Obama nominates Elena Kagan to Supreme Court
UPDATE, 11:29a: Yet another red flag. While pro-life groups are coming out against Kagan’s nomination en masse, the pro-abortion group NARAL is amenable to Kagan, as indicated in the statement below.
Shock: I happen to agree with NARAL on one of its points – that abortion and Roe v. Wade should be discussed in Kagan’s confirmation hearings.
Also note the ironic use of the term “vacuum,” which as Susie Allen pointed out to me immediately draws pro-lifers (like she and I anyway) to think of vacuum aspiration abortions. Click to enlarge…
UPDATE, 11:17a: Interesting statement on Kagan’s nomination from Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference. Miranda’s perspective is one of a Senate Republican leadership dissident…
The President must be commended for shunning left wing activists who demanded that he select a Supreme Court nominee who could promise results for the clients that fund their advocacy. He selected a perfectly reasonable nominee for a Democratic president.
Where he fell short is that, in Elena Kagan, President Obama has nominated someone who shares his personal ideology but has no judicial record to show the honed skill of judiciousness, i.e. the ability to put aside personal views to render justice.
The Senate must now test for this to determine whether Elena Kagan is qualified for the highest court or just more richly credentialed and with a wider circle of friends than Harriet Miers. Kagan is a stealth nominee for both the Left, who want guarantees on the results of cases, and for the Right, who want to know how a nominee will approach judging.
For Senate Republicans, talk of filibusters and obstruction is just a distraction. The real question will be how much time and effort they will invest in this confirmation debate. In the Sotomayor debate, fewer than a dozen Senate Republicans went to the Senate Floor to speak on the that nomination. If they do not invest, they may find a return on investment like Senator Bob Bennett’s. Bennett never invested in judicial nominations.
UPDATE, 10:57a: Students for Life of America and LifeNews.com are cosponsoring a petition opposing the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. I just signed it and encourage other pro-lifers to as well.
UPDATE, 9:14a: Americans United for Life’s take on Kagan’s abortion position:
Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law. AUL will oppose President Obama’s attempt to reshape the Court as an activist, pro-abortion institution through which unelected judges will work to impose an out-of-the-mainstream social agenda upon the American people….
President Obama said he wanted a Supreme Court candidate who interprets the Constitution as protecting individual rights, particularly abortion rights. Solicitor General Elena Kagan – an ardent abortion supporter – more than fits the ticket. Kagan not only publicly and repeatedly criticized federal regulations that prohibited recipients of Title X family planning funds from counseling on or referring women for abortions, she argued that the regulations amounted to the subsidization of ‘anti-abortion’ speech.
Kagan will further entrench the Court’s self-appointed role as the sole arbiter of abortion policy because she believes the role of judges is to ‘advance’ social policy rather than faithfully apply the law. Kagan is so admiring of judicial activists that she sought to silence critics of activist judges, attacking them as “irresponsible” and asserting that their criticism was “harmful to our constitutional system and to the value of a judiciary.” A Kagan nomination means more power to the SC to make and impose personal policy and radical beliefs, robbing Americans of the ability to keep law making to themselves and their representatives.
8:59a: From the Washington Post, this morning:
President Obama has scheduled a mid-morning announcement to nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the 112th justice of the Supreme Court, sources said late Sunday night….
Kagan, 50, the former dean of Harvard Law School, would become the 4th woman to serve on the high court; if she is confirmed, the 9-member court will have 3 female justices for the first time.
In replacing Justice John Paul Stevens, Obama would also be breaking with tradition. Every other member of the court is a former federal appeals court judge, and Kagan has never served in the judiciary. The last time a non-judge was appointed was in 1972, when President Richard Nixon nominated William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell in the same year.
Kagan, who Obama considered nominating during the last Supreme Court vacancy, is the government’s top appellate lawyer and representative at the Supreme Court. She was confirmed last year by the Senate in a 61 to 31 vote, and was the first woman confirmed to hold the job.
Because she would replace Stevens, the leader of the court’s liberal bloc, the ideological balance among the nine justices would not change….
Kagan was not seen as the most easily confirmed among the group of potential nominees Obama considered, but neither are substantial problems foreseen with her nomination.
She is known to be circumspect with her personal views and has no public record on some of the hot-button social issues – such as abortion and gun control – that have dominated past confirmation hearings. In fact, it is her lack of a record that has led some liberal activists to warn that Obama should not take a chance on her. But she has served in the Obama administration for more than a year and worked in the Clinton White House before that, and she has some powerful allies who have vouched for her….
