Bible ignored, Kagan nominated
By Bryan Fischer 7/6/10

The biblical standard of justice is quite clear: no partiality, period. No partiality to the rich, no partiality to the poor. Justice is to be evenhanded and utterly fair. The man — rich or poor — who is in the wrong is to be punished, the man — rich or poor — who is in the right is to be vindicated.

By the way, I have frequently been criticized by voices on the left for suggesting that the ancient civil code of Israel may provide some insight and direction for us in our own jurisprudence. This is an exceedingly odd criticism coming from people who almost universally fancy international law and even think that our own Supreme Court should be influenced it.

Here I am, drawing inspiration from classic international law, and yet being condemned by folks who by their own lights should be commending me for escaping the bounds of jurisprudential parochialism. Go figure.

A scriptural standard of judgment is harsh toward anyone who shows partiality in judging, even if the individual being shown favoritism is poor. In fact, there are very specific criticisms directed at any judge who would bend and distort the law in order to produce verdicts in favor of the poor.

Here are some examples (emphasis mine throughout)::

* "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor" (Lev. 19:15).

* "You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit" (Ex. 23:2-3).

* "You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and great alike"(Deut. 1:17).

This is the standard of judging current chief justice John Roberts affirmed in his hearings. He said (paraphrasing), "If the law favors the little guy in my court, the little guy will win. If the law favors the big guy in my court, the big guy will win." That is impartiality. That is the biblical standard for every judge at every level.

But listen in contrast to the words of nominee Elana Kagan. She wrote that the mission of the Supreme Court is to "show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged."

In other words, she believes it is the role of a judge to bias the law toward the poor, whether the "despised and disadvantaged" are right or wrong. To put it bluntly, she believes in showing partiality to the poor in a court of law, the very thing repeatedly condemned in the Scriptures.

Lady Justice, in her view, is not to be blind, but is supposed to lift her blindfold just long enough to find out what income quintile or ethnic group the folks before her belong to, and then find for the disputant on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder, and do so as a matter of principle.

Her remarkably misguided judicial philosophy is of a piece with that of the president, who has said that he views the "quality of empathy" as "an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions." In other words, in the president's view, judges are supposed to side with whichever disputant they feel the sorriest for, regardless of whether they have committed a crime or not.

This is surely a recipe for injustice of the grossest kind.

This is and ought to be offensive to everyone who believes the Lady Justice ought to be utterly impartial, and offensive to everyone who holds the view of justice taught by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

In sum:

Elana Kagan: "show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged."

Scripture: "nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit...you shall not be partial to the poor..."

When it comes to our courts and our judges, we must as a nation choose between a biblical view of justice and Elana Kagan's view of justice,which in fact is not justice at all. Truth, common sense and American tradition are not with Ms. Kagan or our president on this one. To borrow a phrase from Ms. Kagan, it would be "a moral injustice of the first order" for her to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Why Kagan is unqualified -- and dangerous
By Selwyn Duke www.RenewAmerica.org (Originally published at American Thinker)

Despite being thoroughly unqualified to occupy the bench, Elena Kagan will most likely be confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is because most of our 100 senators are almost as unqualified to judge a judge as she is to be one. What is the proper criterion to apply? Well, a simple analogy illustrates the point best.

Let's say you needed to hire a football referee. If he said that he was a "pragmatic" referee, viewed the rule book as "living" and thus would interpret the rules to suit the "times," would he be your man?

Since it's the job of the rule makers to craft the rules and the referee's role is only to determine if they've been broken, I think you'd be aghast. It would be obvious you were dealing with someone who didn't know what his job was or was unwilling to perform it. And you certainly wouldn't want to hire a referee who was giving himself the latitude to say, "This fellow here violated a rule, but since I don't like that rule, I'm going to let his action stand" or "That guy over there has gone by the book, but I don't like something he did, so I'll penalize him anyway."

A judge's job is analogous to a referee's. It is the legislature's (rule makers') place to make the rules, and the judge's only role is to determine if they've been broken. How he feels about a given law is irrelevant. He is but a gatekeeper.

Yet there is a difference between the two examples: While people could easily grasp this if the matter were frivolity such as sports, they entertain the most inane rationalizations when the issue is our national rule book, the Constitution. They then allow judicial con artists to muddy the waters with specious concepts such as the "living document," interpretations that suit the "times" and "pragmatism." And they take people such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg seriously when she says the Constitution shouldn't be "stuck in time" (it's not. It's stuck in law, which can be changed through the Amendment Process). But these are all dodges that distract us from the truth: There aren't constructionists and pragmatists, times-oriented judges and text-oriented ones, living-document ones and originalists. At the end of the day, there are only two kinds of justices:

Good justices and bad justices.

