• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Will Elena Kagan Defend the Rule of Law?

    The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its hearing today on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kagan is no stranger to the confirmation process; in fact, she devoted one of her few academic writings entirely to the subject, writing:

    The Senate’s consideration of a nominee, and particularly the Senate’s confirmation hearings, ought to focus on substantive issues; the Senate ought to view the hearings as an opportunity to gain knowledge and promote public understanding of what the nominee believes the Court should do and how she would affect its conduct.

    Kagan’s law review article specifically criticized recent confirmation hearings as “a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.” Instead, Kagan advocated that senators insist “on seeing how theory works in practice by evoking a nominee’s comments on particular issues – involving privacy rights, free speech, race and gender discrimination, and so forth – that the Court regularly faces.” Kagan even suggested that nominees with thin records (and Kagan’s record can definitely be considered “thin,” since she has no judicial experience, few academic writings, and virtually no litigation experience prior to her current post as Solicitor General), should face a heavier burden when answering senators’ questions. So what “substantive issues” should senators press Kagan on to see how her “theory works in practice”?

    The First Amendment: As Solicitor General, Kagan asserted before the Supreme Court that government could ban political pamphlets. The core of the First Amendment is the protection of political speech. So not only does such a position therefore violate common sense, but its logic could be used to ban Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or other landmark political treatises, particularly if their authors were so foolish as to publish them through a non-profit corporation. Does Kagan believe that the First Amendment permits the government to ban pamphlets and books?

    The Second Amendment: As a law clerk, Elena Kagan recommended that the Supreme Court not even hear a claim that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment — a claim that recently succeeded at the Court. The sole reasoning that she provided for denying the claim: “I’m not sympathetic.” Kagan was also intimately involved in gun-control policies in the Clinton White House, working to reclassify certain hunting rifles as assault weapons and to ban their importation. In Kagan’s notes obtained from the Clinton Library, she even lumped the National Rifle Association together with the KKK as “bad guy org[anization]s.” Does Kagan stand by her recommendation to reject access to the Supreme Court to someone denied his or her Second Amendment rights by a complete ban on handguns? Considering that she has argued that the government can ban political pamphlets, does she also believe that the Constitution permits the government to ban all guns, as well?

    Social Issues vs. National Security: As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan restricted military recruiters’ access to campus. Kagan’s actions, which were based upon a court of appeals decision that did not even apply to Harvard, violated the Solomon Amendment. It was only after the Department of Defense threatened to cut off Harvard’s funding that Kagan granted military recruiters customary access to campus. What legal authority did Kagan have to disregard the Solomon Amendment and restrict the access of military recruiters to campus? Does Kagan think it was appropriate to limit the ability of the military to recruit on campus at a time when the United States is fighting two wars?

    Foreign Law vs. the U.S. Constitution: In a letter to Senator Arlen Specter (D–PA) during her Solicitor General confirmation hearings, Kagan wrote, “There are some circumstances in which it may be proper for judges to consider foreign law sources in ruling on constitutional questions,” such as the Eighth Amendment. This position seems consistent with Kagan’s approach as dean of Harvard Law School, where she led the effort to change the first-year curricula to mandate the study of international law while maintaining constitutional law as an elective course. This practice of looking at foreign law to change U.S. law raises grave questions about U.S. sovereignty and is frequently used selectively by justices who cite to practices that favor their desired outcomes. As a justice, would Kagan cite to foreign law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution?

    When President Barack Obama outlined his criteria for appointing a replacement for retiring-Justice David Souter, he said he would seek: “someone who understands justice and isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives … I view that quality of empathy of understanding and identifying what people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” Kagan has similarly written that it is the Supreme Court’s mission to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.” At a time when this White House has shown an utter contempt for the rule of law in favor of their own political allies (e.g. Chrysler bailout, oil drilling moratorium, BP shakedown, etc.) it is now more important than ever that senators ensure Kagan is capable of putting aside her personal preferences, applying the law as it is written, and dispensing justice without regard to the parties before her.

    Side Note: Robert Alt, Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week regarding Kagan’s nomination hearing. For more information, visit OrderInTheCourt.org.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    63 Responses to Morning Bell: Will Elena Kagan Defend the Rule of Law?

    1. toledofan says:

      If Kagan is the best we have then we may as well just close up shop and decommission the Supreme Court. Even within the Democratic ranks, I'm sure there has to be someone with more experience and someone who would be a better choice. I understand that the political party that is in power makes the choice, but, in this case, it just seems like we have made a very weak one. It just shows, again, Obama's lack of respect for the Constitution.

