
The Senate Confirmation Hearings began; among Elena Kagan’s opening statement, June 28, 2010, are these statements:
(She) will work hard and do (her) best to do a good job” and that “(she) will listen hard.”
Today, 06/29/10, in her second day of testimony before the Senate, Kagan made this insipid declaration:
“My politics must be…separate from my judging.”
If Kagan’s clunker vocabulary is any indication of what is deemed to be “smart” then I can easily name thousands of individuals known to me who are giant genius soldiers by comparison.
One thing’s apparent, however, from Kagan’s insipid clunker 
speech and that is that Kagan is extremely condescending. Her refusal to speak profoundly under such profound circumstances toward such a profound goal as a position on the U.S. Supreme Court reveals her assumption that the rest of humanity is too cognitively limited to perceive her grandiose bigness. So she speaks to us, the American public, as she would to a slug: very, very slowly in very, very limited four-letter words or else by lapsing into street-corner, pre-school word inventions.
Her “judging”. Her “politics”. She will “listen hard” and “work hard”. Someone take her to the infirmary or the pre-school clothing department at J.C. Penny, please. Maybe a nice, big blue beach-ball would occupy her for a few hours, offer her that and a juicy sippy cup.
“GOP Keeps Filibuster Option for Kagan” — June 27, 2010
9750 Words on Elena Kagan — More than you ever wanted to know.
In Business Case, Court Rules Against Kagan — June 28, 2010
On that one occasion on which smarty smartsmarty Elena Kagan, while Solicitor General to Bill Clinton’s Administration, argued a case (or attempted to) before the Supreme Court, the Justices immediately interrupted her opening statements with near laughter at the obvious concept-confusions and attempts to rationalize by far-fetchery emanating from Kagan. It is nearly painful to witness just how lacking in legal expertise Elena Kagan displayed in this situation — obviously, since she didn’t return to another round of law school afterward, there remains to be proven just to what extent her “legal expertise” has improved since then.
Kagan Botches Oral Argument In Supreme Court Appearance At Citizens United Lawsuit — Supreme Court Justices actually laugh at Kagan’s attempts to argue the law and at her absence of logic in that regard.
Here’s another video of the Supreme Court justices trying to make sense of Kagan’s absence of logic (note the Justices’ obvious amusement at Kagan’s lack of reason).
To further elaborate, please read Big Journalism’s range of posts on tag, “Elena Kagan“. The many randy compromises, so to speak, about Kagan’s character, are addressed in several posts on that site, among much, much more:
From Big Journalism, tag “Elena Kagan”.
Kagan’s support of the First Amendment is questionable:
In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. Source.
Kagan on Second Amendment: Like Freedom of Speech Enjoys “Strong But Not Unlimited Protection”.
Individual commentary about that:
…Kagan, like Sotomayor, will do and say anything to get onto the bench. Then, by splitting hairs and wordsmithing, both will proceed to destroy our rights to free speech and to bear arms using their “interpretation” of what is reasonable and unlimited.
Don’t be suckers. Why is the First and Second Amendment even a question and why do the progressives continually bring it up? Answer, because they wish to fundamentally change them to suit their own needs and power.
Comments point out the offensiveness of political activism from the bench and the dire problem created by absence of Constitutional fidelity from those confirmed to the courts.
Comments also point out the common practice by many a Socialist/Communist of whatever gradation: they lie well when it’s expedient to their goals. Kagan did illustrate that talent today in the Senate hearings, just as has on earlier occasions Bill Clinton, wife Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many another Leftwinger.
Kagan and Sunstein Aim to Censor Free Speech: Web, Books, Radio May 18, 2010
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let’s move on to Elena Kagan, or get back to her for just a second. Ed Whelan, National Review Online: “According to this Wall Street Journal article, during her service as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1987, Elena Kagan took the position that the Constitution confers so-called ‘positive’ rights to governmental aid, not just ‘negative’ liberties protected against governmental interference or penalty.