Good justices do their job and abide by the Constitution. Bad ones don't.

And Elena Kagan would be a remarkably bad justice.

Her history and words reveal this clearly. As Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

. . . Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it [emphasis mine]."

And how does Kagan feel about this man?

She calls him her "judicial hero."

Now, such judges are often characterized as judicial activists, but that is too kind a term. They are, in reality, Nullification Jurists — and they represent a profound danger to our republic. Let's examine why.

John Stuart Mill once said, "I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject than to the caprice of a man." Well, you can dress the Nullification Jurist fiction up any way you want, but at the end of the day it is nothing but subjection to the caprice of a man in a black robe.

Think about it: Jurists may say they are interpreting the Constitution to suit the times, but who determines the "times"? The people do. And what are the implications of this "times" philosophy?

First, to abide by the "times" would be to render the Constitution unnecessary. For the very purpose of a constitution is to temper the times with the timeless. That is to say, a good constitution reflects enduring truths, not alluring fashions. It embodies not merely the "votes" of those walking about today but of all those who have lived since our republic's inception, for it only exists because the founding generation created it and subsequent ones tacitly approved it by allowing it to stand. It represents the democracy of the whole family of man — including his ancestors.

This stabilizing factor is important because, even collectively, people are prone to fits of emotionalism — to the caprice of men. And because a good constitution is hard to change, it forces a capricious citizenry to take a deep breath and count to ten, at which point the emotion may have subsided and cooler heads may prevail. It acts as a firewall against the mob-rule phenomenon.

Thus, to truly abide by the times would be to reduce us to what remains when you strip away both the Constitution and the legislature: a straight democracy. That is, a democracy with a little twist.

The votes are inferred by judges, who, supposedly, are infallible conduits of popular opinion.

This is how it could work in theory, anyway. But the reality is that most Nullification Jurists couldn't care less about the "times." Case in point: In recent years we've seen some state courts divine a right to faux marriage in their state constitutions. But since a majority in every one of those states opposes faux marriage, were the judges really interpreting their constitutions to suit the times? Sure, if it was The New York Times.

The truth is that "living document," the "times" and "pragmatism" are nothing but weasel words that facilitate rationalization and obscure Nullification Jurists' true modus operandi. What is this? Well, since they aren't abiding by the Constitution or the times, there is only one thing left: What feels right to them.

This mindset isn't unusual, as people have always found rationale for their tyranny. For a long time we had the Divine Right of Kings, stating that a monarch governed according to God's will and thus wasn't subject to the will of the people, or any other worldly authority, and that he could do no wrong. Relativists are even worse. A person such as Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot deified himself, made his world view (based on what felt right) the little god's law and believed he was "subject to no authority except himself." Sound familiar?

It also sounds dangerous. And we should all be enraged. Remember that while government is supposed to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, the jurists in question are doing nothing less than nullifying our votes. For they are ignoring the law, which reflects the will of the people as expressed through duly elected representatives. These judges aren't channeling democracy — they are stealing it.

So what is the solution? Note that Nullification Jurists have signaled their contempt for the law loud and clear. And if they won't submit to the rule of law, why should we submit to the rule of lawyers? If they won't accept that the Constitution is "stuck" in law, why should we accept that the law is stuck in courts? Let me be clear: There is neither a moral nor a legal obligation to abide by the rules of the game when judicial oligarchs have brazenly said they will game the rules. Being a Nullification Jurist is a constitution-breaker, a republic-breaker and, my fellow Americans, a deal-breaker.

The fact that an Elena Kagan could even make it to hearings is already a confirmation. It confirms that most of our leaders haven't a clue as to how a constitutional republic is supposed to work or, worse still, are content to create an oligarchy of like-minded judicial statists. It is unlawful and renders the government illegitimate, but they do it because they can. And unless we Americans wish to be subject to those who are "subject to no authority except themselves," governors and citizens should remember this: Nullification works both ways.

Why Kagan is unqualified -- and dangerous
By Selwyn Duke www.RenewAmerica.org (Originally published at American Thinker)

Despite being thoroughly unqualified to occupy the bench, Elena Kagan will most likely be confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is because most of our 100 senators are almost as unqualified to judge a judge as she is to be one. What is the proper criterion to apply? Well, a simple analogy illustrates the point best.