    2. Brian, Danbury, CT says:

      Well, we have a president with no experience, lets just fill up all the positions of government control and legislation with inept people. THATS the way to run a business.

    3. Mary.... WI says:

      I don't much care for Obama so his pick for surpeme court justice, Elana Kagan, does'nt sit well with me at all. It's just more "Obama" ! Shallow? maybe but I'm going with what my gut tells me. Surely there must be someone more qualified, less controversial, and at least middle of the road BO can nominate.

    4. Joe Jerkwad says:

      Joe Biden's 3rd grade essay, "My Fu*k%ng Summer Vacation" is revealed by SPN Headlines – deets are at:


      Have a great Monday! :-)

    5. wendy says:

      If she is an appointee of obamas I don't trust that she will follow the constitution . Besides her past record says she won't . After all obama only aligns himself with people who will further his agenda. So i have to say NO I DON"T TRUST THAT SHE WILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AT ALL………….

    6. Mike, Chicago says:

      She would be a rubber stamp for barry. She should not be confirmed.

    7. Mike, Chicago says:

      Kagan would be a rubber stamp for barry. She should not be confirmed.

    8. West Texan says:

      Q: Will Elena Kagan Defend the Rule of Law?

      A: As part of team Obama, infamously known for overreaching constitutional limits, I seriously doubt she will.

    9. Bill Lauderback, Aus says:

      An exceptionally well researched piece on Kagan. Is in not ironic that the Supreme Court ruled just this morning and for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment right?

      One can expect the Obama administration to quickly issue a condemning statement on the court's decision.

    10. C Knight, Falls Chur says:

      You make her sound really scary in terms of the US Constitution. Doesn't she have at least some redeeming qualities?

    11. Lwesson, Tejas says:

      The insanity/suicide of a nation will continue with the vote for Kagan as a Supreme Court Judge. Republicans can be counted on to act like rotund pompus Roman Senators talking big with saggy eyes and bouncing jowls, then confirming Kagan and with a yawn, going out to lunch with their horses that they have made into Senators. The Democrats who likewise have lost their capacity for shame long ago will warmly welcome The Wonder Girl Kagan as yet another straw, a heavy one at that, to break the back of Constitution & The Bill of Rights and will likewise check in on their equine Senators and head out for lunch with their Republican cohorts.

      Kagan will finally have a smug contemptuous smile at having gone up from nothing in her New York Leftest ugly sanctimonious name calling childhood to the ultimate something all at not having to break so much of a sweat as a jurist or much of anything else. Perfect pick from Obama, someone who is likewise a secret, an enigma from somewhere and a purveyor of Radical Leftest friends, associations and beliefs.

      The horse stalls are all empty now save for all that horses leave and that is what we have to deal with, without a shovel.

    12. Wayne Simanovsky Sti says:

      Elena Kagan cannot follow the rule of law nor the Constitution because she has never sat as a lawyer or judge. But that's the way oboma likes it so unless the GOP stops her it will be dead beats as usual.

    13. Blair, Franconia, NH says:

      In a word, no. I doubt if Elena Kagan, given her views, would follow the rule of law.

      The only thing that should be considered in constitutional questions is the Consti-

      tution. International law, foreign law, and sharia have no place in this.

    14. bigdave ocala fl says:

      Just the fact that we have in this country of 70% conservative makeup an ULTRA LEFT, I-KNOW-BETTER-THAN-THE-FOUNDING-FATHERS TYPE OF NOMINEE to the Supreme Court is enough to tell us…WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE! Here is a little secret. If you have read Obama's books and RECALL his speeches, you must accept that Obama actually hates WHITE MEN. Look at EVERY FEMALE OBAMA HAS NOMINATED FOR ANY POSITION. These WOMEN are the EXACT OPPOSITE most white men would approve of, in temperament, political persuasion, ideology, and certainly LOOKS! Kagan is a perfect example of an OBAMITE! Just as LEFT and just as LOONEY!!!

    15. Publius Huldah, Cook says:

      Elena Kagan says that Aharon Barak is her judicial hero. Watch this 2 minute video:

      Now! After watching that, you know that she rejects the concept of "the rule of Law" as we have in the past understood that term. In the past, "rule of law" meant obedience to the US Constitution! It is explained & proved here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/the

      Kagan's judical hero is a judge who would substitute judical fiat – the Will of the Judges – for the Rule of Law. THAT is what the "rule of man" means.

