Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Coburn: Kagan 'Ignorant' of Constitutional Principles; 'I Wouldn't Rule Out a Filibuster'
ABCNews.com ^ | 06/30/2010 | Rick Klein

Posted on 06/30/2010 1:15:57 PM PDT by OldDeckHand

ABC News' Rick Klein reports: Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn has provided some of the most contentious exchanges of the rather tame Elena Kagan confirmation hearings. He's raised questions about Kagan's generally liberal political beliefs, and contends that Kagan would usher in vast expansions of government power as a member of the Supreme Court.

On ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line” today, Coburn ratcheted up his critique of Kagan, saying she hasn’t been as forthcoming about her views as she should be, and questioning her interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as well as her expressed willingness to follow court precedents.

“I think the thing that's very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find that she's ignorant of the Constitution's limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: coburn; confirmation; elenakagan; filibuster; kagan; kagan4plagiarism; kagan4plagiarists; kagan4resumefraud; kagan4saudiarabia; nononono; oklahoma; scotus; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last
I don't know how people could listen to Kagan practicing as Solicitor General, and not reach any conclusion other than she's "ignorant" and incompetent and wholly out of her league in that room.
1 posted on 06/30/2010 1:16:01 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I like you Senator Coburn, but please don’t make us promises that you guys aren’t going to keep.


2 posted on 06/30/2010 1:18:18 PM PDT by jpl (It's "My Big Fat Deadly Greek Riot", coming soon to a bankrupt socialist state near you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Finally, somebody with a set of ba!!$ who’s willing to try & block this troll.


3 posted on 06/30/2010 1:19:06 PM PDT by surroundedbyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Obamah, Kagan and their ilk believe our Founding Fathers were fools.


4 posted on 06/30/2010 1:19:29 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Obamah, Kagan and their ilk believe our Founding Fathers were fools.


5 posted on 06/30/2010 1:19:29 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

My impression of her decisions is “I’ll try this...If that doesn’t work...I’ll do this...No LAW behind it...just trying to bypass it BASED ON HER PERSONAL AGENDA.


6 posted on 06/30/2010 1:19:41 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The GOP doesn’t have the jewels to stand up to the Dems in this manner.


7 posted on 06/30/2010 1:20:36 PM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Call me a cynic, but it's happening again - I hear all this noise, and all the reasons why the current nominee is ignorant/malicious/racist/flameworthy, and I think somebody will stand up.

But the vote is 85-15 or so.

Every time, it seems.

8 posted on 06/30/2010 1:20:43 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Coburn should ask Kagin about her opinions and translations of many of Madison’s Federalist writings where Madison said that the Federal government’s role was to be limited.


9 posted on 06/30/2010 1:21:08 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Argue from the Constitution: Initialpoints.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

What does he intend to do about Lindsey Graham...


10 posted on 06/30/2010 1:21:15 PM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

She’s not “ignorant of Constitutional principles”. She just doesn’t like them...................


11 posted on 06/30/2010 1:22:12 PM PDT by Red Badger (No, Obama's not the Antichrist. He's just some guy in the neighborhood.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I’m still waiting for Candidate Toomey to put out a statement about her. He supported Sonya Sotomayor & I have serious reservations about voting for him. Knowing that this woman is such a pro-abortion pig AND a judicial activist, I really would love to see Toomey redeem himself by calling her out on it. I won’t hold my breath though.

So frustrating.


12 posted on 06/30/2010 1:23:13 PM PDT by surroundedbyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

If she’s the BEST they can do, they better start looking again. Everytime she opens her mouth she scares the living hell out of me!.


13 posted on 06/30/2010 1:24:06 PM PDT by Patsygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Sacajaweau

Her view of the law matches that of the man who nominated her and his puppet-masters: It’s OK if we pass it (an unconstitutional law) because it won’t be enforced anyway.

Reminds me of Bill Clinton’s slip where he said he had kept all the promises he had intended to keep.

A gaffe is when a politician accidentally says what they really think. And Kagan and all the people she has surrounded herself with are lawless thugs. They should all be sitting in the slammer.