Specifically, with respect to one certiorari petition she expressed her ‘worry that a majority of this court will agree with Judge Posner that “the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties.”‘ And with respect to another, she discussed a lower-court ruling that, relying on ‘evolving standards of decency,’ held that the 14th Amendment (in her words) ‘imposes [some] affirmative obligations on state officials,’ and she opined that ‘the holding is correct.’ (By ‘correct,’ she evidently was referring to her best understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted, not to the Court’s then-prevailing case law.)”
This is important because this negative rights versus positive rights, we brought this up during the campaign. The extremist libs today don’t like the Constitution because they look at it as negative, meaning the Constitution says what government can’t do to you, and they don’t like that. They want a Constitution of positive liberties. I know it sounds convoluted, but what they mean by that is they look at this from the government perspective, not the citizen perspective. They want a Constitution written that says what government can do for people, or in their case, to people. And this argument of theirs has many roots. But we can trace one of these roots to Cass Sunstein, who is now one of Obama’s czars. This is from February 2001, nine years ago. He was a University of Chicago law professor where Obama wasn’t even an adjunct, he was a lecturer. Elena Kagan was a law professor at the University of Chicago as well. Cass Sunstein had this to say about Internet equality nine years ago.
SUNSTEIN: Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site, and vice-versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views.
RUSH: Stop the tape, recue that. This is net neutrality. This is what the Supreme Court just said, you can’t regulate the Internet. There is no law giving you the right to regulate the Internet. Net neutrality would force Internet providers to provide an equal percentage of, as he’s saying here, conservative versus liberal links in a search engine or what have you. There’s also some financial aspects to it, too, but this goes back to 2001. Net neutrality is the term for this now. But listen to the whole bite again because what you’ll hear here is that the reason guys like Sunstein and Kagan and Obama and the rest want to control the Internet is because sometimes people just don’t know what’s best for our society (– Continued).
Here’s some propaganda from “The Hollywood Reporter:
“Hollywood’s got at least one reason to cheer. Her (Kagan’s) history in academia suggests she’ll be an extreme supporter of free speech under the First Amendment.”
To the contrary, Kagan has documented history challenging if not attempting to whittle-away at the First Amendment.
Explosive report shows Kagan supports censorship of TV, radio, posters, and pamphlets…
“New GOP argument against Kagan: She could ban books”.
Kagan’s attack on First Amendment (free speech) Rights: Kagan Says ‘Governmental Motive’ is Proper Focus in First Amendment Cases, Backs Limits on Speech That Can ‘Harm’
MONSTROUS: “Kagan Argued for ‘Government Redistribution of Speech”
Does that even make sense to anyone in a free society? Kagan’s advocating (seriously) that “government” can determine where and how to “place” or “distribute” your speech. That means that “government” according to Kagan is in control of what you opine and where you “can”: internet, statements spoken or written with the eye of the objective there by Kagan centered in ordinary, loathesome old Marxism that controls the individual’s expression in any and all capacities. Because that’s where she’s heading there with her monstrous ideas: what “speech” she doesn’t like or that offends her sense of what socio-political reality should be, is to be “redistributed” if not eradicated.
So, imagine the U.S. Constitution under a Kagan glare of “government redistribution” if she but only grabs a seat on the Supreme Court. This is not a marginal issue as to Kagan’s objectives and political errata.
“Kagan once defended 2 Live Crew’s “Me So Horny” in obscenity case”
Apparently, to Elena Kagan, *some speech* — and if it’s obscene speech — is O.K. Just not religious speech, or speech about heterosexuals who marry, or about those who believe in Jesus Christ or talk about support of the right of human life in the womb to remain alive, that’ll get your opinions “redistributed” if not disappeared.
Not an encouraging expose of Kagan’s ideas about the Second Amendment (she’s not keen on individual gun ownership) Kagan Issue Briefing | Gun rights.