    16. Don, Texas says:

      Reading between the lines has become a lost art, but with this adminiatration and its warped sense of perspective it has become a "must". Outright lies and political posturing is the rule of the day. Where does it say that "power" gets a free pass. What ever happened to "actions speaks louder than words". As far as I'm concerned; Kagin being picked by Obama is enough to disqualify her.

    17. Joanne Walczak says:

      It is my feeling that NO MATTER what this woman will be confirmed.Are there no people in the Senate that will stand up

      against this proven anti-constitution woman??

      Sincerely Jo Walczak

    18. Russ Errett Sebring says:

      I?I think the most little used statement in the constitution is "promote the general welfare" except when trying to justifying government welfare and subsidies. The competitive enterprise system provides more goods to more people. The latent effect of government welfare and subsidies is to reward bad behavior in the marketplace. ?Compassion is the bailiwick of private institutions and

      not that of government.

      Not Yours To Give – Colonel Davy Crockett
      http://www.juntosociety.com/ patriotism/ inytg.html

    19. Richard Cancemi, Arl says:

      Obama picked Kagan. You know it's not a good choice. Her history and lack of experience tell us she is not a good choice. Her opinions tell us she is not a good choice. She is a Progressive/World Government believer. She is not a Constitutional originalist. She is not a good choice. She may "say" all the right things during the hearings, but how many times have we seen Justices betray what they said under oath when testifying? How many justices have honored their oaths to judge according to the Constitution? Once they are seated, most of them lately "do their own thing", to the detriment of OUR Country!

      Our Country has been overrun with Progressivism. There are too few American Patriots left in both Parties. Obama leads the parade. Voters must oust ALL Marxist progressives at All levels of Government.

      They have damaged our Country and most of what has made America unique. Hopefully the wounds they have inflicted will not prove to be fatal! We must vote for America, not Globalism, not Progressivism, not Marxism and, most assuredly, not Omanism!

      I think Obama wants to spell his name: C-H-A-V-E-S!

    20. Drew Page, IL says:

      I believe Ms. Kagan will be coached on what questions to expect and will respond to those questions with scripted answers. I believe she will be evasive and less than forthright in answering questions about judicial activism, her views on a "living, evolving Constitution", her views on the Second Amendment, free speech, Roe v Wade, states rights and consideration of foreign when ruling on Constitutional issues.

      I believe that Ms. Kagan's past expressed viewpoints on these same issues, when she had no idea she would ever be nominated to the Supreme Court, are far more indicative of how she really feels than any response she may give before the Senate confirmation hearings. Just like Sotomayor, she will respond evasively and equivically to pointed questions, if any dare ask.

      It has been said that Ms. Kagan "loves the law", so did O.J. the first time he was acquitted. Ms. Kagan was never a judge and therefore has no judicial experience or record on which to base an evaluation of her qualifications. But then again, the man who appointed her had no qualifications for his job either and look how well he's done.

    21. seattle, wa says:

      I don't see how any conservative can voter for her, and any who do should be fired.

    22. Marvin Clark Reno, N says:

      The answer to your question is NO

    23. Norm Klevens says:

      This article outlines why Ms Kagan should not be confirmed. However Obama selected her for these reasons and her former writings are why she was appointed the Dean at Harvard. She will say what she thinks her temporary judges want to hear this week and then when its time to rule, she will go back to her true beliefs. Its the next nominee from the Obama that is of concern and Ginsburg will be retiring soon. That justice will change the balance. I hope Mr. Hatch, a true Conservative makes a statement by going against his rule of giving the duly elected president all of his choices. Republicans do not have the votes to deny this nomination, but people like Hatch can tell the president to think hard about submitting another Liberal next year when the Republicans, I hope will have the majority in the committee [if they do not give it back, like Frist did a few years ago].

    24. LJPJ, GA says:

      No, I do not believe that she will defend the rule of law, but rather rule according to her left wing beliefs. I do not believe she will honor her vow to uphold the Constitution. I believe she is a well considered pawn of the current administration, carefully placed in this position, purposed to carry out it's social agenda and bring America to her knees.

    25. Bernard Rosenberg says:

      When will Americans wake up to the reality that, deep in his heart, Obama hold Americans in contempt? Alll the years that he was under the influence of Jeramaiah Wright has not been eradicated. Please remember, Obama "disassociated himself " from Wright, only after the uproar.If he would truly love and respect the American people, he would have presented his birth certificate long ago.

