Kagan "favors the introduction of Shariah law" in Constitution"

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems. To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap: the substitution of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history. A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court. And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system – Shariah – and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her. Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court. Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:

(snip)

When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the middle east were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack. Guiliani stated flatly, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But – when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law. As Newt Gingrich has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.

This may be more than you want to know about Elena kagan

Here's a highly detailed account of Elena Kagan's career, which has had many ups and downs, but not as many ups as one would expect for a candidate for the Supreme Court::

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/07/elena-kagan-barack-obama-and-the-american-establishment

On Kagan, Lindsey Graham decides to follow the lead of Obama's voters because, you know, elections have consequences

"Elections have consequences," insists South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, announcing he will vote to put liberal Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court.

Really?

Are there any South Carolinians who thought in voting for Lindsey Graham they were electing someone who would stand fast for conservative principle? By opposing liberal Court nominees? Because, well, elections have consequences? And, you know, you vote for a conservative Senator because you expect him or her to uphold the principles on which they campaigned?

The consequence of voting for Graham, obviously, is that he will not do as promised.

Sheer, utter dishonesty is always an amazing sight to behold.

Will gender benders soon have a voice on the Supreme Court?

I'm not easily shocked. I've been a therapist for a couple of decades not just anywhere, but in the leftist place around. But still, when I received a flyer in the mail last week, it absolutely stunned me.

The flyer announced a conference for children and teens, age 13 to l8, by a group called Gender Spectrum. The advertisement reads as following:

Come join other transgender, gender bending, gender nonconforming teens, children and families for three days of celebrating individuality, making new friends, and having fun. Meet other trans and gender nonconforming teens and adults, hang out, and explore different topics on gender: school, making friends, dating.

The slogan of Gender Spectrum? Be Yourself. Change the World.

Now, the phrase "gender nonconformity" isn't new to me. There are some grade schools out here that permit kids to alter their genders whenever the spirit moves them. Schools provide coed bathrooms so the kids don't have the stress of making a permanent commitment.

I once attributed crazes like gender bending to "only in Berkeley." But now that the Left has seized control, it would be a mistake to dismiss groups like Gender Spectrum as harmless.

Obama has already appointed transexuals to high positions. And then there's Elena Kagan, about to become a SCOTUS. While she presents as unassuming, at Harvard she was a firebrand.

There, Kagan reportedly strong armed Harvard's health insurer to pay for sex change operations for staff and students. So an l8 year old who wasn't sure about his career choice could, without parental knowledge or approval, reconfigure his private parts.

Kagan also spearheaded a campaign to make bathrooms unisex. Apparently, she considers gender-neutral johns to be a Constitutional right, more compelling than the First and Second Amendments.

Kagan and Obama and all the President's Czars are secular fundamentalists. They are trying to force feed a radical agenda on this country. And they're doing it, in part, by recruiting impressionable children.

Most youth have no interest in taking up arms for the revolution, Weatherman-style. So they're being conditioned to become a different kind of soldier: sexual rebels.

Judge Kennedy makes heroic stand, sticks it to Obama

WASHINGTON - President Obama may get liberal Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, but conservative swing-voter Anthony Kennedy says he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years - through the end of Obama's first term, sources said.

That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court's conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.

Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court's four rock-ribbed conservative justices.

Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech.

Obama called the ruling "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power ... in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

He was so angry that he took the unusual step of blasting the decision in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address, with Kennedy and five other justices looking on.

Kagan would allow people to sue over environmental damage

Environmental issues dominated the last portion of the questioning, with Feinstein asking about the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency and the ability of citizens to sue companies for contributing to pollution and global warming. Normally, citizens can only bring cases if they have been personally “injured,” but environmental injury is a gray area.

“Do you believe it’s possible for citizens to demonstrate that environmental harms have injured them for constitutional purposes?” Feinstein asked.

“The answer is yes, much depending on what Congress does,” Kagan replied.

Kagan's Princeton thesis centered on German socialist/Nazi who advocated war against capitalism and a "total ordering of life"

Elena Kagan's senior thesis at Princeton University, recounting the history of socialist politics in New York City, cited the theories of an influential German Marxist who notoriously switched allegiances to Nazism after Adolf Hitler attained power.