Kagan would be the youngest member of the court. And though she comes from outside the “judicial monastery” that some members of Congress had hoped for, she is an insider. She has clerked at the SC, advised Biden when he was a senator during Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing, and served in a policy role in the Clinton administration….
Some of the most important priorities of the Obama administration, such as health-care reform and changes in the regulation of the financial industry, will come before the court in the coming years….
She is the 3rd straight nominee to have graduated from Princeton. The court would now be entirely composed of justices who attended law school at either Harvard or Yale, although Ginsburg graduated from Columbia Law School. Kagan would be the 4th justice on the court to have been raised in New York.
And if she is confirmed, the court will for the 1st time in its history be without a Protestant justice. It would be composed of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews.
Conservatives have said the most controversial issue in her past was her belief that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy meant recruiters on campus would violate the Harvard Law School’s anti-discrimination policy….
Speaking of, from QueerTY.com, May 9 (click to enlarge):
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
she’s a rabid proabort who will further entrench abortion rights at the cost of the health of women and babies….
“she believes the role of judges is to ‘advance’ social policy rather than faithfully apply the law.”
yes sadly this is what is happening
this circumvents the entire democratic process because these women do not represent the views of most women in America…
Prolifers would do well to point this out – judges should not make public policy. That is for ELECTED governments to do.
from CNN which is now carrying the nomination story:
“Many religion scholars attribute the decline of Protestant representation on the high court to the breakdown of a mainline Protestant identity and to the absence of a strong tradition of lawyering among evangelical Protestants.”
however, the article does note that evangelical Protestants will be the future wave of aspiring judiciary who seek to make it to the high court.
included in that will likely also be homeschooled protestant and catholic students.
And these will carry the prolife ethic with them.
Raised counter-cultural, from vibrant families, they are our hope.
A self proclaimed bigot on the bench?
He/she has expressed hostility toward the military and pro life citizens?
No judge experience? Would the Boston Celtics recruit a player that knew everything about basketball but had never played?
Would the women or husbands that view this site have a OB/GYN professor (never a delivery)deliver their baby as opposd to a midwife that had delivered many?
She has a canny resemblance to Janet Napolitano, does she not?
My sole comfort is a sovereign God.
“Why do the nations court such delusion? Their bickering leaders seem to agree only on working against God’s redemption of the world. This, of course, is risible to God.”
That’s a pretty loose translation of Psalm 2. ;-)
Sign the Students for Life of America petition in opposition to Obama’s pro-abortion Supreme Court pick: http://www.IOpposeKagan.com.
He/she has expressed hostility toward the military and pro life citizens?”
As I understand it, the only “hostility” she has expressed about the military is refusing them access to campus pursuant to a University Policy that forbid recruiting by any organization that discriminated against gay people. She didn’t write the policy, but was certainly obligated to uphold it.
I am unaware of the “hostility” she expressed towards Pro life people.
I am unaware of the “hostility” she expressed towards Pro life people.
Posted by: Hal at May 10, 2010 10:50 AM
Might depend on whether she considers pro-lifers to be engaging in hate speech. She wrote an article in 1993 called Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V., but I’ve not been able to find it online. I’d appreciate a link if anyone finds it, thanks.
I was going to post a link to her article, Presidential Administration, but it’s been scrubbed in the last few minutes. Interesting.
She also appears to have been sympathetic toward marxists in her younger days. What are her views now?
I think the big weakness might be that, for all her experience in law per se, Kagan has never been a judge. The second problem for me is that she is very young. Had she been a judge prior to the nomination, I might have overlooked her age. But her overall lack of judicial experience in actually interpreting and applying what she knows from the bench, coupled with a relatively short span of years as an adult working with the law, means that I oppose her nomination. Just MHO.
missy Kagan is a progressive\liberal\humanist.
She goes through the motions of ‘praying’ [whatever that word means to her] to honor the memory of her deceased parents.
She is first and foremost a humanist.
She is hypocritical and duplicitous. Her record at Harvard is clear.
When it came time to render ‘justice’ to two liberal proffessors caught red handed and waiste deep in plagarism she participated in putting lipstick on the pig and gave the good ol boys a pass on their violation of established the Harvard code of conduct for both students and faculty.
Students found guilty of ‘plagarism’ were suspended or had their degree from Harvard rescinded.
Laurence ‘Larry’ Tribe, who is the go to guy when the liberal lame scream lap dog media wants a reliablby liberal/activist perspective that comports with their inherent bias, was one of the professors who missy Kagan found guilty of ‘plagarism’ but then in a liberal ‘so what’ kind of response excused the prohibited behavior.
