Monday, June 21, 2010

Just Say No to Elena Kagan

The next Supreme Court Justice will be picked by Obama, that’s a foregone conclusion; but does it have to be Elena Kagan? The qualification process in times past has proven to be nothing more than a dog and pony show.


Something which should act as a red flag of warning would be the way the Obama administration has prevented an open review of “1,600 Kagan-related documents. Most if not all of these pages come from her service during the Clinton Administration and are held at the Clinton Library in Little Rock.”


Those who serve on the Supreme Court do so for life. Once installed they have considerable influence and Americans shouldn’t have to wonder why certain files are being withheld, information which might reveal their true character and governing principles.


It should be a foregone conclusion that anyone Obama picked would lean towards his own political philosophy; however, the American public will only permit a certain amount of sliding toward pure socialism; radical adjustments to our constitutional republic don’t set well with us. This is why deception, smoke and mirrors if you will, is employed to slip the wool over our eyes.


Elena Kagan deserves our respect and admiration for having accomplished success in academia; but some of her views betray her ability to uphold the constitution, something which outweighs all other requirements to become a Supreme Court Justice. On top of the short list of questionable views is Kagan’s stance that government has the power to restrict, expressions of free speech in the form of political pamphlets.


The Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 against Kagan’s argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a scathing rebuke by Chief Justice John Roberts.


“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,” he wrote.


“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.”


Kagan’s also shown her disdain for military recruiting efforts during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan’s decision to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus , a decision which violated existing law, was rooted in the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexual preference, a line in the sand which Kagan expressed her displeasure.


These issues point to a more important character trait; that of believing that her own opinions are more important or valuable than the law and  constraints placed on government by our constitution. If the Senate is to determine the qualifications of the next Supreme Court Justice then there are at least three major stumbling blocks, others may exist; but three major stumbling blocks are already known regarding Kagan.


Elena Kagan has expressed a willingness to discount limitations placed upon government as stated in the 1st Amendment. Kagan’s elitist attitude led her to believe that her opinion as pertains to homosexual relationships in the military was superior to the law of the land and gave her powers, usurped rather than actual, to prevent military recruiters from performing a vital task in the service of our nation. Lastly, the Obama administration is withholding critical information from the very Senators who must evaluate Kagan’s qualifications; so much for transparency in the Oval Office and government in general.


We’re not talking about installing yet another corrupt czar to Obama’s unofficial cabinet, one which can be tossed out at the next election. Supreme Court Justices are there for life and have a phenomenal presence once they are seated. Withholding any information should be viewed as an immediate reason to dismiss Kagan’s nomination and move on to someone less secretive. This is when being prudent means just saying no.


This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

4 comments:

MK said...

"Supreme Court Justices are there for life and have a phenomenal presence once they are seated."

And that's why he wants her there, long after he's gone, he wants to make sure America is still getting screwed over. Such is the scumbaggery of the left.

T. F. Stern said...

MK, The reason gridlock is important to our political system is to slow the train wreck, not completely avoid it. When one party or the other has enough votes to ram rod an unpopular piece of legislation or install their own kind in appointed positions, at that moment the Great Experiment in democracy becomes endangered.

We have the "perfect storm" so to speak right now, lots of leftist thinking folks who are in a position to change the foundations of America, perhaps knock it clean off those foundations and many of them are RINO's who just want to get along with the D's.

Starsplash said...

The reason I called myself a rino is because the republicans had gone so crooked that I was ashamed of them. I stll belong to the Republican party but I am really a son of this republic. some think I am a son of something else but then I have to get mad at them for disparagin my mother.
To the main thought I had. If they feeeel like they have to hide something, then I have to perscribe to the philosophy that what they are doing is wrong.

If a politician(yes the supreme Court is a part of our political system) wants to be a politician in the USA then their whole life is scrutable.

New word for the dictionary. Scrutable. Like scrutinizing-able. Tee hee. More manly if I say chuckle.

Yep, ain't in the thesarus.

T. F. Stern said...

Ron, Great explanation regarding affiliation to the R party. If only they would return to conservative principles and values then their base might also claim them.