In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a “classic” in the development of Critical Race Theory. The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan, and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2010.
The article makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of “original sin”–a view later embraced by Obama as a state legislator, and reflected in his actions and appointments. The following is an excerpt from the non-fiction portion of the article; much of what follows is a fictional story that Bell intended as a parable of racial “fantasy.”
CONTINUED: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=21692&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Elena Kagan cannot be an unbiased judge of ObamaCare.
Before Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, she served as the nation's Solicitor General. In that capacity, she was the government's lead lawyer in cases before the Court.
Recently released emails show that, even before ObamaCare was passed and signed into law, Kagan directed her staff to become intimately involved in the process of crafting the legal defense for ObamaCare. The emails also showed that it was suggested that Kagan attend closed-door strategy meetings to hash out the administration's arguments in defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
And now Justice Kagan thinks it's appropriate to sit in judgement of the arguments she helped craft?
We have created a petition calling on Justice Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case. Preservation of the very integrity of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. You can find the petition online at www.TellKagan.com.
Will you sign it today and share it with your friends and family? Every signature is another voice asking Justice Kagan to do what is right and appropriate.
Supreme Court Justices recusing themselves is not an uncommon occurrence. The standard holds that when a justice has participated as counsel in a case, then they cannot rule on it. And federal law requires that judges disqualify themselves from any proceedings when their impartiality might be questioned.
To say that Justice Kagan's impartiality might be questioned is a gross understatement.
And yet, Justice Kagan has not recused herself from ruling on the Constitutional challenges to ObamaCare.
Just this week, the Supreme Court denied a request for debate over whether Justice Kagan should recuse herself from the ObamaCare case. Justice Kagan continues to refuse to do the right thing and step down from sitting in judgement of a case in which she was intimately involved.
If Justice Kagan won't do the right thing of her own accord, then she needs to hear from the American people that we expect her to do the right thing and recuse herself.
Sign the petition to day at www.TellKagan.com.
It's clear that she can't be unbiased and it's clear that she can't be fair. Help us send a message loud and clear to Justice Elena Kagan — It's time to recuse yourself.
Thank you,
Heather R. Higgins
President & CEO
Independent Women's Voice
Recently released emails show that, even before ObamaCare was passed and signed into law, Kagan directed her staff to become intimately involved in the process of crafting the legal defense for ObamaCare. The emails also showed that it was suggested that Kagan attend closed-door strategy meetings to hash out the administration's arguments in defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
And now Justice Kagan thinks it's appropriate to sit in judgement of the arguments she helped craft?
We have created a petition calling on Justice Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case. Preservation of the very integrity of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. You can find the petition online at www.TellKagan.com.
Will you sign it today and share it with your friends and family? Every signature is another voice asking Justice Kagan to do what is right and appropriate.
Supreme Court Justices recusing themselves is not an uncommon occurrence. The standard holds that when a justice has participated as counsel in a case, then they cannot rule on it. And federal law requires that judges disqualify themselves from any proceedings when their impartiality might be questioned.
To say that Justice Kagan's impartiality might be questioned is a gross understatement.
And yet, Justice Kagan has not recused herself from ruling on the Constitutional challenges to ObamaCare.
Just this week, the Supreme Court denied a request for debate over whether Justice Kagan should recuse herself from the ObamaCare case. Justice Kagan continues to refuse to do the right thing and step down from sitting in judgement of a case in which she was intimately involved.
If Justice Kagan won't do the right thing of her own accord, then she needs to hear from the American people that we expect her to do the right thing and recuse herself.
Sign the petition to day at www.TellKagan.com.
It's clear that she can't be unbiased and it's clear that she can't be fair. Help us send a message loud and clear to Justice Elena Kagan — It's time to recuse yourself.
Thank you,
Heather R. Higgins
President & CEO
Independent Women's Voice
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
MESSAGE FROM TRADITIONAL VALUES COALIITON: Justice Elena Kagan
TAKE ACTION: Justice Elena Kagan was plucked out of obscurity to make the case for Obamacare in the Supreme Court. The Code of Federal Regulations is unambiguous and clear -- Kagan must recuse herself from hearing the Obamacare case. Yet the only one who can make this decision is none other than Kagan herself! Click here to allow TVC to personally hand deliver your message to Kagan’s offices in Washington. Kagan must do the right thing and recuse herself from hearing Obamacare in the Supreme Court.