Werner Sombart was widely recognized as an academic proponent of Marxism and was once praised by Karl Marx's colleague Friedrich Engels as the only German professor who understood Marx's Das Kapital. During World War I, however, Sombart endorsed Germany's "heroic" war against the "capitalist spirit" represented by England. In 1934, Sombart published Deutscher Sozialismus, which advocated the "total ordering of life" as an expression of the German Volksgeist, or "national spirit."

In the introduction to her 1981 thesis, Kagan addresses a question famously asked by Sombart: Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? -- "Why is there no socialism in the United States?"

For Supreme Court nominees, it's only sensible to say nothing

Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but a charade. "Balls and strikes" is what John Roberts said he'd call. Sonia Sotomayor, no fool she, said the same. Elena Kagan, ditto, is going to be a neutral arbiter. She isn't a "progressive." She will be fair and open.

Of course. She'd be crazy to say otherwise.

Once upon a time, back when she wasn't sitting at the table, Kagan suggested that prospective justices should try to outline their constitutional views at the confirmation hearings. Senators might learn more about who they were voting for. The watching public might learn something, period.

Not a chance. Now senators pretend to "learn" something by reading memos the would-be justice wrote nearly three decades ago as a law clerk. Would-be justices spend three days forgetting everything they learned about judicial decision-making in law school and since, claiming that values have nothing to do with it; neutrality is the watchword. It's not an educational experience for anyone. It's a game of "gotcha," and the way you don't get gotten is, basically, to say nothing.

National Rifle Association opposes Kagan for Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP)  The National Rifle Association is opposing Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court and warning senators that it will take their votes into account when considering endorsing their re-election.

In a letter sent to leading senators Thursday, top NRA officials say Kagan has "repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility" to gun rights in her career in government and academia.

The NRA also opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation last year. Sotomayor was among the four dissenters in the high court's decision last week that limits state and local gun restrictions.

Kagan emerged from three days of vetting by the Senate Judiciary Committee much as she had begun, declaring she'd be an independent and impartial judge and denying Republican suggestions that she would be unable to separate her political leanings from her job as a justice.

Democrats said President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens was on track to become the fourth woman in Supreme Court history.

Sotomayor lied about the right to bear arms; what's Kagan going to lie about as she bobs and weaves in the kabuki theater

The most important question members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is, "Who do you think you are kidding?"

The hearings process for high court nominees has become ritualized to the point that it is almost useless. Nominees are extensively coached to avoid voicing a real opinion. There is no intellectual give and take. Spontaneity is largely absent. Anyone who can reasonably keep his cool and regurgitate platitudes for a few hours can enjoy a lifetime appointment to the most important judicial body in the land.

Ms. Kagan is playing her expected role in the predictable manner. We saw the same kabuki dance during the hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor less than a year ago. When asked by the sympathetic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, if she agreed that "the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions," Ms. Sotomayor answered: "It is." Yet her answer to this obviously staged question was untruthful. On Monday, Justice Sotomayor joined the Supreme Court minority in saying that there is "nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental,' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." In other words, when she said the right to bear arms was guaranteed, she lied.

For her part, Ms. Kagan is equally dishonest when she says that she would approach her duty impartially. We know the intellectual milieu from which she has emerged. We know that her heart and mind are devoted to leftist causes and that she can be counted on to find rationales to further those aims in whatever cases come before the court.

Can government tell us what to eat? Kagan struggles with reply

Supremes rule against Kagan, whose score is 3 wins, 2 losses

Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings haven’t even begun, and the score is already 1-0 against her.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning ruled against Ms. Kagan in a case she had argued as solicitor general when it decided that a quasi government agency that audits public companies is unconstitutional. The board’s members are appointed and removed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not the president – a violation of Article II of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the president, the court ruled.

The board, called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, was created under the 2002 law known as Sarbanes-Oxley. Ms. Kagan, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, had made the case that the president appoints and can remove S.E.C. commissioners, and thus, by extension, has control over the accounting board.

The White House notes that Ms. Kagan’s overall Supreme Court record is 3-2. That is, three wins and two losses in the five cases she has argued. (The other loss was in the Citizens United case, in which the court lifted limits on corporate spending to influence elections.)

Monday’s ruling is a narrow one, however, and experts anticipate Congress will simply amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to allow the accounting board to remain in existence.

Rep. Ted Poe questions Kagan's judicial qualifications

The new Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, has never been a judge. She's never seen a courtroom from the bench. She's never had a judge's responsibilities. Elena Kagan has never instructed a jury or ruled on a point of law—any point of law. She's never tried a criminal case, a civil case, or even a traffic case. She has not decided even one constitutional issue.