What follows is a litany of offensive “feelings” decisions made by Elena Kagan that reveal her as activist, not of reasoned mind:
– she’s pro-abortion (radically, a zealot);
– she’s anti-military;
– she didn’t act critically against two faculty members who plagiarized while she was Dean at Harvard Law (which, if done by students, would have been grounds to expel them, while the faculty plagiarizers were allowed to maintain in good standing by Kagan) (union-keeping, perhaps);
– she’s pro-’marriage-equality’ (means gay marriage);
– she doesn’t display any fidelity to the Constitution but rather deflects to her “feelings” and causes and interpretations of “social justice” when asked to render decisions or promote issues;
and,
– Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America has raised concern that Kagan “treated pro-life activists like violent criminals, creating a task force in the Department of Justice and a grand jury (while Kagan was Solicitor General to Bill Clinton) to investigate peaceful pro-lifers; this raises serious concerns that she shares the hostile view that religious beliefs are a form of ‘hate.’”
That last point with reference (Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America) should NOT be minimized or overlooked as to Elena Kagan’s character. In reference to the Supreme Court, her character should not be allowed to masquerede as the laughing, joking, smarty-hand-waving nominee we see this week in Senate hearings, it should be properly recognized as darker than the redressed, cosmetically redone nominee-courtier. It is, in fact, that her character is soiled with an insistence on genocide and a truly cruel denigration of those who seek to support and protect the unborn, and that’s just part of what ails her.
From that article (linked previously, here again): “Potential Supreme Court Picks Elana Kagan…Strongly Back(s) Abortion”
Kagan, the president’s solicitor general, is an abortion advocate whom pro-life groups have already assailed.
Wright told LifeNews.com that Kagan was Associate Counsel to President Bill Clinton and Deputy Assistant to him for domestic policy — which, under Clinton, advocated abortion.
Kagan was credited by the ACLU with “shaping Clinton’s policy on hate crimes,” Wright noted.
“The Clinton Administration treated pro-life activists like violent criminals, creating a task force in the Department of Justice and a grand jury to investigate peaceful pro-lifers. This raises serious concerns that she shares the hostile view that religious beliefs are a form of ‘hate,’” she said.
Kagan may be sympathetic to the views of internationalists, those who would impose international norms on Americans, including an unlimited abortion right.
“Abortion groups are actively attempting to create the impression that international norms require countries to provide access to abortion. During Kagan’s nomination hearing for Solicitor General, Senator Specter questioned her about the use of foreign sources of law in constitutional decision-making,” Wright said.
Kagan responded: “At least some members of the Court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts. When this is the case, I think the Solicitor General’s office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these Justices’ support for the positions that the office is taking.”
The pro-life women’s leader replied: “A Supreme Court justice needs to be absolutely committed to the Constitution, proficient in their knowledge and ability to make rock-solid arguments on the basis of the Constitution and federal laws. If Elena Kagan needs to rely on foreign sources, it is an admission that her arguments are weak or she is incapable of handling the requirements of the office.”
Kagan has also come under criticism from Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life women’s group Susan B. Anthony List.
She told LifeNews.com previously, “In the past Kagan has been a strong supporter of the pro-abortion agenda. She has vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics which promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers.”
This is not the profile of a happy, well-balanced, professional person but of someone with a subterfuge agenda that includes goals and beliefs which disrespect human life as also disrespect U.S. taxpayers.
Supports ‘marriage equality’ (gay marriage) — deems marriage between one man and one woman to be an act of “discrimination”.
That very well may be her individual opinion (shared by many on the Left), but it’s mere opinion and has no place among Constitutional fidelity and judicial expertise as to a Supreme Court position: it’s not any individual’s place or privilege to render that or any other personal decision as “law” or legal opinion from the bench. Kagan appears to intend to force her personal opinions on the nation if confirmed to the Supreme Court — there is abundant information about her to substantiate this assumption about her.
Testimony of Elena Kagan – February 10, 2009
Kagan declares that she “will work hard” and “will listen hard”. She’s so smart. A smartysmart smarter.
Seriously, these remarks by Kagan are highly arrogant, desperately condescending to and about others. Are we not intelligent enough in her view to understand if she shared her sincere, mature motivations? Apparently, not. We are limited to these grossly crude reductions of language and information by Kagan because she’s the smartysmart smarter one and we’re just Americans who don’t understand anything more complex than the word, “hard”.