Most folks are keenly aware of Justice Elena Kagan’s heavy involvement with Obamacare as solicitor general for the U.S. Department of Justice. After a few weeks of research and consultation with countless others both in legal analysis and with folks in the know on the Hill, there is one universal conclusion.
The only one who can recuse Elena Kagan is none other than Elena Kagan.
There are many here in Washington and abroad who believe that Kagan was plucked out of obscurity -- with little legal background other than her time as a law professor at Harvard -- just to defend Obamacare.
The good news is this: Kagan has already recused herself from 30+ cases because of her tenure as a solicitor general.
In fact, the case for Kagan’s recusal on Obamacare already has precedent. In 2003, Justice Scalia made a speech at a religious freedom parade in Fredericksburg, Virginia. In it, Scalia expressed his opinion on a matter about to be brought before the Supreme Court, criticizing a Ninth Circuit Court ruling regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. In that instance, Scalia chose to recuse on an issue important not only to him, but millions of Americans.
I am committing myself to collecting and personally delivering thousands of signatures to the United States Supreme Court on your behalf asking Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare case.
It’s a different approach -- but it’s the sort of personal touch that only Traditional Values Coalition can apply here in Washington. If enough people remind Kagan of her duties, I’m confident we will be able to hold Justice Kagan accountable at the end of the day.
Andrea Lafferty
President
Traditional Values Coalition
Most folks are keenly aware of Justice Elena Kagan’s heavy involvement with Obamacare as solicitor general for the U.S. Department of Justice. After a few weeks of research and consultation with countless others both in legal analysis and with folks in the know on the Hill, there is one universal conclusion.
The only one who can recuse Elena Kagan is none other than Elena Kagan.
There are many here in Washington and abroad who believe that Kagan was plucked out of obscurity -- with little legal background other than her time as a law professor at Harvard -- just to defend Obamacare.
The good news is this: Kagan has already recused herself from 30+ cases because of her tenure as a solicitor general.
In fact, the case for Kagan’s recusal on Obamacare already has precedent. In 2003, Justice Scalia made a speech at a religious freedom parade in Fredericksburg, Virginia. In it, Scalia expressed his opinion on a matter about to be brought before the Supreme Court, criticizing a Ninth Circuit Court ruling regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. In that instance, Scalia chose to recuse on an issue important not only to him, but millions of Americans.
I am committing myself to collecting and personally delivering thousands of signatures to the United States Supreme Court on your behalf asking Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare case.
It’s a different approach -- but it’s the sort of personal touch that only Traditional Values Coalition can apply here in Washington. If enough people remind Kagan of her duties, I’m confident we will be able to hold Justice Kagan accountable at the end of the day.
Andrea Lafferty
President
Traditional Values Coalition
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is Pro-Sharia Law!
Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New International Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda . . . Think Again!
The "Appointed One," in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!
Why is it always after the fact, after the elections and after critical appointments that the real vetting of candidates finally takes place? Simple.
CONTINUED: http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1078754&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
The "Appointed One," in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!
Why is it always after the fact, after the elections and after critical appointments that the real vetting of candidates finally takes place? Simple.
CONTINUED: http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1078754&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
Saturday, August 7, 2010
We'll seek Kagan's disbarment and impeachment
Watchdog: We'll seek Kagan's disbarment and impeachment
Complaint alleges Obama's new Supreme Court appointee lied to Senate
Posted: August 06, 2010, By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily
A formal complaint has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court asking that Elena Kagan – the bench's newest occupant – be disbarred, and an attorney who submitted the request for a criminal investigation into her statements said the effort will be expanded also to seek her impeachment, following the Senate's 63-37 approval of her appointment today.