15 posted on 06/30/2010 1:24:27 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

bump


16 posted on 06/30/2010 1:25:00 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( - Eccl. 10:18 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl
I like you Senator Coburn, but please don’t make us promises that you guys aren’t going to keep.

Any senator can start a filibuster. It takes 60 votes to end it. Coburn could do this on his own.

17 posted on 06/30/2010 1:26:00 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

A case could be made that all presidents should get their nominees provide the nominee is objectively unqualified.

Kagan is objectively unqualified.


18 posted on 06/30/2010 1:26:15 PM PDT by NeoCaveman ("There is no more money. Period. We are BROKE." - Lurker 5/21/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
"But the vote is 85-15 or so."

Roberts was confirmed 78-22. Roberts was arguably the best litigator in the country when he was nominated to the DC Circuit, the position he held prior to being nominated to the Court.

Kagan, OTOH, has a paper-thin record as a practicing attorney, has never been on the bench and has spent almost her entire career in academia, where she was the least published attorney to ever become dean of Harvard Law. I would be surprised if Kagan gets 65 votes.

19 posted on 06/30/2010 1:26:31 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue
Finally, somebody with a set of ba!!$ who’s willing to try & block this troll.

Talk is cheap. We'll see when the time comes.

The Dems need only one GOP Senator to defect. Not a tall order.

20 posted on 06/30/2010 1:27:28 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue
I’m still waiting for Candidate Toomey to put out a statement about her. He supported Sonya Sotomayor & I have serious reservations about voting for him. Knowing that this woman is such a pro-abortion pig AND a judicial activist, I really would love to see Toomey redeem himself by calling her out on it. I won’t hold my breath though.

CALL Toomey, and tell his office exactly that.

21 posted on 06/30/2010 1:27:38 PM PDT by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Her answer in response to a commerce clause question indicated that there is NOTHING that it doesn’t cover,
and nothing that the gov’t should be restricted from doing or requiring.


22 posted on 06/30/2010 1:27:49 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Some on talk radio have “given up the ship” saying that basically nominees sail through.

Except the GOP turned down Bush’s Miers nomination and the Democrats turned down Bork.

We DON’T have to give her any “grace”.


23 posted on 06/30/2010 1:28:29 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Sen. Coburn: Kagan 'Ignorant' of Constitutional Principles

I don't believe Kagan is 'Ignorant' at all. I believe that she, like the rest of the liberal wing of the SCOTUS, believe that you can re-interprete the constitution to meet a social or political end.

This means that she is not that interested in determining or studying what the framers originally had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Her main interest is to make it mean what she and her elite cohorts want it to mean.
24 posted on 06/30/2010 1:28:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Sen. Coburn: Kagan 'Ignorant' of Constitutional Principles; 'I Wouldn't Rule Out a Filibuster'

Uh-huh. I'd love to see it, but I'm not holding my breath. The 'Pubbies will cave on her like they always have.

25 posted on 06/30/2010 1:28:55 PM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

The key to her defeat in this matter is to raise hell with each senator, compelling them to think twice about voting to end a filibuster should that occur. The dems don’t likely have the votes to end one without a repub to side with them. Hopefully, Lindsey Graham will call in sick on the day of the vote.


26 posted on 06/30/2010 1:29:44 PM PDT by oneolcop (Lead, Follow or Get the Hell Out of the Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

Is she going to continue to stutter like Porky Pig if she gets confirmed?


27 posted on 06/30/2010 1:30:22 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
'Kagan is objectively unqualified."

By that standard, so was Harriet Meiers, who parenthetically had FAR more practical (and accomplished) legal experience than Kagan. But, wiser and more practical conservative legal minds prevailed. It wasn't a liberal challenge to Meiers that sunk her, it came from the intellectual right.

If there was the same kind of intellectual honesty on the left, people would be revolting about Kagan, who clearly doesn't possess the subject-matter expertise to sit on the country's most revered Court.