Another opinion by another citizen, one that raise some important information about Kagan and her associations and influences:
“This is the biggest smokescreen promulgated by the Left. Her writings are purely anti-American. She’s as far Left as one can get. I am sure (New Yorkers) of a certain age well remember Ted Weiss. She worked for him. She also worked for LIz Holtzman….see all about her activities on the Nixon impeachment panel.”
Read more about Ted Weiss and Elena Kagan’s involvements, socially and politically, with the Far Left: Obama File 105 “A Pattern of Socialist Associations” – Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee, Elena Kagan (the Early Years) .
Kagan Called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ A ‘Moral Injustice of the First Order’
For whatever one’s views are about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy that currently befits our military, it is NOT an issue that any Supreme Court justice can determine based upon their animosities to heterosexuals or attractions to homosexuals.
Elena Kagan is clearly emotionally involved to a point of personalizing a sense (hers) of “injustice” as to the (lawful) observation of DADT and it reveals about her a troublesome bias that runs contrary to any objective respect for the law (and that means, indicates her lack of Constitutional fidelity, as she is overtly swayed by some internal emotional struggle).
Harry Reid says he “wanted someone with a little common sense” regarding Kagan’s nomination but Reid doesn’t mention fidelity to the Constitution nor addresses Kagan’s lack of judicial experience. Instead, Reid lauds Kagan because, so he says, “she has fresh ideas and has been out in the real world recently.”
Emphasis on the word, “recently” and on Reid’s making distinction between “worlds”.
And, meanwhile, today (June 28, 2010), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) says it’s “refreshing” that Kagan has no judiciary experience, an ultimately disappointing statement from Senator Feinstein, particularly given her ongoing grueling of nominees Alito and Roberts, the Democrats’ accusations and oftentimes irrational assumptions driving a nominee’s wife from the hearings in tears, Feinstein photographed with other Democrat Senators Schumer and Leahy gripping their hands together, grimacing, their eyes bloodshot and beady, glaring.
With nominees Kagan and Sotomayor earlier, these same Democrats quickly breeze through vapid references and seem poised and ready to buy them bouquettes and extend dinner favors.
The important factor there as to the Supreme Court among the Democrats is to nominate and confirm someone who advocates Leftwing causes well. Constitutional fidelity and expertise with it’s contents appears to be a passing, distant consideration to the Left, because their socio-political desires are paramount — thusly, their nominees and confirmation votes are cast.
Given the Left’s majority-hold on American Jewish voters — and note Feinstein’s association in that regard as also Kagan’s — here is a heroic-level series of statements from Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America:
“Jewish Clergy Group: Elena Kagan Isn’t ‘Kosher’ to Serve on Supreme Court”
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is “not kosher”–meaning she is not fit to serve on the court–according to more than 850 Orthodox members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. That’s the term the rabbis used about Kagan in a press release issued Thursday, saying “Elena Kagan is not kosher. She is not fit to sit on this Court–or any court.”
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that “a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”
Levin said most people are happy when “one of their own” is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, “We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head — from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies have no right to be delivered.’”
In a statement issued Thursday, the rabbinical alliance called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to confirm Kagan to succeed the outgoing Justice John Paul Stevens.
“It is clear from Ms. Kagan’s record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, partial-birth-abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the ‘supremacy’ of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society’s already steep decline into Sodom and Gomorrah,” the rabbis said in the statement.
Levin told CNSNews.com that his fellow rabbis–and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and traditional Jews–are puzzled at the president’s choice of Kagan.
“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone–or some group — is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”
Barring a rebuff from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Levin told CNSNews.com that the rabbis want someone in the Senate to launch a filibuster to stop Kagan’s nomination from coming to a vote.
Likely reasonable to assume that that news, those statements by the Jewish Clergy, will not be seen anywhere in mainstream media.