"On behalf of Freedom Watch and Declaration Alliance, and as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar, I hereby file a complaint to disbar Elena Kagan from practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and for referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation and for obstruction of justice," wrote Larry Klayman, president of Freedom Watch.
The letter was dispatched to Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.
"In addition to disbarment, this matter should respectfully be referred to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation of obstruction of justice and other related crimes," the letter said.
The letter said Kagan, while associate White House Counsel in the Clinton White House, "falsified a medical report of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) in an intentional effort to mislead not just Congress and the White House concerning the efficacy and health risks of partial birth abortion, but also to mislead the various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately relied on this falsified medical report."
That came when the court struck down legislation restricting partial birth abortion, a gruesome procedure supported by Kagan that involves an abortionist partly delivery a live child, killing the child, and then finishing the delivery.
"This court relied in large part upon this falsified ACOG medical report to overturn Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban, which was then used as binding precedent among the circuits," Klayman wrote.
Klayman pointed out that the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that "a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
"Clearly Elena Kagan's conduct in falsifying the ACOG report violates these Canons of the ABA code," Klayman said. "It was, at a minimum, reasonably foreseeable that her fraudulent changes to the ACOG report would ultimately be used by this court in its proceedings….
"This court must stand for the principle that 'no one is above the law.' If this is not the case, then 'We the People,' do not have a Supreme Court as envisioned and implemented by our founding fathers," Klayman's letter said. "Ms. Kagan cannot, and should not be treated differently than anyone else who deceives this court or any other court.
"She is thus unfit to remain a member of the court and should be disbarred from further representation before it. The issue of partial birth abortion, and the lives which it takes and affects, is too important than to allow a member of this court to pervert the medical findings of a body that is the expert in the field."
Declaration Alliance, Ambassador Alan Keyes' national pro-life organization, has joined in appealing for justice in the Kagan case. It noted the fact that Kagan altered a scientific analysis – inserting her own words – and then passed it off as a medical organization's analysis before the Supreme Court.
Klayman told WND today that the fact that Kagan now has been affirmed by the U.S. Senate means only that in addition to disbarment, the complaint will seek her impeachment.
"It is bad enough when Bill Clinton lied under oath about Monica Lewisky, but Kagan's lying resulted in the deaths of human beings," Klayman told WND. "How much worse can it be?"
As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations previously asked the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.
The perjury may have been committed when Kagan, during hearings in the Senate, said, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them and how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."
According to a statement from the Declaration Alliance, "there can be no doubt that this testimony is false and misleading."
Her changes in the document, the organization said, "dramatically changed the meaning."
Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor whose battle against "the seedy underbelly of Washington" is chronicled in his book "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment," is the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime.
He is still known in Washington as the biggest enemy of the city's elite, having made a name for himself suing Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and foreign dictators such as Castro, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His battles against corruption in the Clinton administration became so well-known that a character in the hit TV series "West Wing" was based on him, Harry Klaypool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=188453
Complaint alleges Obama's new Supreme Court appointee lied to Senate
Posted: August 06, 2010, By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily
A formal complaint has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court asking that Elena Kagan – the bench's newest occupant – be disbarred, and an attorney who submitted the request for a criminal investigation into her statements said the effort will be expanded also to seek her impeachment, following the Senate's 63-37 approval of her appointment today.
"On behalf of Freedom Watch and Declaration Alliance, and as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar, I hereby file a complaint to disbar Elena Kagan from practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and for referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation and for obstruction of justice," wrote Larry Klayman, president of Freedom Watch.
The letter was dispatched to Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.
"In addition to disbarment, this matter should respectfully be referred to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation of obstruction of justice and other related crimes," the letter said.
The letter said Kagan, while associate White House Counsel in the Clinton White House, "falsified a medical report of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) in an intentional effort to mislead not just Congress and the White House concerning the efficacy and health risks of partial birth abortion, but also to mislead the various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately relied on this falsified medical report."
That came when the court struck down legislation restricting partial birth abortion, a gruesome procedure supported by Kagan that involves an abortionist partly delivery a live child, killing the child, and then finishing the delivery.