We don't know whether or not she believes the Constitution is the foundation of American law or whether she thinks, like many, the Constitution constantly changes based upon the personal opinions of Supreme Court justices. But either way, Elena Kagan has never had to make a constitutional call in a court of law in the heat of a trial.

She has never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on the chain of custody regarding evidence. She has never made even one decision regarding any rule of evidence. She has never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the Miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation, a due process claim, an equal protection violation or any constitutional issue.

She has never impaneled a jury. She has never instructed a jury on a reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the penitentiary. She has never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. As a judge, she has never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim, or a child testify as a witness. She has never made that all-important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime.

She has never ruled on a life-or-death issue.

Elena Kagan has never made a judgment call from the bench—not a single one. Yet, as a Supreme Court justice, she would be second-guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who have been through the mud, blood and tears of actual trials in actual courts of law. How can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a Supreme Court justice?

Elena Kagan appears to have compared the NRA to the KKK

It has become clear that Elena Kagan, Obama’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is no friend of gun rights, to say the least. While clerking for Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall in 1987, she wrote the judge that she was “not sympathetic” to a Second Amendment–based challenge to the D.C. gun ban. While serving in the Clinton administration, she wrote a memo that “paved the way for an executive order banning dozens of semiautomatic weapons,” according to the L.A. Times.

And National Review has learned that in 1996, Kagan apparently tied the NRA to the KKK — yes, the KKK — while debating the Clinton administration’s position on a bill.

The bill in question was the Volunteer Protection Act, which, when it was passed and signed the following year, protected some non-profits’ volunteer workers from tort liability in certain cases. The administration worried that it would apply to volunteers from unlikable non-profits.

Two documents discovered at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and obtained by National Review suggest that Kagan was involved in these discussions. One does not contain her name, but the handwriting appears to be hers. (You can see an example of Kagan’s handwriting here.) It has the name of administration colleague Fran Allegra at the top, and lists two “Bad guy orgs” that might be covered — the NRA and the KKK.

The second does have Kagan’s name on it; it is a memo from Allegra to Kagan. Allegra reports that he checked the IRS’s “Cumulative List of Organizations Described in Section 170(c)” — the list of tax-exempt organizations, which, he says, are the only organizations the bill would cover — and that neither the NRA nor the KKK was on it. “If you have other names you want me to run down in the Cumulative List, I would be glad to check them out,” he adds, suggesting that Kagan requested the initial check of the NRA and the KKK.

Is Kagan so hostile to gun rights that she would compare the top gun-rights organization in the United States with a viciously racist hate group? It sure looks that way. We look forward to her explanation.

Elena Kagan advised Bill Cllinton's attorneys in harassment case

WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton's presidential library won't publicly release memos and notes Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wrote about the sexual harassment lawsuit that triggered Clinton's impeachment.

Kagan was involved in defending Clinton in the lawsuit brought by ex-Arkansas state worker Paula Jones, according to documents released Friday. Clinton's testimony for the Jones lawsuit, denying a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, led to his impeachment.

The library held back several of Kagan's memos to Clinton's top advisers in the case, saying that publicly releasing them would divulge confidential advice. They were turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on Kagan's nomination, however.

It's clear from files that were made public that Kagan had a hand in the Jones case. In a September 1996 memo, Kagan writes that she's been in touch with other lawyers on a brief in the Jones lawsuit and, "I am happy with the direction they seem to be taking."

Earlier that year, she forwards to colleagues a brief written by then-Solicitor General Walter Dellinger supporting Clinton's bid to postpone the civil trial until after he had left office.

"It's really pretty good," Kagan says of Dellinger's brief. She notes approvingly that the brief "downplays" the question of whether the president should have immunity for conduct before he took office, and instead focuses on the argument that the case should be delayed because it would disrupt the performance of Clinton's duties as chief executive.

Attorney Mia Reini looks at the confirmation conversions of Sonia Sotomayor, since reconverted, and Elena Kagan

We’ve seen it before, we’ll see it again, and it goes something like this: a Supreme Court candidate espouses radical views throughout her career; same candidate is nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court with White House assurances that she is a moderate; during her confirmation hearings, candidate undergoes a “confirmation conversion” and no longer holds the same radical views; once on the Supreme Court, candidate returns right back to her old ways. We saw it with Sonia Sotomayor. We’ll see it again from Elena Kagan.