28 posted on 06/30/2010 1:30:46 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Kagan, anti-military and pro-terrorist. Could it be clearer?

“Obama Administration Enables Saudi Princes to Escape Accountability for Mat. Support 9/11 Attacks
WASHINGTON, June 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the day that President
Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11
Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration
would enable five of the king's closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in
financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In response
to the administration's action, the 9/11 families released allegations made in 2002 of the
Saudi royal family's sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have
been ignored by the Obama Administration.
On May 29, the president's top lawyer before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena
Kagan, filed a brief arguing that it would be "unwarranted" for the Supreme Court to
even hear cases brought by the 9/11 families charging that five Saudi princes knowingly
and intentionally provided financial support to al Qaeda waging war on America. By
urging the high court to not review lower court decisions dismissing these cases, the
Obama Administration took the side of
the Saudi princes over thousands of family members and survivors of the 9/11 attacks
seeking justice and accountability in U.S. courts. “


29 posted on 06/30/2010 1:31:42 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Her view of the law is, the law says whatever I say it says and the law says whatever I need it to say.

If we care at all about the constitution, we need to filibuster this until they withdraw her name. Not one piece of work must go forward until they send her to the curb.


30 posted on 06/30/2010 1:32:08 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Fax, call, e-mail and hammer your Senators. Now.

Kagan is a liar (falsifying the partial-birth abortion memo) (”It looks like my handwriting” under oath).

Kagan is a politically motivated abuser-of-power (military recruiters thrown off Harvard campus while she was Dean of Law School).

Kagan has never served as a judge and she has only two-years experience as a lawyer in courts.

And we’d know more if over 40,000 pages of records from the Clinton Massage Parlor Library weren’t held until just days before her confirmation hearing.


31 posted on 06/30/2010 1:32:18 PM PDT by fullchroma (Bill Haslam for Governor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
They don't even do the real filibusters like they used to do in the old days with the senator talking for hours and hours on end.

Any suggestion of a possible filibuster is totally and utterly without meaning today unless he has the votes to back him up on it.

32 posted on 06/30/2010 1:32:22 PM PDT by jpl (It's "My Big Fat Deadly Greek Riot", coming soon to a bankrupt socialist state near you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

They need to filibuster and delay this thing until after November.


33 posted on 06/30/2010 1:33:17 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I agree 100%


34 posted on 06/30/2010 1:33:29 PM PDT by NeoCaveman ("There is no more money. Period. We are BROKE." - Lurker 5/21/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I agree 100%


35 posted on 06/30/2010 1:33:41 PM PDT by NeoCaveman ("There is no more money. Period. We are BROKE." - Lurker 5/21/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Damn FDR........................


36 posted on 06/30/2010 1:34:07 PM PDT by Red Badger (No, Obama's not the Antichrist. He's just some guy in the neighborhood.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"I don't believe Kagan is 'Ignorant' at all."

While I agree with the rest of your post, I take issue with this part. Please, if you get some time, go over to www.oyez.org and listen to the orals in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Kagan is an EMBARRASSMENT. She makes mistake after mistake on the simplest points of law. That performance alone should disqualify her from the bench.

37 posted on 06/30/2010 1:34:30 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; Chieftain

why in God’s name do we not fillibuster this stupid, ignorant, and ugly to boot witch??

she is a progressive!

The administration, congress, all the leftist are doing what the F they want anyways...why are we even hesitating to make this at least a loud debacle..she MAY get nominated, but i say take down every single one of his Leftist crap nominees!

Make a scene...call her out on all her anti military, anti life actions!


38 posted on 06/30/2010 1:34:54 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Ok, joke's over....Bring back Bush !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

Shock: Sotomayor Lied In Her Confirmation To Appease Republicans
—Ace

She indicated she agreed with the Heller decision, but, shock of shocks, immediately joined a dissent that denied the central finding of the Heller majority.

Gee, I wonder if Elena Kagan might do the same thing.

What document?

In Fairness... She didn’t lie so much as deliberately mislead.

Contrast that with her Senate testimony: “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.” And, “I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.”