"This court relied in large part upon this falsified ACOG medical report to overturn Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban, which was then used as binding precedent among the circuits," Klayman wrote.
Klayman pointed out that the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that "a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
"Clearly Elena Kagan's conduct in falsifying the ACOG report violates these Canons of the ABA code," Klayman said. "It was, at a minimum, reasonably foreseeable that her fraudulent changes to the ACOG report would ultimately be used by this court in its proceedings….
"This court must stand for the principle that 'no one is above the law.' If this is not the case, then 'We the People,' do not have a Supreme Court as envisioned and implemented by our founding fathers," Klayman's letter said. "Ms. Kagan cannot, and should not be treated differently than anyone else who deceives this court or any other court.
"She is thus unfit to remain a member of the court and should be disbarred from further representation before it. The issue of partial birth abortion, and the lives which it takes and affects, is too important than to allow a member of this court to pervert the medical findings of a body that is the expert in the field."
Declaration Alliance, Ambassador Alan Keyes' national pro-life organization, has joined in appealing for justice in the Kagan case. It noted the fact that Kagan altered a scientific analysis – inserting her own words – and then passed it off as a medical organization's analysis before the Supreme Court.
Klayman told WND today that the fact that Kagan now has been affirmed by the U.S. Senate means only that in addition to disbarment, the complaint will seek her impeachment.
"It is bad enough when Bill Clinton lied under oath about Monica Lewisky, but Kagan's lying resulted in the deaths of human beings," Klayman told WND. "How much worse can it be?"
As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations previously asked the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.
The perjury may have been committed when Kagan, during hearings in the Senate, said, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them and how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."
According to a statement from the Declaration Alliance, "there can be no doubt that this testimony is false and misleading."
Her changes in the document, the organization said, "dramatically changed the meaning."
Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor whose battle against "the seedy underbelly of Washington" is chronicled in his book "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment," is the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime.
He is still known in Washington as the biggest enemy of the city's elite, having made a name for himself suing Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and foreign dictators such as Castro, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His battles against corruption in the Clinton administration became so well-known that a character in the hit TV series "West Wing" was based on him, Harry Klaypool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=188453
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Morning Bell: The Obama Elite vs The American People
Morning Bell: The Obama Elite vs The American People
Posted August 5th, 2010 at 9:49am in Family and Religion, Rule of Law with 0 comments Print This Post
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “Nothing.” Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the “facts” Judge Walker found:
•Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
•The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
•The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
•The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.
•Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
How did Judge Walker arrive at these “facts”? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents’ “experts” said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was “unreliable” and “provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.” In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: “Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The same Elena Kagan who was simply ”not sympathetic” to the claim of a petitioner that his 2nd amendment rights were violated, and was actively involved in President Clinton’s gun control agenda. The same Elena Kagan who advised President Clinton that it would be a “disaster” if the full medical truth was revealed about partial-birth abortion, endangering the gruesome procedure.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs, and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: “Nothing.” We’ll see today if the Senate agrees.
Quick Hits:
•Using the powers of the Civil Rights Division, the Obama Justice Department is giving large sums of money to leftist activist groups that are not discrimination victims and are not connected to a particular suit.
•The Senate on Wednesday cleared the way for a $26 billion bailout for government unions, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said she would call back the House to vote on the bill.
•Government-owned General Motors gave $41,000 to politicians last year including $36,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
•President Obama told the AFL-CIO Executive Council yesterday that he will “keep on fighting to pass” card check legislation that would eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union and give government bureaucrats the power to set compensation and make major business decisions at newly unionized companies.
•As President Obama refuses to lift a job-killing moratorium, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 64% of U.S. voters now believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, an eight-point jump from mid-July.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/morning-bell-the-obama-elite-vs-the-american-people/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Posted August 5th, 2010 at 9:49am in Family and Religion, Rule of Law with 0 comments Print This Post
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “Nothing.” Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the “facts” Judge Walker found:
•Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
•The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
•The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
•The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.
•Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
How did Judge Walker arrive at these “facts”? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents’ “experts” said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was “unreliable” and “provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.” In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: “Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The same Elena Kagan who was simply ”not sympathetic” to the claim of a petitioner that his 2nd amendment rights were violated, and was actively involved in President Clinton’s gun control agenda. The same Elena Kagan who advised President Clinton that it would be a “disaster” if the full medical truth was revealed about partial-birth abortion, endangering the gruesome procedure.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs, and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: “Nothing.” We’ll see today if the Senate agrees.
Quick Hits:
•Using the powers of the Civil Rights Division, the Obama Justice Department is giving large sums of money to leftist activist groups that are not discrimination victims and are not connected to a particular suit.
•The Senate on Wednesday cleared the way for a $26 billion bailout for government unions, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said she would call back the House to vote on the bill.
•Government-owned General Motors gave $41,000 to politicians last year including $36,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
•President Obama told the AFL-CIO Executive Council yesterday that he will “keep on fighting to pass” card check legislation that would eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union and give government bureaucrats the power to set compensation and make major business decisions at newly unionized companies.
•As President Obama refuses to lift a job-killing moratorium, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 64% of U.S. voters now believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, an eight-point jump from mid-July.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/morning-bell-the-obama-elite-vs-the-american-people/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate
Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate
'It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187797
'It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187797
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Kagan wins Senate confirmation in mostly partisan vote, 13 to 6
Kagan wins Senate confirmation in mostly partisan vote, 13 to 6
THE HILL--By Susan Crabtree - 07/20/10 12:31 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/109763-kagan-wins-confirmation-in-party-line-vote
THE HILL--By Susan Crabtree - 07/20/10 12:31 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/109763-kagan-wins-confirmation-in-party-line-vote
Friday, July 16, 2010
Elena Kagan and the Founders' Vision
If confirmed--this country will suffer from years to come under unconstitional law!
Senator Tom Coburn's inquiries reveal a Supreme Court nominee that supports virtually limitless governmental powers and one that would not rule out using foreign law to settle Constitutional questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ0N8ZSC4cs
Senator Tom Coburn's inquiries reveal a Supreme Court nominee that supports virtually limitless governmental powers and one that would not rule out using foreign law to settle Constitutional questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ0N8ZSC4cs
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Jillian Bandes: Kagan's Top Ten
Here are the top ten quotes from Solicitor General Elana Kagan as she goes into her fourth day of Senate hearings.
1. "Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant." — Responding to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who asked Kagan was she was doing on Christmas Day of last year, when a an terrorist was caught trying to blow up a plane.
2. "Lets just throw that piece of work in the trash, why don't we?" she said. "That's before I went to law school, and didn't understand much about the way judges should work." — Speaking about her thesis to the Judiciary Committee, which defended both judicial activism and bemoaned the demise of the Communist Party in the United States.
3. "The 'disaster' would be if the statement did not accurately reflect all of what ACOG thought." — Trying to wiggle out of her previous reflection that the it would be a “disaster” if the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists could not identify any circumstances under which that partial-birth abortion “would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
4. “Senator, the military at all times during my deanship had full and good access.”— Speaking on her decision to exclude military recruiters from availing themselves of Harvard’s career services office, and instead force them to work through a student group with limited access to the student body.
5. A "loosey-goosey style of interpretation in which anything goes." — Describing her opinion of a “living” Constitution.
6. “A vapid and hollow charade,” serving “little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government.” — From 1995 Law Review article, expressing her opinions of Supreme Court hearings. Ironically, she ensured her very own hearings embodied that sentiment perfectly.
7. "Sounds like a dumb law. But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless." — Responding to a question from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who asked Kagan if she thought a bill that required Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day would violate the Commerce Clause.
8. “My political views are generally progressive.” — Responding to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who brought up the fact that a former chief counsel to President Obama characterized Kagan as "largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself."
9. “I’m not quite sure how I would characterize my politics.” Responding to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
10. “I wish you wouldn’t [ask].” Responding to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, (D-Minn.), who jokingly asked Kagan to give her opinion on the "the vampire versus the werewolf" in the television series Twilight. Klobuchar’s teenage daughter had seen the midnight showing on the morning before the hearings.