      For all those who question why the media is so silent, I will give yoy the answer.

      Were the president a white person, the whole media would pounce on him, were he to act as Obama.

      However is is a Black acitivist.their mode of operation is wreack havoc, as much as possible. Please study those that rioted, looted and vandalizedthe American cities.Their slogan was "if I dont have the whites have it , I want it too."

      Once arrested they cried and retorted, that they were arrested because they were black and the gov't is white.

      The same as the "Harvard Professor" did when he was arrested.

      All these media does not want to portray itself as racist. Obama knows it . He knows the game.

      America has been conned. America is afraid of admitting that they were conned.

      The worst is not over. The time will come when Obama will rile the "inner city" inhabitants, whether legal or not, to rise up and raise their voice and action, and you will see riots all over the country…. While the police, National Guard and other police authities will stand aside. Of course , they are not racists.

    26. Ed Becker, Branson, says:

      Nominate a Judge, who has never judged? Would anyone board a plane with a pilot that never has flown? Plus, a lesbian, who likely sees family values as disfunctioned! Is this a joke? Or, has Obama just quit>

    27. Gregg, Wa St says:

      I wish to unsubscribe ffrom this mailing and I find no place to do so. Please unsubcribe me NOW!!!

    28. Gregg, Wa St says:

      I want to unsubscribe from this mailing

    29. Robert Edwards, Phoe says:

      A nominee for any position who would not allow military recruitment on a college campus of men and women to DEFEND our country…would NEVER get my vote… NEVER

    30. Pingback: This Week in Washington - June 28, 2010 | RedState

    31. Peyton, a Libertaria says:

      Then only way to keep Ms. Kagan off the bench is for the Republicans to filibuster her. Mitch McConnell needs to get his ducks in a row and keep the minority whole. If even one caves, she'll be confirmed. If McConnell can keep up the filibuster until the end of this Congress, then Kagan will never sit, because the Republicans will control the Senate after November.

    32. Judith in Michigan says:

      I'm reminded of the ancient proverb, "For the want of a nail." A nail was lost, so a horseshoe was lost, then the horse was lost, then the rider was lost, then the battle was lost, then the kingdom was lost. All because of a lost nail.

      Ms Kagen will be confirmed because Mr O wants someone on the court who will carry out his Socialist agenda without questioning the legality of it.

      Republicans cannot or will not stand up in unison and loudly oppose her anti-Constitutionalist views because they do not want to be seen as obstructionists and be looked down upon. negativetly. They are fearful and weak.

      Thus, by her appointment to the Supreme Court, this seperate branch of the government will be tipped to a radical philosophy that will undermine the rule of law in The United States.

      Thus, America will no longer be a country ruled by laws, but by the whims of a radical ideology always stacked in the favor of the rulers..

      Thus this radical ideology will decide itself what is or isn't to be. The government of the US will cease to function as it was meant to function. It will be eliminated.

      Thus, The United States will, by fiat, become The United Socialist States of America,

      One guess who the Dictator For Life will be.

      Ms Kagen might even be given the honor of administering the oath of office to the new Dictator-In-Chief.

    33. richard ahern says:

      Kagan-Rubber Stamp for Presidenty Obama- does not believe in the U. S. Constitution. English Common Law. The Rule of Law/Not the rule of men or woman

    34. N.Buckley, Naples, F says:

      No, I think Kagen will rubber stamp the Obama social agenda.

      She is not a qualified candidate no matter how the Left tries to sell her to the public.

      She should not be confirmed for the Supreme Court.

      She would not get my vote!

    35. Lee White Tanks AZ says:

      Someone asked "Doesn’t she have at least some redeeming qualities?", in a word NO. Frankly there is not really a great deal known about this woman outside of what the media has "chosen" to reveal to us.

      That said, my mother, (God rest her soul), taught us (six children) that we must always seek to see the good in a person. That by doing so we give them a "benefit of the doubt".

      I must limit myself here because I (and I am not alone here) I know nothing of Kagan's private life, something that has been hidden almost as well as Obama's real "identity" and background. Obama is a media creation and quite frankly so was Sotomayor and now so is Kagan.

      I think the private life of a nominee for a life time seat on what is arguably the premier Judicial venue in the world is a necessity, not to be overlooked in determining her/his qualifications to serve.

    36. Duane , Los Lunas NM says:

      @C Knight if she cannot follow on Constitutional lines what other redeeming qualities would you suggest? My goodness.

