The Senate today commenced debate on the nomination of Elena Kagan to serve a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) opened the proceedings with a strong statement of how conservatives should assess nominees to the High Court.
Senator Sessions started with a discussion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Elena Kagan’s efforts to bar the military from recruiting on campus in her role as Dean of the Harvard Law School.
The United States military did not have a policy called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” That was a law passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Clinton and it was the law of the land and it was not their choice. They followed, saluted, and did their duty. Yet, Ms. Kagan barred them from the campus of Harvard. And on four different occasions this Congress passed laws to try to ensure that our military men and women at a time of two wars were not discriminated against on college campuses in this country.
Sessions concluded that Kagan “was not justified.” Sessions argued that “it was wrong” for Kagan to bar the military from recruiting on campus. Sessions concluded this argument by saying that Kagan “punished the men and women who were preparing to serve and defend our country and Harvard’s freedom to carry on whatever these silly activities they want to carry on.”
Kagan has tried to dodge responsibility for her actions in this controversy, but as Rob Bluey reports for The Foundry:
Kagan inherited a policy from former Dean Robert Clark that gave military recruiters full, unfettered access to campus. Clark reversed Harvard’s long-standing policy opposing military recruiters on July 29, 2002, because the U.S. Air Force threatened the university’s federal funding two months earlier. It’s spelled out in detail in a Harvard news release.
Bluey discussed a myth that a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals case provided Kagan with a legal explanation on why she was allowed to bar the military from the campus of the Harvard Law School.
The court’s decision didn’t even apply to Massachusetts, which is located in the 1st U.S. Circuit. This is the same mistake Biden made in his interpretation of events. In other words, Kagan was under no legal requirement to reinstate Harvard’s ban on military recruiters. She made the decision on her own.
Senator Sessions then discussed numerous issues then focused on Kagan’s record on the 2nd Amendment. Sessions argued:
“By one vote, the Supreme Court is keeping the right to bear arms. If one vote is switched, the Supreme Court could rule 5-4 that any city in any state in America could ban completely the right to keep and bear arms in our country, violating what I would say the plain words of the Constitution.”
Elena Kagan most likely would vote to overturn every American’s individual right to “keep and bear Arms.” Kagan, as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, wrote that she was personally “not sympathetic” to the claim of a petitioner that his constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights were violated. Kagan was a counsel during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and was active in the Clinton’s gun control agenda. Kagan argued during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings that she “never had an occasion to look at” the history of the 2nd Amendment.
Senator Sessions made a strong opening argument for the proposition that President Obama’s Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, would prove to be a liberal activist on the High Court.
Is there really anyone both parties can agree on? It seems to me that each has a different interpretation of a proper way to interpret the Constitution, so each will consider any nominee that interprets it the same way as the other party to be an activist.
I think the most troubling statement Ms. Kagan has made was a comment about believing in or accepting acts of Congress as the will of the people. It was basically a statement saying that if Congress passes a law, the Supreme Court should accept it. I can't quote the statement, but it was an answer to a specific question of how she would rule on the Constitutionality of a hypothetical law. If I understood her correctly, it sounds like an abdication of the primary responsibility of the Court as regulator of the legislative branch.
you said i'm posting too quickly??i haven't posted in two days are you guys nuts or what???
Thank you, Senator for speaking truth to the good of the American people. Thank you to all senators who don't give into a good humored personality and see Kagan for what her actions show. Her truth. Please stand to protect the honor and strength of America, with dignity.
So why are the Republicans not going to do what the democrats have done time and time again and filibuster this nominee?
Therein lies the difference between conservatives and progressive liberals. The former supports the constitution's limited government powers and guaranteed individual rights. The latter depends on swaying a majority with popular rhetoric and gimmicks, AKA mob rule. Constitutional limits are viewed by the far left as archaic irritating road blocks to be overcome. Politicized rulings from the bench is just one way to step beyond such barriers. The left's ruling majority are blinded by their own arrogance trashing all truth and reality about our founding principles. As James Madison made clear, subverting historical context results in a bastardized form of illegitimate government. For Obama, Reid and Pelosi it is about ever more control over their supposed subjects. You heard right. They wouldn't know a representative republic if it smacked them between the eyes. I'm sure the same applies to Obama's nominee for the supreme bench.
It's very simple. If Kagan did not mirror Obama's ideology, she would not have been nominated. Period! Despite the fact that she is exactly what Jeff Sessions reports her to be, the Senate will confirm her nomination because, like her, the Dems in Congress are nothing but lackeys for Obama and will vote as he dictates.
Pingback: Must Know Headlines 8.4.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com
If Mao-Bama is successful at appointing activist judges, he will own the courts as well as both houses. If this is allowed to happen, there will be no consequences for any actions he takes against the American citizenry. Can we afford to go down this road?
What about her evidence tampering, in 1997?
Kagan does not belong in this court, she is another BHO flunky and already has shown her contempt for the Constitution, our liberty and those who serve to protect it.
hey senator Sessions (MEELEY MOUTH) did she turn you down? You need to step down, to bad you couldnt be a Judge. You are the problem that the Senate is having.
Why cant I say what I feel. He can.
Do I have to join the tea party?
I will let the other Senators know what is hapenning here.
You wont print this, but it is my opinion. How else whould he know how people feel? I guess the constitution doesnt matter when its a man like him.
OH, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WAR MONGERS.
I will submit this round of questions to other Senators.
Abe Lincoln warned us that "if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
These words speak a whole lot of truth to me.
I have sent emails to all of my representatives and numerous websites, friends, family and anyone who will listen to me that this is the single most important issue of our times. If this woman is put on the Supreme Court and one justice dies or retires Obama will have another nominee and we could lose the Supreme Court to leftists. No legislation will matter, no amount of pressure from the people will make a difference. We will be RULED by activist judges for decades to come. This will be the end of the United States as we know it. The Constitution is being circumvented in courts across this country. Please, contact your state senators and representatives and ask them to filibuster this woman.