Posted on 05/10/2010 7:57:38 PM PDT by Steelfish
Elena Kagan, Not That Innocent [Kathryn Jean Lopez] From Doug Johnson at the National Right to Life Committee:
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone “who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women’s rights,” and that this was going to be “very important” to him as he viewed our “core Constitution” as protecting the “bodily integrity” of women.
(snip)
In the most recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with abortion and the rights of unborn children, Gonzales v. Carhart, on April 18, 2007, a five-justice majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Yet on that occasion, four justices in dissent — including Justice Stevens — argued for a constitutional doctrine that would have invalidated the ban on partial-birth abortions and also, by implication, condemned virtually any other law or government policy intended to discourage abortion.
If the dissenters’ position became the position of the majority of the Supreme Court, various types of laws that have been deemed permissible under Roe v. Wade could be invalidated by judicial decree, perhaps including the Hyde Amendment (restricting government funding of abortion) and parental notification laws. It is appropriate and necessary for senators to inquire into whether Ms. Kagan would embrace the extreme, results-oriented doctrines enunciated by the dissenting justices in that case.
(snip)
There are troubling indications that Ms. Kagan generally favors an activist, results-oriented approach to constitutional law. For example...
(Excerpt) Read more at bench.nationalreview.com ...
She stinks...
What we don’t know is much more extensive than what we know.
I’ve seen some of her dissertation and other policy decisions which are at least troubling.
The prevailing accusations throughout the conservative blogosphere are that she is a “communist lesbian.”
Is there a rock-solid source of information that confirms these accusations?
Reputable links without heresay, please...
This, my friends, is the gaping wound, riddled with maggots, oozing with puss, cancerous and necrotic, that infects our system of government. It isn't Stevens. He's just a jobholder. It's the job that's flawed. It's a design flaw in the Constitution.
They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
Antifederalist 80
Nothing gets rolled back, the national gubmint remains unlimited, unless and until something is done about the powers of the Federal (national) Judicial Branch. Article 3 belongs in the trash heap.
I’m waiting for the CA SecState Voter Inforamtion Guide, which has always been a fair representation of candidates and issues.
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.