“Mixed Grades at Harvard Law” — Kagan Built Bridges on Divided Campus but Other Factors Helped Her Along
Kagan is promoted as in possession of “a stroke of genius” for providing “free lunches and large tables” for Harvard faculty. Oooh, so smart! Perhaps there’s a Nobel Prize in her future for this massive, so-smarty move.
Related and worth reading:
“Is Harvard Law a Racket, a Cartel, Or the Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft?” from Michael Walsh at Big Journalism.
“Elena Kagan’s Experience Is Under Fire as Senate Meetings Begin“.
But the Left wants you, America, to give up, concede her confirmation, it’s inevitable, you losers… Stalin appears to be alive and well in their midst, certainly Castro’s legacy is being lauded there among the Kagan-promoting-propagandists (as also any who vote to confirm her).
Following is religious-association issue, included here with some interest because it reflects a potential and quite likely a bias on the Supreme Court if Kagan (or anyone like her) is confirmed with the existing Judges remaining. The question exists as to why a Conservative female (perhaps who is Caucasian and/or Protestant) isn’t nominated.
“Could Elena Kagan’s Confirmation Signal End of Protestant Era on the Supreme Court?”
“U.S. Mostly Protestant, but Religion No Longer a Leading Consideration in Court Picks, Experts Say” — In addition to Stevens, who is the sole Protestant on the bench, there are currently six Catholics and two Jews — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — on the bench. Kagan, who is Jewish, would be the third.
Though Kagan is a secular Jew. Recall the Jewish Rabbis (Rabbinical Association of America) who think she’s unacceptable to the Supreme Court.
“Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument”.
“More controversy on the Kagan nomination casts doubts on her fitness for the Court”.
“Obama Flashback: A Supreme Court Nominee With No Judicial Experience Requires Extreme Scrutiny“.
Additional commentary about Kagan’s implausible pretense at a judicial philosophy…
…in which some of Kagan’s controversial political activism views are exposed toward creating a burgeoning degree of command by the Executive Branch — a Socialist goal, a Communist requirement; note that Kagan opines that the courts could leverage this command by socio-political desire:
(Regarding) “Kagan writings about Executive Power” – from an individual writing in the Harvard Review, May 13th, 2010 – 1:23 pm:
— Professor Kagan argues that President Clinton, building on a foundation President Reagan laid, increasingly made the regulatory activity of the Executive Branch agencies into an extension of his own policy and political agenda. He did so, primarily, by exercising directive authority over these agencies and asserting personal ownership of their regulatory activity — demonstrating in the process, against conventional wisdom, that enhanced Presidential control over administration can serve pro-regulatory objectives.
Professor Kagan offers a broad though not unlimited defense of the resulting system of “Presidential administration” against legal and policy objections. This form of controlling agency action, she argues, comports with law because, contrary to the prevailing view, Congress generally should be understood to have left authority in the President to direct Executive Branch officials in the exercise of their delegated discretion.
In addition, and (related), this form of controlling agency action advances core values of accountability and effectiveness, given notable features of the contemporary administrative and political systems. In comparison with other forms of control over administration, which continue to operate, Presidential administration (Ed. Note: highly debatable opinion here) renders the bureaucratic sphere more transparent and responsive to the public and more capable of injecting energy as well as competence into the regulatory process.
Professor Kagan concludes this Article by considering ways in which courts might promote Presidential administration in its most beneficial form and scope, discussing in particular potential modifications to the non-delegation doctrine and two judicial review doctrines.
Questions surround Kagan’s handling of White House eco-terrorist controversy
“Will the Senate see Kagan’s long paper trail?”
You’ve probably heard a lot of talk about Kagan not having a paper trail. It’s not true. In fact, she has a long paper trail. The only question is whether the Senators who vote on her confirmation will be allowed to see it (or the Democrats will want them to). Extensive correspondence to/from/with the Clinton Administration, particularly; however, she has limited professional work published.
“Operation Rescue Opposes Kagan Nomination to Supreme Court”.
Elena Kagan’s support for abortion and her predisposition for judicial activism makes her a poor selection. We need a justice that will uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it though judicial activism.