Let’s walk through the steps of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation conversion. First, the radical views. As a Second Circuit judge, Sotomayor espoused such extreme views in the controversial case of Ricci v. DeStefano that even Clinton-appointed judge José Cabranes found it shocking, and the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned her decision. Then there was the egregious Second Circuit case of Maloney v. Cuomo where she held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the federal government. And her infamous “A Latina judge’s voice” speech at Berkeley: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Second came the White House assurances that Sotomayor was not, contrary to her own words, a judicial activist, but was “a nonideological and restrained judge.”

Third, Sotomayor’s confirmation conversion during her Senate hearings: “No, sir, I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging the way the President does. Judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law.”

But once safely confirmed to the nation’s highest court, Sotomayor was back to her old ways, casting her first Supreme Court vote to join three other liberal justices in an unsuccessful effort to stop the execution of a hit man in Ohio. And in direct contradiction to what she espoused during her confirmation conversion, Sotomayor joined these same justices in using foreign law to interpret our Constitution in the case of Graham v. Florida.

As for Elena Kagan, her radical views have been well-documented, including her senior thesis where she found the decline of socialism in the United States to be “sad,” as well as her decision to kick the U.S. military off of Harvard’s campus during a time of war.

A justice who can grind it out and then hand out free tampons...yeah, that's just what this supreme court needs

What to do when your nominee to the Supreme Court has no experience on the bench, filed an amicus brief that got blown out of the water, worked a skimpy two years in the private sector, treated members of the military as second-class citizens, and penned only a limited number of “scholarly” articles?

Naturally, you talk about all the free tampons she distributed while at Harvard. If only I were kidding. It turns out that Kagan’s résumé is so threadbare that Team Obama is floating a myriad of pathetic talking points to pad its candidate’s “qualifications.”

See for yourself.

1. The baller. Not only are we told that she’s “ambitious, restless, [and] intellectually acute,” but, as Politico noted, she “even shares the president’s love of a good, grinding pick-up basketball game.” Say what? She enjoys a “grinding pick-up basketball game”? Well now, that settles it then. Bust out the basketball trunks, throw on a jersey, and move yourself straight to the front of the line for a lifetime position on the most powerful court in the world! What could go wrong? As an aside, can you even imagine Kagan “grinding” on the court?

3. Feminine products. At Harvard, Kagan gained popularity by offering “free coffee outside classrooms and free tampons in the women’s restrooms.” Surely, these were exactly the type of qualities Thomas Jefferson sought when picking a justice.

9. Good news: Kagan ain’t deaf. Television legal analyst Lis Wiehl gushed that the Supreme Court nominee ran Harvard Law with “grace” and is an “avid listener.”

In Citizens United case, Kagan took a position denounced by two justices as permissive to censorship

(CNSNews.com) - Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Justice Kennedy described the law Kagan had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”

“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

In March 2009, six months before Kagan told the court that the government could bar corporations from publishing political pamphlets, her deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, had gone further, telling the court the Constitution authorized Congress to prohibit corporations from publishing full-length books that included passages advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s September statement that the government could ban pamphlets was meant to be a retreat from Stewart’s earlier position.

Stewart and Kagan both presented oral arguments to the court in the Citizens United case because the court took the unusual step of ordering the litigants to make their arguments twice. This was because the court decided after the initial round of oral arguments that it wanted to consider broader issues in the case than originally contemplated and perhaps roll back some of the recent precedents it had established on government regulation of political speech.

Guided by his fantasies, Obama may see the Constitution as already a historical relic

President Obama said his Supreme Court nominee will be someone who knows "that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

Newsflash for the president! The most "powerful interest" in America today that is drowning out citizens' voices is…. the government!

Justice John Paul Stevens said to be retiring

The Supreme Court is about to undergo another generational transition, as the senior leader of its liberal wing, John Paul Stevens, is expected to retire this summer and be replaced by a junior justice appointed by President Obama.

For the moment, the front-runners for the nomination, assuming Stevens does announce his retirement after he turns 90 next month, are said by legal insiders to be U.S. Solicitor Gen. Elena Kagan, 49; Judge Diane Wood, 59, of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago; and Judge Merrick Garland, 57, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.