Let's say you needed to hire a football referee. If he said that he was a "pragmatic" referee, viewed the rule book as "living" and thus would interpret the rules to suit the "times," would he be your man?

Since it's the job of the rule makers to craft the rules and the referee's role is only to determine if they've been broken, I think you'd be aghast. It would be obvious you were dealing with someone who didn't know what his job was or was unwilling to perform it. And you certainly wouldn't want to hire a referee who was giving himself the latitude to say, "This fellow here violated a rule, but since I don't like that rule, I'm going to let his action stand" or "That guy over there has gone by the book, but I don't like something he did, so I'll penalize him anyway."

A judge's job is analogous to a referee's. It is the legislature's (rule makers') place to make the rules, and the judge's only role is to determine if they've been broken. How he feels about a given law is irrelevant. He is but a gatekeeper.

Yet there is a difference between the two examples: While people could easily grasp this if the matter were frivolity such as sports, they entertain the most inane rationalizations when the issue is our national rule book, the Constitution. They then allow judicial con artists to muddy the waters with specious concepts such as the "living document," interpretations that suit the "times" and "pragmatism." And they take people such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg seriously when she says the Constitution shouldn't be "stuck in time" (it's not. It's stuck in law, which can be changed through the Amendment Process). But these are all dodges that distract us from the truth: There aren't constructionists and pragmatists, times-oriented judges and text-oriented ones, living-document ones and originalists. At the end of the day, there are only two kinds of justices:

Good justices and bad justices.

Good justices do their job and abide by the Constitution. Bad ones don't.

And Elena Kagan would be a remarkably bad justice.

Her history and words reveal this clearly. As Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

. . . Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it [emphasis mine]."

And how does Kagan feel about this man?

She calls him her "judicial hero."

Now, such judges are often characterized as judicial activists, but that is too kind a term. They are, in reality, Nullification Jurists — and they represent a profound danger to our republic. Let's examine why.

John Stuart Mill once said, "I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject than to the caprice of a man." Well, you can dress the Nullification Jurist fiction up any way you want, but at the end of the day it is nothing but subjection to the caprice of a man in a black robe.

Think about it: Jurists may say they are interpreting the Constitution to suit the times, but who determines the "times"? The people do. And what are the implications of this "times" philosophy?

First, to abide by the "times" would be to render the Constitution unnecessary. For the very purpose of a constitution is to temper the times with the timeless. That is to say, a good constitution reflects enduring truths, not alluring fashions. It embodies not merely the "votes" of those walking about today but of all those who have lived since our republic's inception, for it only exists because the founding generation created it and subsequent ones tacitly approved it by allowing it to stand. It represents the democracy of the whole family of man — including his ancestors.

This stabilizing factor is important because, even collectively, people are prone to fits of emotionalism — to the caprice of men. And because a good constitution is hard to change, it forces a capricious citizenry to take a deep breath and count to ten, at which point the emotion may have subsided and cooler heads may prevail. It acts as a firewall against the mob-rule phenomenon.

Thus, to truly abide by the times would be to reduce us to what remains when you strip away both the Constitution and the legislature: a straight democracy. That is, a democracy with a little twist.

The votes are inferred by judges, who, supposedly, are infallible conduits of popular opinion.

This is how it could work in theory, anyway. But the reality is that most Nullification Jurists couldn't care less about the "times." Case in point: In recent years we've seen some state courts divine a right to faux marriage in their state constitutions. But since a majority in every one of those states opposes faux marriage, were the judges really interpreting their constitutions to suit the times? Sure, if it was The New York Times.

The truth is that "living document," the "times" and "pragmatism" are nothing but weasel words that facilitate rationalization and obscure Nullification Jurists' true modus operandi. What is this? Well, since they aren't abiding by the Constitution or the times, there is only one thing left: What feels right to them.

This mindset isn't unusual, as people have always found rationale for their tyranny. For a long time we had the Divine Right of Kings, stating that a monarch governed according to God's will and thus wasn't subject to the will of the people, or any other worldly authority, and that he could do no wrong. Relativists are even worse. A person such as Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot deified himself, made his world view (based on what felt right) the little god's law and believed he was "subject to no authority except himself." Sound familiar?