    37. Mike, North Carolina says:

      To ask such a question as "Will Elena Kagan defend the rule of law (as in "equality under the law [as in no exceptions], and "justice is blind [as in "justice is blind enough to uphold and apply the laws of this land, the U.S.A, equally, in accordance with the Constitution, as written, without exception), and other such questions, when Elena Kagan has already displayed, through writing and otherwise, her evident and obvious statist/internationalist contempt of and bias against both the rule of law and the law of the land, as written, seems to so incredibly ignore the evident and obvious as to strike almost speechless.

      Have not Elena Kagan and other similar characters, with the same agenda, already similarly demonstrated contempt against such as equality under the rule of law without exception? Yes! To not see that requires to either willfully put on, or otherwise be unthinkingly blinded by, the blinders of willful ignorance, or otherwise unthinking gullibility or laziness, which in any case serves as an invitation to ever more missleading rule by those such as Obama, Kagan, their Comrades, and their power and money-grabbing contempt against the rule of law of this land, without exception, as written.

      In other words, for example: To ask whether a thief, so evidently committed to his or her contempt against the rule of law, and determination to rule, is going to suddenly stop doing so and instead defend the rule of law, is to both put on blinders against the evident and so also practically invite more thievery and rule by those such as that same thief.

      True, we, the people of the United States, have neither the representation nor, consequently, the votes to stop Elana Kagan getting into the power of a so-called "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court", but that's what we get for too many of us letting so-called "Progressives" and Leftists, in all parties, take over, and so let ourselves be ruled now by such a small minority.

    38. Joe Berry Myrtle Bea says:

      Dump the frump,my feelings from the frist time I saw her untill now!!!

    39. Ron Derry NH says:

      More and more it resembles the third Reich and its mockery of common law.

      We will be writing history in dark places with fear for our lives in a very short time as the United states fall sunder the spell of arrogance, sloth and stupidity as nothing will be done to stop the dismantling of our legal system by Harvard and its Marxist sympathizers.

    40. ChuckL says:

      I noticed that Elena Kagan studiously avoided promising to follow the Constitution first in making any decisions. She only stated that she would follow established law, which would have her following any erroneous precedent that is in violation of the written word of the Constitution.

      Let's face it. She is a Progressive, and finds the limitations that the Constitution places upon the federal Government to be "in the way". If confirmed, She will try her best to ignore the Constitution and effectively overturn it.

    41. ChuckL says:

      When the basic law of the land, The Constitution, is ignored as the basis of a legal decision, the result is that no citizen knows ahead of time what the law actually is because it is up to the interpretation of the judge each time.

      There is no justification in reliance on foreign law in deciding any case in the United States, but Kagan has expressed exactly this reasoning, or lack thereof.

    42. ckirkland says:

      I am glad that I am 74 already and don't have long enough on this planet too see this country that I love and served be destroyed by this group of Socialist/Marxists. Are they really Americans???? Just asking.

    43. Scott, New Jersey says:

      Uphold the Constitution as intended by our founding fathers…it is not "a living document" subject to the whims of the times, it is one of the most magnificent documents ever written…Senators must vote "NO" on Ms. Kagan…she does not follow that…

    44. Rhonda, Texas says:

      As bad as she may be the republicans will vote her in because they don't have the guts to fight the democrats.

    45. Randolph Ernst says:

      NO! Kagan will not defend the Constitution. She has been hand picked by Obama to help further his Communist Agenda: The Destruction of America.What has she done to deserve this position? She is as qualified to be on the Supreme Court as a Community Organizer is to be President. God help us if this left wing, Anti- American Radical gets nominated.

    46. Wayne Clark Owasso, says:

      Ms Kagan seems to believe it is the 'principals' at law instead of the 'principles' of law that are most important. We need Senators who understand that key difference with the internal fortitude necessary to endlessly make that point during these confirmation hearings. Repeated enough perhaps there will be some who will learn how important the issue is.

    47. Lee White Tanks AZ says:

      I really had a problem today when John Kerry was introduced at the Kagan hearings. Talk about a makeover. Now before I lay out his introduction be advised that I am a Vietnam veteran (1967-68), and a former USAF officer.

      I just about lost it when Kerry was introduced as a "heroic, and decorated Vietnam veteran". This is the man with the self inflicted wounds to be awarded Purple Hearts.

      Despicable does not even begin to describe this creep.

