Red flags went up, for me, during the speech in which Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Not only did he say she was his friend, in her speech she indicated, “During the last year as I have served as Solicitor General, my longstanding appreciation for the Supreme Court’s role in our constitutional democracy has become ever deeper and richer.” I presume that she was marked incorrect in law school for her answer concerning Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
I still have not found the word democracy anywhere in the Constitution. I have, however, found a document where it is deeply and richly reverenced. Along with unions, health care plans, welfare, social security, rent on property to pay for public schools and the like.
A Prison Planet article by Phillip Joesph Watson is painting a picture of Elena Kagan that is much different than the conservative that we are told about. Obama apparently inserted a non-judge as his choice for Supreme Court nominee with less of a paper trail. No “judgments” to investigate.
The New York Times reports, “Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, once recommended to President Bill Clinton that he support a Democratic-sponsored ban on some late-term abortions as a way to defeat a stronger measure gaining momentum in the Senate.”
Her appeal to the “conservatives” is her support of the Patriot Act and interrogating “terrorist” not found on the battle field. Terrorists by whose definition?
In May 2009, insurance companies for families of the 9/11 tragedy brought suit against the royal family of Saudi Arabia citing their financial support of Al Queda. The New York Times reported:
A district court threw out the lawsuit, finding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provided legal protection from liability for Saudi Arabia and the members of the royal family for their official acts.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the brief to the Supreme Court that her office agreed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims,” although she pointed to somewhat different legal rationales in reaching that conclusion.
Ms. Kagan noted that the Supreme Court had historically looked to the executive branch to take the lead on such international matters because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”
The government said in its brief that the victims’ families never alleged that the Saudi government or members of the royal family “personally committed” the acts of terrorism against the United States “or directed others to do so.” And it said the claims that were made — that the Saudis helped to finance the plots — fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.
The LA Times reported:
The Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court have become “a vapid and hollow charade,” a Chicago law professor complained, because the nominees are not forced to say what they think about disputed issues such as abortion, affirmative action and privacy.
It is “an embarrassment,” she said, that “senators today do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues.” Justice Clarence Thomas won confirmation, she said, even “after his substantive testimony had become a national laughingstock.”
These comments from a 1995 article are likely to be a focus of the next Supreme Court hearing if their author — Elena Kagan — emerges as President Obama’s nominee. White House aides say the president is near making a decision, perhaps as soon as Monday.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows 33% think Kagan should be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. But 41% do not think she should be confirmed, up eight points since President Obama announced her nomination in early May. Another 26% remain undecided.
The number who thinks Kagan should be confirmed matches the result found in the first survey conducted after her nomination but is down three points from two weeks ago.
Now as part of the circus, will she be pressed for her views on issues important to Americans such as Bill of Rights, immigration, the health care bill, and so on? Or will we watch as Al Franken pulls out his Constitution and listen as Lindsey Graham declares I am going to vote for you anyway, but I just want to know…
Senate Judiciary Committee Statement by Kagan
Possibly related articles:
Tags: Congress, Constitution, Elena Kagan, Paul Joseph Watson, Polls, Supreme Court
Loading ...
[...] A very unconstitutional Elena Kagan is emerging. « Constitutional … [...]
I m doing a report on Aung San Suu Kyi and i have to get info about her ‘Freedom from Fear’ speech. I’ve googled it and cant find it anywhere! Please help me! Btw, lets all forget our little problems for 1 minute and hope this Wonderful courageous woman is set Free and given total Freedom in realising her dreams of Democracy for her Country and people. She to me is a True heroine and should be revered as a Champion.. Whatever your personal differences maybe she is a wonderful example of a Human being who has no personal agenda with no regards to her own safety nor financial gains but just wants whats best for her country and people…. Love to see her free today..