It also sounds dangerous. And we should all be enraged. Remember that while government is supposed to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, the jurists in question are doing nothing less than nullifying our votes. For they are ignoring the law, which reflects the will of the people as expressed through duly elected representatives. These judges aren't channeling democracy — they are stealing it.

So what is the solution? Note that Nullification Jurists have signaled their contempt for the law loud and clear. And if they won't submit to the rule of law, why should we submit to the rule of lawyers? If they won't accept that the Constitution is "stuck" in law, why should we accept that the law is stuck in courts? Let me be clear: There is neither a moral nor a legal obligation to abide by the rules of the game when judicial oligarchs have brazenly said they will game the rules. Being a Nullification Jurist is a constitution-breaker, a republic-breaker and, my fellow Americans, a deal-breaker.

The fact that an Elena Kagan could even make it to hearings is already a confirmation. It confirms that most of our leaders haven't a clue as to how a constitutional republic is supposed to work or, worse still, are content to create an oligarchy of like-minded judicial statists. It is unlawful and renders the government illegitimate, but they do it because they can. And unless we Americans wish to be subject to those who are "subject to no authority except themselves," governors and citizens should remember this: Nullification works both ways.

""The fact that an Elena Kagan could even make it to hearings is already a confirmation. It confirms that most of our leaders haven't a clue as to how a constitutional republic is supposed to work or, worse still, are content to create an oligarchy of like-minded judicial statists. It is unlawful and renders the government illegitimate, but they do it because they can. And unless we Americans wish to be subject to those who are "subject to no authority except themselves," governors and citizens should remember this: Nullification works both ways. "" (Quotation)

These, actually, squares up with the advent of fascism. It all begins with compromising democratic principles, it is followed by manipulation of the justice system, the laws and rights of the citizens of the republic do not longer apply (see "the demise of the rule of law" The Demise of the Rule of Law
followed by "everyone must do his duty" meaning that nobody is allowed to claim their rights.

The rest, of course, is all about military build up, either for defending the country against phantom terror, or, some inevitable foreign war (at present Afghanistan).

It all adds up. All that is needed is a hard oil crisis (an impending inevitability) and BANG!!!!!

NEVO

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

The Washington Times called it Elena Kagan's
"kiss of death." The more you learn about her
successful twisting of expert testimony on
abortion and then waffling about it in hearings
last week, the more incensed you will become
about her nomination to the Supreme Court.
Please read my urgent message below. - Mat.

More than a decade ago, Elena Kagan manipulated expert
medical evidence submitted to the Supreme Court. What
she did played a key role in the Supreme Court's decision
to strike down the ban on the horrendous partial-birth
abortion procedure. She did it for political reasons while
working for the Clinton administration.

The Washington Times says Kagan "may be more responsible
than anyone for keeping partial-birth abortion legal for
an extra decade." Pause for a moment to think about that.

In part because of Elena Kagan's political activism, this
horrific abortion procedure - which amounts to infanticide
and culminates with a near full-term baby's brains being
sucked out so the skull will collapse - continued to be
performed across this country.

Elena Kagan's "handwritten notes" show that she personally
re-wrote the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists' (ACOG) official assessment of partial-birth
abortion to better comport with her political views on
abortion.

During her Senate Judiciary Committee hearings,
Elena Kagan did everything in her power to
avoid taking responsibility for manipulating
ACOG's expert testimony, but her defensiveness
only spurred closer questioning.

Senator Orrin Hatch asked Kagan a very direct question:
"Did you write that memo?" Kagan never actually admitted
she wrote the memo but was finally forced to reluctantly
acknowledge that, "the document is certainly in my
handwriting."

Michael, this hand-written document should be the
"kiss of death" for Kagan's confirmation!

The memo proves that she is a political activist who
intentionally corrupted key expert evidence. And it
proves that she holds radical pro-abortion political
views that make it impossible for her to use the
impartiality required of a Supreme Court Justice.

In the final analysis, Elena Kagan's past
actions show that she is a political operative
who would use a seat on the Supreme Court to
advance a radical political agenda.

My goodness. I think I have learned ore about this woman from OHSO than I have from any other source! The word "scared" seems to small a word to describe how she makes me feel. I am having real trouble comprehending how on earth she even made it in the running for supreme court.

H

Quote from Hannah Banana

My goodness. I think I have learned ore about this woman from OHSO than I have from any other source!

When I read this I tasted fear...

