Let us begin by remembering that someone’s personal and professional histories; their choices and ideology; and their past words and deeds mean more than prepared remarks written for a desired effect (and by a professional speech writer), especially when that person has allowed the White House to put a cocoon around them and hide parts of their past.
Two examples jump to the forefront if my mind. Without ever being asked Elena Kagan immediately lied to the American people about her sexual preference. And when you are a public official… especially a judge who will rule on the most controversial cases and issues in the land, truth as well as your personal information and biases are critical. And secondly, a large part of Kagan’s speech and opening pitch before the Senate was about her belief in the Constitution. Yet if that were so and truly her belief, as Law School Dean at Harvard as well as head of Kagan Publishing & Development, Kagan could have championed the move back to teaching Constitutional Law away from the Progressive perversion of the teaching of law through Case Law, that has been adopted and taught for generations now in the overwhelming number of Law Schools in America.
Interesting: Elana Kagan Isn’t Gay But Her Partner Is &
Harvard brags about their lesbian dean - click here.
According to several current and former administration officials, it’s highly likely that the vetting process would result in plenty of information about any nominee’s personal life – including whether someone is heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, adulterous, or with a child out of wedlock. A nominee may not be asked about it directly, but such information would likely come out through interviews with friends or colleagues.
Vetting processes also turn up detailed personal information about finances, family, religion and all sorts of matters that might be uncomfortable -- the point is to spare the nominee and the president any embarrassment or surprises during the confirmation process. (Political Punch ABC News)
Being gay is not the issue! Lying, Progressivism, Judicial Activism and On-going Misrepresentation are the issues!
Then you add her lack of experience as a lawyer and in business of any kind… and we find ourselves with another academic like Obama himself and most of this cabinet and czars; not what we need.
Fox attacks Kagan for Harvard's acceptance of grant by major News ...
“Folks, having seen some of her previous positions, comments and causes she fought for, I’m not too happy about her nomination, but here’s political truth that might sting a bit: Elections have consequences.” Mike Huckabee. Yes they do, and Kagan is just another example, but that doesn’t mean we need to sit still for it!
Video: Judge Napolitano on Kagan Hearings
Video: Judge Napolitano on Kagan Hearings - 2
Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Handgun Ban
Deeply divided Supreme Court on Monday decided that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment gives all Americans the individual right to keep and bear arms. The case, in which the conservatives outvoted the liberals 5-4, followed in the path of a decision a two years ago in the case District of Columbia v. Heller that interpreted the Second Amendment to give residents of the federal District of Columbia the right to own a gun.
In the new case, McDonald et al. v. The City of Chicago, the lead plaintiff was a sympathetic elderly African-American man who wanted a gun to defend his home against local gangs, but was barred from owning one legally due to Chicago's blanket prohibition on handgun ownership. Although the Court technically only decided that the Second Amendment applies to the states, and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Heller decision ensures that Chicago's absolute gun ban will fall, and gives everyone an individual right to own a gun.
This ruling is a perfect example of why every confirmation and appointment to the Supreme Court is critical. It is the perfect example, coming just as Elena Kagan’s hearing began. Kagan was and would have been on the dissenting end of the decision. The GOP needs to fight the Kagan appointment with all it has. Kagan is a Progressive, not at Constitutionalist and has already shown that her opinion is outside the mainstream and as been overturned. Her favorite judge is a radical Israeli judge that everyone considers extreme. If it takes a filibuster to prevent her appointment, that is what the GOP needs to do. Stop rolling over!! Remember Kagan’s own words… she loved the Bork hearings. The Bork appointment was halted by the Dems.
Judge Robert Bork said Elena Kagan’s admiration of Israeli Judge Aharon Barak is “disqualifying in and of itself” for her to sit on the Supreme Court. See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/aTN9zr
Bork said Barak “may be the worst judge on the planet” because of his judicial activism and that the Israeli court under Barak was the “most activist court” he’d seen. Kagan has called Barak her judicial hero.