1. "Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant." — Responding to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who asked Kagan was she was doing on Christmas Day of last year, when a an terrorist was caught trying to blow up a plane.
2. "Lets just throw that piece of work in the trash, why don't we?" she said. "That's before I went to law school, and didn't understand much about the way judges should work." — Speaking about her thesis to the Judiciary Committee, which defended both judicial activism and bemoaned the demise of the Communist Party in the United States.
3. "The 'disaster' would be if the statement did not accurately reflect all of what ACOG thought." — Trying to wiggle out of her previous reflection that the it would be a “disaster” if the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists could not identify any circumstances under which that partial-birth abortion “would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
4. “Senator, the military at all times during my deanship had full and good access.”— Speaking on her decision to exclude military recruiters from availing themselves of Harvard’s career services office, and instead force them to work through a student group with limited access to the student body.
5. A "loosey-goosey style of interpretation in which anything goes." — Describing her opinion of a “living” Constitution.
6. “A vapid and hollow charade,” serving “little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government.” — From 1995 Law Review article, expressing her opinions of Supreme Court hearings. Ironically, she ensured her very own hearings embodied that sentiment perfectly.
7. "Sounds like a dumb law. But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless." — Responding to a question from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who asked Kagan if she thought a bill that required Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day would violate the Commerce Clause.
8. “My political views are generally progressive.” — Responding to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who brought up the fact that a former chief counsel to President Obama characterized Kagan as "largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself."
9. “I’m not quite sure how I would characterize my politics.” Responding to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
10. “I wish you wouldn’t [ask].” Responding to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, (D-Minn.), who jokingly asked Kagan to give her opinion on the "the vampire versus the werewolf" in the television series Twilight. Klobuchar’s teenage daughter had seen the midnight showing on the morning before the hearings.
Morning Bell: The Limitless Power of the Obama-Kagan Congress
This Sunday, our nation will celebrate Independence Day, which commemorates the Continental Congress’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration preamble reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The fact that we as a nation came together every year to celebrate this document might lead many Americans to believe that a Supreme Court Justice should take the Declaration of Independence into account when they are interpreting the Constitution. Elena Kagan is not one of those Americans. Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) yesterday, Kagan admitted: “To be honest with you, I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution.”
And Kagan’s disturbing indifference to the existence of natural rights is just one of the many frightening revelations her confirmation hearing has produced. On Tuesday, Sen. Coburn pressed Kagan about the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ power to control what Americans do:
Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?
Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law
Coburn: Yeah, but I got one that’s real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I’m not going to mention which it is.
Kagan: But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.
The law Coburn was referring to, of course, was President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment: the Obamacare provision that forces all Americans to buy health insurance. But Jefferson and the other Constitution framers designed the document to protect our “unalienable Rights” by limiting the power of Congress. They designed an ingenious system of checks and balances that divides state and federal authority in the hope of preventing any one government from exerting too much control over a free people. Specifically, Article I allocates to Congress “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,” and section 8 of Article I (referred to by Sen. Coburn above as the Commerce Clause), grants Congress the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court has always understood that, taken together, these clauses put some legislative powers beyond Congress’ reach.
But Kagan has now testified that not only does she find the Founders’ concept of “unalienable Rights” irrelevant to Constitutional interpretation, but she also declined to say if the Constitution prevents Congress from telling Americans what to eat. Her evasive non-response to Coburn’s Commerce Clause inquiry shows that she would indeed be a rubber-stamp for almost any part of the Obama agenda that Congress enacts. So if the Obama administration convinced Congress (and this is a total hypothetical) that the survival of a single car company, let’s say Chrysler, was absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation’s economy, and Congress then passed a law forcing all Americans to buy a Chrysler car, Kagan would find such a law, while perhaps “dumb,” perfectly constitutional. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.
The leftist members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that the Obamacare individual mandate is extremely vulnerable to being struck down by the Supreme Court. That is why they have spent so much of the hearing trying to redefine what “judicial activism” is. As Heritage Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Robert Alt will testify today, the Court is not committing “judicial activism” every time it finds that a law violates the Constitution. Judicial activism is not a function of outcomes, but one of interpretation. Instead, it occurs when a judge applies his or her own policy preferences to uphold, or strike down, a statute or other government action which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution.