“Kagan’s writings suggest her view on judge’s role”.
…Not since 1972 has a president picked someone for the high court who hasn’t been a judge. So what the 50-year-old Kagan has said about judging might be the best indicator of the kind of justice she would be.
Republicans have said that because Kagan hasn’t left a trail of judicial opinions, they will pore over her records as a Clinton White House aide and academic for any clues. Her speeches and papers from her time as dean of the Harvard Law School and, before that as a law professor and graduate student, are certain to get close attention at her confirmation hearing in late June.
Her words stand in contrast to the more technical view of judging voiced by Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing five years ago. Roberts said he considered himself an umpire merely calling balls and strikes.
Kagan apparently has never directly addressed Roberts’ comments. Republicans have held his description of the job as a model of judicial restraint and used it to criticize President Barack Obama for what they call his support of judicial activism — judges imposing their own views on the law.
But Kagan put forward a different idea of judging in a 1995 law review article (– Continued).
Note that the original article from AP from whence the above quoted portion is taken, has been scrubbed from the internet. A portion of that article is still available at FreeRepublic.com (to which this site has linked, above), but in this case as with many others that raise important aspects about Elena Kagen’s liabilities and controversies, those articles are since removed from public access by other sites.
Is there any surprise in this? The practice was well practiced in the last President election when many revealing articles about who “Barry Soetoro” or “Barack Hussein Obama” is were quickly scrubbed from the internet.
Kagan pledges judicial restraint; GOP voices ‘serious concerns’ — June 28, 2010.
“Dean Kagan accepts award from Equal Justice Works”.
While Dean at Harvard Law, Kagan is lauded for violating the law (won’t enforce law that provides that U.S. military may enlist on college campuses). Another example of political activism, not of sound judgement or respect for the laws (substantiates Kagan’s lack of Constitutional fidelity).
Audio: Supreme Court toys with Kagan during “Citizens United” oral argument
And, most revealing, Kagan’s idolization of activist judge Aharon Barack, “Kagan Calls Israeli Activist Judge ‘My Hero‘”:
…video of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan praising an activist Israeli Supreme court judge as “my judicial hero” has Republican Senators and Conservative groups doubting administration claims that the former Clinton aide has an open mind and isn’t interested in changing the Constitution.
(Read 10 Things You Didn’t Know about Kagan.)
Coming on the eve of Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, the video provided to Whispers by Americans United for Life shows Kagan in 2006 praising retired Judge Aharon Barak.
…Robert Bork called Barak dangerous to those who are worried about activist judges. “Barak may be the worst judge on the planet,” said Bork. Barak’s court, added Bork, was “the most activist court I have ever seen.”
…Constitutionalists shudder at Barak’s view of the law. According to Americans United, in his 2006 book “The Judge in a Democracy”, Barak wrote that “a good judge is a judge who, within the bounds of legitimate possibilities, makes law (Ed. Note: emphasis added) that, more than other law he is authorized to make, best bridges the gap between law and society and best protects the constitution and its values.
He also says that judges should go “beyond actually deciding the dispute.”
More about this from Phyllis Schlafly:
“Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK’d”.
…When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.
The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “all legislative powers” are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should “make” and “create” law, assume “a role in the legislative process” and give statutes “new meaning that suits new social needs.”
Barak wrote that a judge “is subject to no authority” except himself, and he “must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it.” Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?
Despite Barak’s weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her “judicial hero.” Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan’s praise of Barak is “disqualifying in and of itself.” Bork said that Barak “establishes a world record for judicial hubris.” He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that “there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern.” (– Continued).
And recall, if you will, this:
“Jewish Clergy Group: Elena Kagan Isn’t ‘Kosher’ to Serve on Supreme Court”
Reference/Read More
– Tags:
Elena Kagan and Supreme Court.
Reference/Read More
– Posts:
ELENA KAGAN’S TORTUROUS HEARINGS BEGIN – June 28th, 2010
– CONTINUE to PAGE TWO. >>
©2012 suzyrice.com | Powered by 