Skip to comments.If Kagen doesn't believe in Inherent Rights, we're all in big trouble!
Posted on 07/04/2010 8:09:25 PM PDT by jazzpatriot
This week I believe we witnessed an incredible and frightening event in our nations capital when President Obamas nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Elena Kagen, stated emphatically that she didnt believe in rights that are inherent to us. Denying natural rights and natural law during a week leading up to the day in which we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence strikes me as a distortion of the deeply held religious beliefs of the signers of this sacred document which clearly states we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also strikes me as a betrayal of their intentions which obviously was that they and succeeding generations would be able to live in the freedom our creator intended for us. And if Elena Kagen doesn't believe in that, i.e. liberty for all, then I'm here to tell you we're in serious trouble as a nation and as individuals.
(Excerpt) Read more at jazzpatriot.blogspot.com ...
We were in trouble the day Obama walked into the Oval office.
I don't believe this is correct, going by the clip that Rush played. I think you could say she conspicuously declined to affirm such a belief, and she did say she wouldn't base rulings on them, in any case.
I thought these comments were very weak, especially in view of the ninth amendment, which explicitly recognized unenumerated rights.
Of course Ms. Kagan doesn’t believe in such antiquated things as “inherent rights”.
Is it not obvious that this is exactly why she was chosen?
No “real world” experience AT ALL, and not much of a “record” to pin on her.
But anyone can look and see “what is there” behind the facade —and what kind of decisions she will render from her seat of “justice”... :)
No reputable individual would vote for this crypto-Marxist skank and Homo-Leninist just on the face of her own admissions!
I believe there is a grand effort to revise and deconstruct the record for people like Kagan and Obama. The current pop-culture thinking being pushed has Obama as a definitive authority on the constitution. And if, this movement prevails in their attempt to remove the underlying precept of inalienable right, rights which can not be surrendered as an individuals rights well above Governments control; then rights are/will be only extended from Government based on what the Federal Government permits (as in France); instead of being constrained or restricted as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
We’re in trouble just knowing that there are jackasses living in the country who actually believe Kagan is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I’m getting tired of the dumbasses in the “media” always telling us that every dumbass, radical liberal that comes down the pike is the smartest person alive. If Kagan is so damn smart, why is she a dumbass commie lib? Smart people believe in freedom and liberty, not slavery and communism.
I don’t know what happened to the reply I sent you, so I’ll try again. It sounded pretty emphatic to me. When Tom coburn asked Elena Kagen if she believed that there are rights inherent to us, she said she only believed in rights that came from the Constitution and from the laws. I agree with you that these rights are incorporated in the ninth and tenth amendment of the Constitution which I believe Rush mentioned as well
Because of this, the majority cannot abrogate basic rights of the individual for the general benefit. The individual has freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of idea, and freedom of action that does not injure another.
It is not this way in European democracies, such as France. They believe that the individual surrenders his inherent rights for superior civil rights and security. Ergo, the individual can be ruled by the majority and the general benefit.
If this woman does not “get” what we are all about, she has absolutely no business being on the Supreme Court.
"Many academicians and self-styled intellectuals, with a habitually arrogant and condescending attitude, treat the rest of the world with contempt. These so-called 'intelligentsia' congratulate themselves for, not only having high IQs and lots of education in their particular fields, but for having achieved the allegedly momentus insight that free-market capitalism and pure altruism are ultimately incompatible (duh). Yet they're still too damned stupid to realize, and too damned ignorant to acknowledge, that altruism is NOT the only moral code available to mankind. (It is, in fact, the bloodiest and most regressive one of all). This stunted thinking has resulted in their committing the intellectual atrocity of rejecting the capitalism and freedom instead of the altruism and coercion." -- Rick Gaber
Yes you get it as I think most do at FR. I think Republicans should filibuster in order to go through all her public statements in court documents and in academia, because if we know about this as well as other repulsive statements regarding the governments right to burn books after only a superficial search, there must be even more radical statements she has made that could make her a huge political liability for Deems during the upcoming election cycle. I think that is our only hope. She is exactly the person that Obama wants to rubberstamp is radical ideas and go to war with the Roberts court that he obviously abhors.
I sent the below letter to a bunch of papers, talk shows, and the committee on Friday. Hopefully, a few liberals will not be able to ignore, unlike Kagan, that even one of their greatest icons, and the leading empire of the communist world both acknowledged the existance of natural rights for humanity.
Senator Coburn asked Elena Kagan whether there are natural, inalienable rights for people, which our founding fathers understood to be independent of and condition precedent for the Constitution. The same understanding is among the founding documents of the United Nations. Eleanor Roosevelt did have to compromise on the inclusion of god to get the Soviet Union to sign on, but all nations at that San Francisco conference acknowledged inherent individual human dignity.
Kagans failure to understand and acknowledge natural, inalienable rights, as a test for laws enacted by societies, should be fatal to her confirmation. Here is a comparison of defining textual portions of the documents.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world . Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations,
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
That is the mindset of every tyrant and every sociopath that has ever lived. There is no rational basis for liberty or freedom without the concept of inherent individual rights. To think that there isn't is anathema to everything this country was founded on and what has set our law apart from that of every other nation.
Did you expect any better then somebody like Elena Kagen? Look at all his czars. And the speaker. They are all frightening people. I think he surrounds himself with sociopaths.
Yikes! What makes the Constitution special is that it recognizes that the citizens have rights which are inherent and cannot be ignored. That the state serves the people, not the other way around.
You are right about that. Even the slugs Clinton hired and nominated were hardly as sick or crazy as the people Barry0 comes up with. His Rolodex seems to be filled with the worst that can be found.
Key take: "...Yet they're still too damned stupid to realize, and too damned ignorant to acknowledge, that altruism is NOT the only moral code available to mankind. (It is, in fact, the bloodiest and most regressive one of all)..."
Thanks for the ping/post and link to great quotes. Thanks for posting, jazzpatriot. Great thread. Belated WELCOME ABOARD!
Here’s hoping that you network with many like-minded patriots.
I very much doubt that her predecessor (Stevens) believes in them either. ...nor does Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Breyer. So this is nothing new.