Kagan came to the committee with one of the thinnest records of any Supreme Court nominee in recent history. What little has been learned about her views so far has been highly disturbing. Nothing in her testimony has demonstrated she has either the respect for our nation’s founding documents or the independence from this White House to apply the law as it is written, and dispense justice without regard to the parties before her.
Quick Hits:
•Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) used her time questioning Elena Kagan to ask: “I keep wanting to ask you about the famous camp of Edward vs. Jacob or the vampire vs. the werewolf.”
•According to the CBO, the federal debt will represent 62% of the nation’s economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since World War II.
•House Democrats have attached $10 billion in spending for government union jobs to the Afghanistan war funding bill.
•U.S. private employers added just 13,000 jobs in June, suggesting expectations of a big drop in the government’s upcoming nonfarm payrolls report were on target.
•A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.
Reprinted from: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/01/morning-bell-the-limitless-power-of-the-obama-kagan-congress/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
And Kagan’s disturbing indifference to the existence of natural rights is just one of the many frightening revelations her confirmation hearing has produced. On Tuesday, Sen. Coburn pressed Kagan about the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ power to control what Americans do:
Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?
Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law
Coburn: Yeah, but I got one that’s real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I’m not going to mention which it is.
Kagan: But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.
The law Coburn was referring to, of course, was President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment: the Obamacare provision that forces all Americans to buy health insurance. But Jefferson and the other Constitution framers designed the document to protect our “unalienable Rights” by limiting the power of Congress. They designed an ingenious system of checks and balances that divides state and federal authority in the hope of preventing any one government from exerting too much control over a free people. Specifically, Article I allocates to Congress “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,” and section 8 of Article I (referred to by Sen. Coburn above as the Commerce Clause), grants Congress the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court has always understood that, taken together, these clauses put some legislative powers beyond Congress’ reach.
But Kagan has now testified that not only does she find the Founders’ concept of “unalienable Rights” irrelevant to Constitutional interpretation, but she also declined to say if the Constitution prevents Congress from telling Americans what to eat. Her evasive non-response to Coburn’s Commerce Clause inquiry shows that she would indeed be a rubber-stamp for almost any part of the Obama agenda that Congress enacts. So if the Obama administration convinced Congress (and this is a total hypothetical) that the survival of a single car company, let’s say Chrysler, was absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation’s economy, and Congress then passed a law forcing all Americans to buy a Chrysler car, Kagan would find such a law, while perhaps “dumb,” perfectly constitutional. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.
The leftist members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that the Obamacare individual mandate is extremely vulnerable to being struck down by the Supreme Court. That is why they have spent so much of the hearing trying to redefine what “judicial activism” is. As Heritage Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Robert Alt will testify today, the Court is not committing “judicial activism” every time it finds that a law violates the Constitution. Judicial activism is not a function of outcomes, but one of interpretation. Instead, it occurs when a judge applies his or her own policy preferences to uphold, or strike down, a statute or other government action which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution.
Kagan came to the committee with one of the thinnest records of any Supreme Court nominee in recent history. What little has been learned about her views so far has been highly disturbing. Nothing in her testimony has demonstrated she has either the respect for our nation’s founding documents or the independence from this White House to apply the law as it is written, and dispense justice without regard to the parties before her.
Quick Hits:
•Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) used her time questioning Elena Kagan to ask: “I keep wanting to ask you about the famous camp of Edward vs. Jacob or the vampire vs. the werewolf.”
•According to the CBO, the federal debt will represent 62% of the nation’s economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since World War II.
•House Democrats have attached $10 billion in spending for government union jobs to the Afghanistan war funding bill.
•U.S. private employers added just 13,000 jobs in June, suggesting expectations of a big drop in the government’s upcoming nonfarm payrolls report were on target.
•A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.
Reprinted from: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/01/morning-bell-the-limitless-power-of-the-obama-kagan-congress/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