Just a little bit, kind of like root beer, only without the foam

I will not support Kagan
7/8/2010 USA TODAY OPINION - By John McCain

In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide "advice and consent" on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included "integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament." On that test, Elena Kagan fails.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she unmistakably discouraged Harvard students from considering a career in the military — even while claiming to do otherwise — by denying military recruiters the same access to Harvard students that was granted to white-shoe law firms. Kagan did so because she believed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to be "a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order."

While Kagan is entitled to her opinion, she was not entitled to ignore the law that requires universities to allow military recruiters on campus under terms of equal access with all other recruiters. The chief of recruiting for the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Corps described the impact of Kagan's changes by saying that "Harvard is playing games." The Army's report from that same period was even more blunt, stating, "The Army was stonewalled at Harvard."

Kagan tried to justify her actions in terms of Harvard's anti-discrimination policy and sought a compromise by asking the law school's Veterans Association to host military recruiters. However, the association responded to the dean, "Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources ... of the Harvard Law School Office of Career Services." An Air Force recruiter wrote Pentagon officials, "Without the support of the Career Services Office, we are relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us."

'The facts are otherwise'
Kagan's claim that she was bound by Harvard's anti-discrimination policy is belied by the fact that her predecessor allowed military recruiters full official access — a policy Kagan changed. And while Kagan barred military recruiters' access to the school, Harvard continued to receive millions of dollars in federal aid.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Kagan asserted that Harvard Law School was "never out of compliance with the law ... in fact, the veterans association did a fabulous job of letting all our students know that the military recruiters were going to be at Harvard." She went on to assert, "The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access." The facts are otherwise.

While I strongly disagree with Kagan, I take no issue in terms of her nomination with her opposition to President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. She is free to have her own opinion. Kagan was not free, however, to ignore the Solomon Amendment's requirement to provide military recruiters equal access because she and many of her colleagues opposed "don't ask, don't tell." In short, she interpreted her duties as dean at Harvard to be consistent with what she wished the law to be, not with the law as written.

'Beyond public advocacy'
In the end, Kagan's interpretation of the Solomon Amendment was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court. By changing the policy she inherited and restricting military recruiter access when the prevailing law was to the contrary, Kagan stepped beyond public advocacy in opposition to a policy and into the realm of usurping the prerogative of the Congress and the president to make law and the courts to interpret it.

I have previously stated that I do not believe judges should stray beyond their constitutional role and act as if they have greater insight than representatives who are elected by the people. Given the choice to uphold a law that was unpopular with her peers and students or interpret the law to achieve her own political objectives, she chose the latter. I cannot support her nomination to the Supreme Court where, based on her prior actions, it appears unlikely that she would exercise judicial restraint.

On the main campus of Harvard University stands Memorial Church, dedicated to the memory of Harvard's veterans who laid down their lives for their country, including some from the greatest families in American history, such as the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. During this Independence Day holiday week, we should also honor those who encouraged our military men and women to serve our country and a cause greater than themselves.

Let us hope that the day will come when leaders of our country's most elite schools fully embrace military service and encourage their students to commit their lives and talents to their nation and one of its great institutions, the U.S. military.

John McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona.

Kagan Partial-Birth Abortion Role 'Seriously Compromised' Federal Court Testimony: Report
By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Americans United for Life (AUL) has issued a report shedding new light on Elena Kagan's role in manipulating key medical testimony on partial-birth abortion, saying that she failed to admit her actions in Senate confirmation hearings and calling on lawmakers to investigate.

It was revealed last month that an amendment to a statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists on partial-birth abortion, which Kagan is believed to have added, tampered with medical testimony that proved crucial to later litigation.

"Because of the lack of other reliable scientific data, the ACOG Policy Statement, as Kagan amended it, was relied upon by federal courts to invalidate the laws of 30 states and an act of Congress," wrote AUL. "This seriously compromised the integrity of the U.S. federal judicial process for more than a decade."

Thus Kagan's apparent willingness to politicize the American judicial system "at the highest level," says AUL, "raises serious questions."

An ACOG panel in October of 1996 drafted a medical report on partial-birth abortion, which stated that they "could identify no circumstances under which [partial-birth abortion] would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

Kagan, however, in a December memo called the draft a "disaster" and wrote the following statement, which was included in the final draft of the ACOG report: "An intact D&X [dilation and extraction, or partial-birth abortion], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination."

AUL's report notes that Kagan's intervention with the ACOG "was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of behavior." Memos point to Kagan similarly tampering with testimony from the American Medical Association, also regarding partial-birth abortion.

In a Senate confirmation hearing June 30, when Senator Tom Coburn directly asked Kagan whether she "had no efforts at all to influence" ACOG's statment, Kagan answered, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views. I was a, you know, a staffer with no medical knowledge."

Yet AUL points to a June 1996 memo that appears to belie her testimony, showing that she took a much more active role on the issue than she was willing to admit.

Prior to the first draft of the ACOG statement, Kagan told Clinton in that memo that ACOG officials in a meeting with her "went through every [medical] circumstance imaginable ... and there just aren't many where use of the partial-birth abortion is the least risky, let alone the 'necessary,' approach."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), after hearing Kagan's testimony, said he was "stunned by what appears to be a real politicization of science."

Upon receiving AUL's report, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated agreement that there was a "contradiction" in Kagan's representation of her role in the partial-birth abortion language.

“President Clinton seems to have been disposed to sign the ban, and Ms. Kagan seems to have persuaded him to reverse that position," said Sessions in a statement Thursday. "In her testimony, Ms. Kagan clearly presented herself as a neutral staffer in the process, though this record suggests she was an active player in working to keep partial-birth abortion legal."

Bill Saunders, senior legal council with AUL, warned this week that the memos reveal that Kagan could be "every bit as bad if not worse" than U.S. appeals court judge Diane Wood.

Wood, another name on Obama's supposed short list for the Supreme Court, had been widely considered the most radically pro-abortion of the choices. She opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, and authored the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that sided with National Organization for Women's attempt to silence Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League and other groups.

Saunders told LifeSiteNews.com that Kagan's abortion advocacy, in addition to her "over-the-top support for judicial activists" such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak, point to Kagan being a "very extreme" Supreme Court candidate. "Even where [Clinton] wanted to be a little bit moderate on partial-birth abortion, [Kagan] convinced him not to do that," he noted.

"She should be required to explain herself better than she has because her answers at the hearings just don't seem to line up with the record," he said.

A team of lawyers at Americans United for Life has compiled a comprehensive assessment of U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Obama's Supreme Court pick, the end result of a year's work evaluating available data.

For Kagan, Progression Is Nine-Tenths of the Law (Family Research Council)

Just as there was little doubt about what the outcome of today's committee vote on Elena Kagan would be, so too is there little doubt about the role she'll play on the nation's highest court: that of an extreme activist.

While most Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice, they can certainly identify a liberal judge when they see one. In fact, Kagan's reputation is so disturbing to the average citizen that Gallup says that if she's confirmed, Kagan "would be the first successful nominee in recent years whose nomination was backed by less than a majority of Americans in the final poll before the Senate confirmation vote."

If President Obama can't have a lifetime term, then he knows the next best thing is nominating Elena Kagan to one. She shares the President's disgust for traditional morality, free speech, the military, individual liberty, unborn children, constitutional fidelity, and all things religious. As a political appointee to President Clinton, she was so fixated on protecting partial-birth abortion that she masterminded a plot to substitute her own opinion for that of two medical groups.

Both the American Medical Association (AMA) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said there was virtually no instance in which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to save a woman's life. When that statement crossed Kagan's desk, she personally changed it to say that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the mother."

Byron York talks about her scary disregard for government policy in today's Washington Examiner. "Kagan is not a doctor and has no medical expertise. She just made the statement up... The ACOG executive board... adopted Kagan's addition verbatim. (The experts who draft the original statement weren't consulted.) Later, when the issue of partial-birth abortion made its way though the courts, several judges cited the ACOG statement... The judges had no way of knowing the statement was written not by doctors but by an associate White House counsel." Her track record of violating professional ethics should make Kagan's nomination a non-starter for every American Senator.

It was her rabid pro-homosexual views that led her to restrict military recruitment on Harvard Law School's campus, and, as Solicitor General, to sabotage the defense of our federal marriage law.

In both instances, she favored her personal ideology and political calculations over the law.

And she may spend 30 more years doing it as a member of America's most powerful court. Elena Kagan was unfit to be Solicitor General, and she definitely doesn't deserve a lifetime promotion to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contact your Senators and tell them to vote "no" on Kagan. If you need help making a case, check out the laundry list of objections to Kagan on The Cloakroom Blog.