    48. A.M. says:

      Bork her!!! If they did it to Bork, do it to her! The "playing Nice" days are OVER!!!

    49. holidayzbeauty says:

      Kagan is scary and her appointment will guarantee the unconstitutional passage of the fall.

    50. June Gagnon - Golden says:

      Yes indeed, kagan is just a "rubber stamp" for bo- -did you expect anything less after sotomoyor?? Yes – -there are still American Patriots out there, both red and blue; I believe many are afraid to stand up, but STAND UP WE MUST, if we are to save our own beloved USA! If you have not seen it, go to your search bar and type in "Floyd Brown Reports" – -he has an "Impeach Obama Petition" and he'd love to have all of us sign it. It costs nothing except a few minutes of your time. so hurry and do it before you forget what I said. GOD BLESS YOU AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!

    51. June Gagnon - Golden says:

      Just a PS-I apologize for not sticking, completely, to the article under discussion. If you are unhappy with the kagan nominee, by all means, contact you senate representatives, tonight and demand that they dismiss any thought of confirming another liberal justice, who does not follow Constitutional law – -that is Constitutional law of the US!

    52. liberty4usa,USA says:

      Of course those questions should all be asked. Some actually may be- and then the committee's liberal senators will quickly come to her aid and defense with dilution, distraction and clarifying softballs to help her extract herself from any no-go answers. The opposition senators will all play along with the big charade because they have all agreed she will be confirmed in advance.

      However, you do not put someone into a race car that has no respect for the speed and power of the machine they are driving nor the experience to maneuver it without wrecking- unless of course you expect them to crash.

      We can expect Kagan to wreck our constitutional laws because as she has written and stated, she is not sympathetic to them, and she believes in created made up rights and government control to administer those fictional 'rights.'

      The question implied here is why is the senate continuously abrogating its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution? Here is a classic case of someone that should have never been given any serious consideration, yet she is going to be given the job as if it is just another political appointment.

      Our freedom cannot survive this kind of process in the long run.

    53. David Murray, Kauai, says:

      There are only 2 reasons that Elena Kagan has been proposed for the position on the Supreme Court – (1) affirmative action; and (2) racial profiling. That's exactly how Obama came to be President. Oh, sorry, there's a 3rd reason – she's on the same political page as Obama. Neither of them give a stuff about the Constitution and they would both prefer to defer to legal decisions in other countries when making decisions. He has shown that he is not qualified to be President and she is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

      Where the heck is the opposition to this ridiculous nomination? It's time for Republicans to go for the jugular in the fight against this Administration. Stop being so damned nice. Nice guys finish last – and the majority of the American people don't like finishing last!

    54. Robert S. Limbaugh says:

      Elana Kagan is a radical. She hates the Constitution, the Flag, Guns, Christians, and the American way of life! Just like Obama!

    55. Pingback: Suzuki trumpets?

    56. Lwesson, Tejas says:

      Watching Kagan talk is like watching a scripted actor do their lines knowing that said actor is directly apposed to what is being mouthed. Kagan gets an Oscar!

      The Republican Senators that I did not have nice things to say about must, must get seriously in Kagan's face. Force her off the stage performance and make her mad. She might actually get honest and say what she really thinks. Do the Republicans have it in them to get as the LEFT will cry foul and get ugly, get mean, get some real answers? I doubt it but if they do we can all be pleasantly surprised.

    57. Todd says:

      There's no way she's going to rule from an unbiased standpoint, she's without a doubt just like Sotomayer. Meaning they both have agendas and will not let anything or anyone stand in their way.

    58. Pingback: Greg Hengler: Sessions Blistering Kagan: You “Demeaned Our Soldiers” & Care “More About Politics Than Law” | MorallyRight.org

    59. Pingback: How long after a sale of a home do you have to purchase your next home before you have to pay capital gains?

    60. Pingback: Will Kagan Do A Sotomayor? | MorallyRight.org

    61. Neal, Cochranville, says:

      A Clear and Present Danger…

      Like Obama, she is totally and completely unqualified for the position. She, like Obama, and the 4 judges that just voted against the 2nd Amendment, are a clear and present danger to our Constitution.

    62. Brian Bailey, Cheyen says:

      Not surprisingly, some of Kagan's responses sound almost conservative. Just wait until she dons the robe…From its inception, this administration has been a fraud perpetrated on the American people and our sacred Constitution. Kagan is just the latest deception.

    63. Pingback: Independence Forever – Jacksonville Tenth Amendment Center

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.