The same way the democRAT senator chose to overlook the president Billy Boy Clintons ‘perjury’.
The Arkansas State Bar was not inclined to be so generous. They dis-barred Billy Boy.
It would be interesting to ask missy Kagan how committing ‘perjury’ and the attempted suborning of perjury does NOT rise to at least a ‘misdemeanor’ if not a ‘high crime’.
The constitution says either of these is grounds for impeachment and removal from the office of president of the USA.
If missy Kagan cannot faithfully administer the code of conduct for Harvard University, what basis do we have to believe she can or will faithfully apply the plain meaning of the Constitution if doing so conflicts with her ‘liberal/progressive/humanist worldview?
This just in from Aaron Klein
[Elena] Kagan thesis lamented decline of socialism
‘Sad’ development for those who ‘still wish to change’ U.S.
‘wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152133’
Titled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933,” Kagan opined that infighting caused the decline of the early socialist movement. She asked why the “greatness” of socialism was not reemerging as a major political force.
In the senior thesis, Kagan, who graduated from Princeton in 1981, addressed infighting in the socialist movement.
Her thesis was dedicated to her brother “whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.”
“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered.
“The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America,” she wrote. “Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”
————————————————–
One has to wonder if missy Kagan might not have been more honest if she had written:
‘In unity lies OUR only hope.’
If missy Kagan ‘claimed’ to be pro-life and was openly critical of the Roe v Wade decision, I would still oppose her nomination to the SCOTUS.
I would oppose because no matter what she says, she is a progressive liberal humanist and as such can never be relied upon to tell the truth or to do the right thing.
Posted by: carder at May 10, 2010 10:09 AM
“She has a canny resemblance to Janet Napolitano, does she not?”
—————————————————
Just close your eyes and picture them in flannel shirts, blue jeans and steel toed work boots.
Think of Rosie the Riveter, but without the femininity.
Kagan and Napolitano gravitate to the same fashion statement as Chaz, formerly Chastidy, Bono.
Of the course the lame scream lap dog media has adopted the ‘Don’t ask/Don’t Tell’ policy which Kagan condemns,….when it comes to the military, but now that it provides her with political cover she will remain in self imposed ‘Politically Correct’ silence.
Rush Limbaugh is correct once again.
b.o. has nominated a mirror image of his own socialist humanist gender confused self to be the next Justice appointed to the Supreme Court.
The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings could prove to provide some high drama and farcical commentary.
If some woman comes forward and claims she was sexually harrassed by missy Kagan, I wonder if the purported victim will receive will receive the same uncritical and even warm reception that Anita Hill got from the feministas, feminazis and progressive liberals in congress and in the lame scream media.
I enjoy the surprise that a Democrat would nominate somebody who is on the pro-choice side.
Pretty quick for anyone to rush to judgment either way. So far, I think the best comparison I’ve seen is Justice Roberts – much of their past is outside of a position as judge – both highly regarded thinker. If there’s no bomb-shells found, she should pass pretty easily (not easily like in the good ole days when it wasn’t as partisan – but easily for these days – 62-67 votes.
Artemis,
If you are only here to incite, you will be deleted.
RINO,
Comparing Jusice Roberts to Eleana Kagan is absurd.
John Roberts was a former judge who had rendered some decisions that had been submitted to judicial scrutiny.
Whether or not one agreed with his conclusions there was a record to be examined.
Elena Kagan has no such judicial record. She very little real law experience.
We only have her ‘prose’ to judge her by and the company she keeps.
If that is the standard by which we measure her, then by comparison John Roberts is a rocket scientist and Elena Kagan is a movie critic.
Do you think even a little bit before you hit the post button or do you just Hiawatha it every time?
Artemis, you’re banned for repeated blasphemy.
RINO,
‘therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/klein-kagan-says-certain-kinds-of-speech-can-be-disappeared-argued-first-amendment-should-be-weighed-against-societal-costs/’
“Kagan’s academic writings are sparse – just nine articles,
two of which are book reviews.”
It turns out my comparison of Elean Kagan to a ‘movie critic’ is pretty close to the mark.
I have no doubt that b.o. is fool, but he is a shrewd fool.
b.o. knows that he and Elena Kagan are spiritual/political soul mates and that her presence on the SCOTUS will do enduring damgage to this country long after he has exited the White House and she has retired from the SCOTUS if she is confirmed.
b.o. is on a mission to destroy a nation built upon faith, family and freedom and turn it into a second rate socialist enclave.