I don’t know how hard the GOP pressed her on that; either way, she’d refuse to answer.

But once burned, twice shy, or so it should be.

Kagan’s statements about “understanding” opinions should be taken as deliberately misleading.
Posted by Ace at 01:57 PM New Comments Thingy


39 posted on 06/30/2010 1:35:11 PM PDT by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

where she was the least published attorney to ever become dean of Harvard Law.”

Yet she was nominated by the person who never wrote a single thing & was the head of the Harvard Law Review-—Barry himself.
What an incestous group they all are.


40 posted on 06/30/2010 1:36:08 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fullchroma

AND she’s unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment. State’s rights, anyone?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2544603/posts


41 posted on 06/30/2010 1:36:23 PM PDT by fullchroma (Bill Haslam for Governor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

There is absolutely no downside to filibustering this buffoonish woman. Nobody but Obama wants her, she is unqualified and the public knows it, it will raise enthusiasm in the conservative base to see the GOP growing a spine, and finally, every minute spent filibustering this woman is a minute closer to election time that the rats can’t use to force something else down our throat.


42 posted on 06/30/2010 1:38:32 PM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

Coburn would make a great president as would DeMint. Hip Hip Hooray for Coburn! the gutsy Senator from Oklahoma:)


43 posted on 06/30/2010 1:38:42 PM PDT by katiedidit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

Coburn would make a great president as would DeMint. Hip Hip Hooray for Coburn! the gutsy Senator from Oklahoma:)


44 posted on 06/30/2010 1:38:56 PM PDT by katiedidit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I’m expecting she will be confirmed and the (R)s will do the talk circus...er...circuit saying she was obama’s pick and he deserved to get who he wanted on the court.

Filibuster becomes filibluster and the country will suffer.


45 posted on 06/30/2010 1:41:42 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Warning: Sarcasm/humor is always engaged. Failure to recognize this may lead to misunderstandings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
-- Coburn should ask Kagin about her opinions and translations of many of Madison's Federalist writings where Madison said that the Federal government's role was to be limited. --

The question I'd like posed is to describe the 2nd amendment "Miller" case. Not to say whether it was rightly decided, or should be upheld, etc. - just describe what it stands for. "Brief the case," if you will. Who were the parties? What were the facts, decision below, and ruling of the Supreme Court. I'd even give the nominee a couple days to read the case and prepare notes. If a potential judge can't accurately brief a 3 page opinion, that candidate has no business being behind the bench.

46 posted on 06/30/2010 1:44:30 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
OK, perhaps my numbers are overly pessimistic, but that's where it comes from: pessimism.

I still don't envision much of a fight.

47 posted on 06/30/2010 1:45:29 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie
She's also said that the decisions in the Supreme Court should be permitted to stand, even if subsequent judges don't agree with the decision. Yet the Supreme Court judges are not gods and are not infallible.

She knows that she will be able to establish law from within the court bench. She should have been pushed on her defense of being “open” to new interpretations based on changes.

It's one thing to apply the freedom of a printing press to a new technology like the internet. It's another entirely to expand the definition of marriage to two men because of “moral views changing”.

So is it a change in belief or a change in technology she is talking about?

We are told that the second amendment doesn't mean the same thing as it used to because guns are more deadly etc.

If the Constitutional Amendments themselves aren't going to mean the same thing from generation to generation, then I see no reason to let the Supreme Court decisions supercede the written text of the Constitution itself for all eternity (or until a new amendment negates a SC ruling).

48 posted on 06/30/2010 1:45:57 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

“saying she was obama’s pick and he deserved to get who he wanted on the court.”

This talking point is already making the rounds. And it is false.


49 posted on 06/30/2010 1:47:13 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

Considering it’s a lifetime appointment shouldn’t the burden be on the nominee to prove they ARE qualified? Kagan could be on the SC for the scope of 5-6 presidencies. Why should all those future presidents have to deal with her idiotic interpretation of the law?

Because Obama liked her? Come on...


50 posted on 06/30/2010 1:47:35 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (I can see November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson