Posted on 07/02/2010 9:05:17 AM PDT by CaroleL
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has announced he will vote against current Solicitor General Elena Kagan's confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. Saying Ms. Kagan does not live up to the judicial philosophy that "the law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law," Senator Hatch will join at least several other Republicans in officially opposing her lifetime appointment to the high court.
While this news will most likely have no effect on Ms. Kagan's confirmation, Senator Hatch's statement does give the mainstream media at least one more chance to do their job with regard to President Barack Obama's latest inept decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingsides.com ...
This whole Kagan thing on the part of the Dems has been nothing more than a giggle fest. Of course she will be seated as the Republicans not only do not have enough votes under the best of circumstances to stop this but rinos like Lindsey Grahamnsty will vote FOR her.
No, the majority of Repubs are clueless and will no doubt vote affirmative on her confirmation.
I didn’t get to see Hatch questioning Kagan.
But for my money, Sen. Tom Coburn (”Doctor No”) showed what a laughable
candidate Kagan is.
She doesn’t know what “progressive” means, she doesn’t believe in the
inalienable rights of The Declaration of Independence, she’d let
the government tell us what we must eat each day.
Yeah, she’ll be confirmed.
But Coburn showed more than enough reason why she should be rejected.
To ask the question is to answer it.
Listening as I do to a certain radio station, I had to suffer thru three days of SCOTUS hearing stories from ABC News' reporter Vic Ratner - "gigglefest" adequately describes his reports.
No reputable individual would vote for this crypto-Marxist skank just on the face of her own admissions; my question is why any Republicans even bother playing nice or worse happily ignoring this obvious fraud. Unless the Republicans have also abdicated their duty and are aiding in destroying Americas constitutional foundation. What makes Republicans any different than enemies foreign or domestic?
For one thing - he showed that she fraudulently altered a statement issued by obstetricians in order to influence the court re: partial birth abortion.
If this isn’t a crime - it most certainly is dishonest, and in my HO - downright evil considering she was actively campaigning to ALLOW the brutal murder of nearly born fully developed infants.
Let’s not forget why Obama thinks Thomas shouldn’t be on the court...
“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” Obama said in response to a question about which justice he would not have appointed. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.