Elena Kagan is the perfect Obama pick. She stands for basically everything he holds of value, which is to say values that are anti-thetical to the Christian foundations of our country, to the protections of innocent human life, and to the free market philosophy that has made us the wealthiest, most productive and powerful nation in history.
The pick also reflects his judicial philosophy which can be summed up as follows: If it fits our needs (in his estimation) then the courts have the power to trump the expressed intent of the constitution’s framers and any laws that the various congresses have passed over the years.
b.o. is on a mission to destroy a nation built upon faith, family and freedom and turn it into a second rate socialist enclave.
Posted by: yor bro ken at May 11, 2010 7:59 AM
Really? You really believe this? Way to over-react to an election that didn’t go your way.
Bro Ken is hardly alone in those thoughts, Hal.
Me too. Obama is trying to destroy this country.
You don’t honestly think we are pouting because the election didn’t go our way, do you?? LOL
Carla, you HONESTLY think that Obama is TRYING to destroy our country? That’s delusional, my friend.
Maybe he’s trying to do things that you think will hurt our country, but it’s hard to imagine he’s doing things that he thinks will harm our country.
Hal,
Either b.o. is just plain incompetent or he is knowingly, deliberately making decisions that are damaging the foundations of our socio/economic system.
It is delusional to suggest b.o. is moderate in any way except in how he handles jew hating mass murdering muslim extremists.
b.o. has and is surrounding himself with people who reflect his own socialistic/humanistic world view.
No rational person would nominate someone like Kagan to the SCOTUS unless he shared her ideology.
The president is entitled to nominate anyone he chooses to the SCOTUS, but the Senate is not obligated to indulge him by confirming her.
Hopefully the Senate will exercise it’s contituionally mandated responsibility and reject her.
They did after all take an oathe to preserve and protect the constitution.
Call me delusional, Hal my friend. I have been called much, much worse than that.
I absolutely believe he is trying to destroy our country. Will he succeed? That is the question.
When elected officials refuse to listen to the will of the people, let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: Hal at May 11, 2010 9:10 AM
“Way to over-react to an election that didn’t go your way.”
—————————————————-
Hal,
I am not reacting to the election.
I am responding to a public servants lack of judgement.
Surely you are NOT suggesting Kagan is the most qualified progressive/liberal person to be nominated to the SCOTUS.
We all remember Harriet Miers, don’t we?
No way she would ever be on my short list of perspective federal judges.
If in your estimation I am ‘over-reacting’, then I would have to say you have set some new standards for excusing and minimalizing the results of an election that went YOUR way.
You really should find a reliable standard from which to navigate.
Your course is a meandering as drunk donkey.
Carla – that’s fair – I think a lot of people held the view that George Bush set this country back many, many years – economically, foreign policy wise, and domestically. So it’s quite fair to have that opinion. I would disagree with it, but sure, people believe that those who don’t agree with them are crazy.
I think Kagan will be fine. The far left thinks she’s too conservative. The far right thinks she’s too liberal. Seems like a good middle-left judge to me.
Yes, it is fair to have an opinion whether it is agreed with or not. :)
We shall see how kind history is to President Obama.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at May 11, 2010 5:24 PM
“I think Kagan will be fine…Seems like a good middle-left judge to me.”
—————————————————
RINO,
Almost 70 percent of Americans disapprove of Kagan’s nomination to the SCOTUS.
Do you and Hal share the same ever morphing dictionary?
When you go to buy a new car do you accept the first price the dealership proffers?
The ‘middle to left’ descriptive of Kagan is appropriate in the sense that the Brits drive on the left side of the road and they have a socialist government.
Ken – I rarely read your posts anymore – not since that initial time when you botched statistics so terribly that I’d be ashamed if my 6 year old made the same mistake. You never apologized for that, so I generally skip you.
This was short, so I couldn’t help but see the first line. Where are you getting that poll?
Gallup released theirs yesterday – numbers almost identical to Alito – 40% initial positive, 22 fair, 14 poor, and 24 with no opinion.
So what’s your source? Or do we need another apology, on top of the apology you still owe me?
Yor Bro Ex
Here’s a quote I found recently from a friend regarding Kagan:
“I know she’s straight,” Walzer said. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago — and she just didn’t find the right person.”
I recently commented somewhere else about bartending and the same drunks repeated year after year that they just “haven’t found the right one yet” when yet another relationship floundered. They could never figure out that it wasn’t about finding the right one but was more about being the right one.