The WHO's (White House Occupant's) Supreme Court Justice Nominee, (and like Sonia Sotomayor, a radical, extreme leftist (as skeptics shall soon see), who has the motive to LIE under oath at her confirmation hearings, like Sonia Sotomayor did, Elena Kagan), has called someone many consider to be a the most radical advocate for an agenda-driven judiciary, by the surname of Barack, her "hero."
What do we know about this extreme leftist radical in a robe? Aharon Barack, Elena Kagan's "judicial hero," believes that unelected judges should be the final arbiters of all decisions in "democracies." Very few Americans have even heard of this unprincipled man, but he is the hero of Kagan, and thus, he deserves closer scrutiny.
And we should remember that the dream of revolutionary Marxists, Maoists, Stalinists, Nazis, and other assorted leftist extremists, in the age of American superpower, is to have America be chained to the laws of other nations, when the Constitution gets in the way, so they can guide American justices AROUND THE CONSTITUTION.
Anyway, here's the video clip of this "other" Barack, who is a threat to our Liberty if Kagan is able to slip past our incompetent U.S. Senate, and make it onto the Supreme Court:
Video: The Other Barak? (Aharon Barak)
First Official Day of Kagan Hearing: Kagan Bombs: OK’s Foreign Law, Says Constitution Was Meant to be Interpreted and Change with Time… Get Her Out of There!!
Video: Kagan: Constitution Was Meant To Be "Interpreted Over Time" from RCP Video on Vimeo.
Elena Kagan, under questioning from Sen. Chuck Grassley, said there were certain cases in which it would be "appropriate" for the Court to cite international law. As an example, she gave the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case in which the Court ruled that U.S. citizens being detained indefinitely as enemy combatants must be granted the option of challenging their detention in court.
Here were her full comments, after Grassley asked, "If confirmed, would you rely on or cite international foreign law when you decide cases?":
I think it depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law, or international law, might be appropriate. We spoke earlier, I forgot with which of the Senators, about the Hamdi opinion. The Hamdi opinion is one in which the question was how to interpret the authorization for the use of military force. And Justice O’Connor in that case, one of the ways in which she interpreted that statute, was by asking about the law of war and what the law of war usually provides. What authority the law of war provides. And that’s a circumstance in which in order to interpret a statute giving the President various wartime powers, the Court looked at what the law of war generally provided. So there are a number of circumstances. I think, I mean, another example would be suppose the President has the power to recognize ambassadors under Article II. And there might be a question, well, who counts as an ambassador? And one way to understand that question is to look at what international law says about who counts as an ambassador. And that may not be determinative. But it would be possibly something to think about and something to cite. Read more ...
http://www.thefoxnation.com/elena-kagan/2010/06/29/kagan-bombs-oks-foreign-law-says-constitution-changes-times
Kagan: Citation of International Law “Appropriate” In Some Case - This is how the UN, Sharia Law and other non-American laws creep into our country. It is never to site, quote or acquiesce to any foreign or International Law. This opinion alone should disqualify Kagan from the Supreme Court!!!
Related:
Kagan: Markets and Morals
It has been proven over and over that judicial candidates will say whatever they need to or just avoid answering certain questions during confirmation hearings and then they vote and interpret the Constitution according to their politics instead of the Law and Constitution… Kagan has now already said that the Constitution is meant to change and be interpreted as times change as well as allowing foreign law to be considered. She will be a leftist partial advocate judge… not what a Supreme Court Judge needs and must be. Please, let us not let this be another Obama moment, where all the info and signs are there, but are ignored.
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATOR TODAY AND TELL THEM THAT ELENA KAGAN IS "UNFIT TO SERVE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!," and that if they DO vote for her, you will vote AGAINST them at the next possible opportunity...and you'll convince hundreds of your friends to do likewise!
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR EVERY DAY ABOUT THIS!
Congress.org - Elected Officials
Congressional Switchboard:
1-202-224-3121 ‘or’ 1-202-225-3121
U.S. Government on Twitter