The more I hear about this bitch the more and more I wish she would just drop dead or a stroke but then agian one needs a brain in order to have one and it is clear to all that she has no brains what so ever

The Koop on the Kagan

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop is one of the most respected individuals to ever hold the office, and he has written a devastating opposition to the radical leftist / gender feminist / homosexualist activist Kagan, addressed to All Americans.

I Urge all interested in the future of the Nation and its Judiciary to read it.

Ohso.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An Open Letter to the American People:

For many years, before, during and after my service as surgeon general of the United States, I've been known for presenting my unvarnished opinion on medical matters, regardless of the views of political parties or outside influences. The time has come for me to do so again.

I was deeply disturbed to learn the Elena Kagan, the nominee for Supreme Court scheduled for a Senate committee vote next week, manipulated the medical policy statement on partial-birth abortion of a major medical organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in January 1997.

The problem for me, as a physician, is that she was willing to replace a medical statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical data. During the partial-birth abortion debate in the 1990s, medical evidence was of paramount importance.

Ms. Kagan's amendment to the ACOG Policy Statement--that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman"--had no basis in published medical studies or data.

No published medical data supported her amendment in 1997, and none supports it today.

Indeed, there was, and is, no reliable medical data that partial-birth abortion is safe or safer than alternative medical procedures.

There are other medical options.

In my many decades of service as a medical doctor, I have never known of a case where partial-birth abortion was necessary in place of a more humane and ethical alternative.

Not only have I never seen such a case, but I have never known of any physician who had to do a partial-birth abortion--nor have I ever met a physician who knew of anyone who had to perform one out of medical necessity. In fact, partial-birth abortion has risks of its own, and could injure a woman.

Medical science should not have been twisted in 1997 for political or legislative gains.

Ms. Kagan's political language, a direct result of the amendment she made to ACOG's Policy Statement, made its way into American jurisprudence and misled federal courts for the next decade.
She misrepresented not only the science but also misrepresented her role in front of your elected representatives in the United States Senate.

This is unethical, and it is disgraceful, especially for one who would be tasked with being a measured and fair-minded judge.

Americans United for Life Action has released a thorough and comprehensive report on this matter, a report that provides substantive evidence of Ms. Kagan's actions in this matter. I ask that Senators and the American people give this report their most serious consideration.

I urge the Senate to reject the politization of medical science and vote no on the Kagan nomination.

Sincerely
C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D.
Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, 1981-89

Bettin on the Kagan

I am willing to make a (non monetary value) bet with all commers that within one year of appointment (presuming a filibuster of the whole senate fails) that the Kagan will 'marry.'
I bet that in a landmark political act of hyper militant Misandry (Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) fully worthy of the best of tantrum theater the radical Hollyweird homosex alliance has to offer...

- That the Kagan and hyr heavily 'cloaked / media closeted' long term "Partner" at Havad (who apparently everyone in Academentia - but none one in Congress or the lamestream media knows about) will stage their own act of SSAD / SSM Tantrum Theater mocking Real Marriage (who knows, perhaps even sir elton may spread some of his 'brown dirt' around)...

- and then rub it in the face of all the justices at the USSC and those judges on lower courts ruling on Proposition 8 and related Defense of Marriage & Military & Civil Rights Cases...

How about that for a prize for Barry Soetoro - a hyper militant Misandrist with a lifetime appointment to mau mau at will on the USSC, demanding that the entire Judiciary pander to hyr depraved hatreds - or face forever being overturned as punishment for failure to pander...

Talk about the dream of an Abomination.

And the Nightmare of a Republic.

Best keep quiet about it though, wouldn't want to spread any "Ism-Obia" now, what with the Kagan on the prowl for unbelievers to chastise.

Ohso.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

Elena Kagan's intolerance
July 22, 2010 By Peter Sprigg

The Senate Judiciary Committee has now voted to confirm Elena Kagan, and her nomination to the Supreme Court has gone to the full Senate. The committee hearings explored Elena Kagan's mistreatment of military recruiters when she was dean of Harvard Law School. She violated a federal law known as the Solomon Amendment by refusing to cooperate with the recruiters. This was done to protest another federal law (signed by her former boss, President Bill Clinton) that excludes open homosexuality from the military.

In 2003, Kagan declared that the military policy on homosexuality is "a moral injustice of the first order." This is plainly absurd. Slavery was "a moral injustice of the first order." The Holocaust was "a moral injustice of the first order." Maintaining good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion in the military, by setting a standard for sexual behavior higher than the one implemented by Harvard for its law students, does not fit into the same category.

However, before individual senators vote on her nomination, they should examine another sweeping declaration of principle endorsed by Kagan that is, if anything, even more startling. It's found in a 2005 brief filed with the Supreme Court by a group of Harvard Law School professors – including Kagan – that endorsed a challenge to the Solomon Amendment.

The second sentence of the brief states: "We are deeply committed to a fundamental moral principle: 'A society that discriminates based on sexual orientation – or that tolerates discrimination by its members – is not a just society.'

Most in academia have been indoctrinated to believe that homosexuality, like race and sex, is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous and protected by the Constitution.

These beliefs about homosexual conduct are all false – objectively, demonstrably false. But they do explain why Harvard Law School itself would adopt a "nondiscrimination" policy based on "sexual orientation," ensuring that homosexuals may be admitted as students and hired as faculty or staff. They even explain why they would not want the government to engage in "discrimination" as an institution.

But what is startling – and chilling – is the middle clause: "or that tolerates discrimination by its members." Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nominee, has endorsed the principle that "[a] society ... that tolerates discrimination [based on sexual orientation] by its members ... is not a just society."

Let's think this through. Who are society's "members"? Most fundamentally, the "members" of a society are the individual human beings who make it up. In the broader sense, though, the "members" of a society could also include all the mediating institutions within it, such as families and churches.

Who is guilty of "discrimination" that is "based on sexual orientation"? Under the Kagan-esque view, anyone who thinks that homosexual conduct is morally wrong "discriminates." Anyone who believes that homosexual conduct should be discouraged because of its health consequences "discriminates." Anyone who believes that homosexual conduct is a sin before God according to Scripture "discriminates."

And what is Elena Kagan's attitude toward such people? They cannot be tolerated. Not just that their views should not be affirmed and enshrined into law. No, if we even tolerate such "discrimination," we have ceased to be "a just society."

This is quite a switch. Usually it is the liberals who are calling us to practice greater "tolerance." Usually tolerance is seen as a liberal virtue. We are to "celebrate diversity" and "tolerate" even those with whom we sharply disagree.

Our country has a long history of exhibiting a remarkable measure of "tolerance." Politically, we tolerate liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians and Greens. Historically, we have tolerated everyone from the John Birch Society to the Students for a Democratic Society. Religiously, we tolerate Christians and Jews, Muslims and Hindus, atheists and agnostics.

But, according to Elena Kagan, there is one group of people whom we cannot tolerate – not if we want to remain "a just society." That group is people who think that men should not have sex with men, and women should not have sex with women.

So, presumably the 49 percent of Americans who believe that homosexual behavior is "morally wrong" cannot be tolerated. The nation's largest church, the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered," cannot be tolerated. The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination? Likewise.

According to the First Amendment to the Constitution, individuals and churches have a right to believe and teach that homosexual conduct is wrong – it's called the "free exercise" of religion. But according to the words Ms. Kagan endorsed, they cannot have such a right, because even to "tolerate" people with such views would make ours "not a just society."

Under Ms. Kagan's view, either the First Amendment itself is "unjust," because it "tolerates" traditional views on sexual morality; or the First Amendment must be reinterpreted to exclude orthodox and Bible-believing Jews and Christians, because such religious views cannot be "tolerated."

Either interpretation would be chilling.

Another Obama appointee, Chai Feldblum, backed off of her previous endorsement of polygamy when she was appointed to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Unless Kagan is similarly willing to renounce her own endorsement of "intolerance," she should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Peter Sprigg is senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

we are at the cusp of getting a female Prime Minister even her hair is the same colour as her politics;

I am hoping agin hope that this horror adminstration wil not be visisted on me

What a hypocret this bitch is, she says that she's all for talronce and openssbutyetshesaysthatin ordertohaveafair and tolrent socity thatpeoplewho beilevein tradisonal sexualunions between a man and awomen is moralyworng andshould not be tolrated?
What lying bitch, if people can see that she is a hypocrte of thefirst order and she gets voted into office and the us more then deserves the hell that will follow when she's in power.

The gays and lesbos say they are tolrent but yet theyopenly condemnormaly hetrosexualty in the ways they have been as well as attacking the chruch that is gurentedthe right to religous freedom under *Domocracy* and the*Armicain way* The us was once a great nation but now it's nothing more then an open, fresting blight on the world, what I can't understand is why the right thinking people of the us are not in the streets protesting this and femanazisim as well as the trany of the us goverment.