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

Skip to comments.

Sen. Tom Coburn: By Her Own Words, Kagan Will Violate Her Oath
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | July 20, 2010 | Sen. Tom Coburn

Posted on 07/21/2010 9:30:44 AM PDT by neverdem

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan provided key exchanges about the Commerce Clause, natural rights, and other issues that have convinced me to vote against her nomination. Based on her own testimony, she’ll violate her oath as soon as she’s sworn in.

The hearings, though, were not merely about Elena Kagan per se but about the political culture and philosophy that shaped her views. Her answers exposed profound flaws in the prevailing Big Government wisdom of the Supreme Court and Washington over the past few decades.

When I asked Kagan whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to tell people to eat their fruits and vegetables, she answered with appropriate humor. “That would be a dumb law,” she quipped. True enough. Her response was humorous because the underlying premise is absurd both as a matter of common sense and law. Of course, Kagan and everyone else knew I was asking a proxy question about the new health law’s individual mandate and the founder’s intent regarding the Commerce Clause.

What is less humorous is the fact that as a Supreme Court justice, she would signal that Congress does in fact have the right to tell people what to eat and, by implication, whether to buy health insurance. With Kagan on the Court, Congress and the executive branch may succeed at sweeping away whatever limitations remain on its power to micromanage the decisions of states and individuals.

In her testimony, it was clear that Kagan subscribes to the progressive view that the wrongly decided precedents of the Supreme Court are more important the clear intent of the Constitution. Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington? They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause.

In “Federalist Paper 45,” James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned a blind eye when Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. As a result, the federal government can control practically every aspect of our lives. For instance, in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court decided that a farmer in Ohio, Roscoe Filburn, had to cease growing wheat to feed his chicken because he didn’t have permission from Congress. As a matter of law, we aren’t far from regulating American’s eating habits.

Kagan refused to answer the substance of my question. Her answers indicated she would support the big-government policies that created our $13 trillion debt and the welfare state that is collapsing into a fiscal black hole.

Even more troubling was Kagan’s refusal to say whether she believed in the principle of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence. Kagan told me, “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution.”

While I understand a nominee’s reluctance to express personal beliefs, it was extraordinary to hear a Supreme Court nominee decline to endorse the concept of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence that is the very basis of our Constitution.

Kagan’s answer exposed a troubling train of thought in progressive ideology. Refusing to acknowledge natural or God-given rights removes the morality from the progressive’s moral certitude. Without natural law there would have been no Constitution. Without natural law, “progressives” would take us back to the 17th century, when rights emanated from the state or the king rather than the creator.

Kagan made a number of statements that concerned me such as her statement that Justices can get “good ideas” on how to approach legal issues from the decisions of foreign courts. Instead of looking toward foreign courts for inspiration, Kagan, and more importantly the country, would be wise to look at the United States Constitution. With Kagan on the Court the chances are slim that the Supreme Court will rein in Congress and throw away years of expansive precedents that have nearly destroyed the Constitution. Our only hope is where it has always been in our system — with “We the People” and our willingness to elect leaders who will rediscover and apply the constitutional principles that made our government limited, and our country great.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: coburn; elenakagan; kagan

1 posted on 07/21/2010 9:30:49 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

> Sen. Tom Coburn: By Her Own Words, Kagan Will Violate Her Oath

When you’re an atheistic commie, and you don’t believe in God, then an “oath” is no big deal.

IIRC, atheists were not allowed to testify in courtrooms until sometime in the 20th century for exactly that reason.

They are untrustworthy.

They have NO honor.

They have no Transcendent, Objective, External Power to which they must answer for their lies, false testimonies, and false oaths.

They must not be trusted.

But they are.

What a ship of fools this nation has become.


2 posted on 07/21/2010 9:34:38 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for posting this. I could not agree more with Sen. Coburn’s analysis. I think many doctors are just like him, but cannot rein in the AMA.


3 posted on 07/21/2010 9:36:41 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats”
—H.L. Mencken


4 posted on 07/21/2010 9:38:57 AM PDT by tx_eggman (Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Glad to see Sen. Coburn cite the Wickard v. Filburn case. I remember that one from my constitutional law class like it was yesterday. A real eye-opener. The government can tell you how much wheat you can or cannot grow on your own property.
5 posted on 07/21/2010 9:39:59 AM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oaths mean nothing to “progressives”.


6 posted on 07/21/2010 9:40:51 AM PDT by BenLurkin (Will must be the harder, courage the bolder, spirit must be the more, as our might lessens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Good article.

Our only chance is ...
for us as a people to turn to God and repent of our wicked ways/ abortion/ homosexuality/ corruption,oppression/tyranny of the minority, suppressing God and removing God from the public forum ever increasingly.

God help us in our day, in Jesus name.

2 Chronicles 7:14 is TRUTH! Consider it well.
_________________________________________________________

“2 Chronicles 7:14 (King James Version)

14.If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
_________________________________________________________

7 posted on 07/21/2010 9:47:06 AM PDT by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Sen. Coburn you and a few other Conservative Sen. and Reps. need to through a blanket party for L. Graham!
8 posted on 07/21/2010 9:48:44 AM PDT by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Everytime I see this woman's name all I can think of is:

Can I PLEASE be a fly on the wall when she takes on Justice Scalia? Please please please?

9 posted on 07/21/2010 9:57:31 AM PDT by misharu (US Congress = children without adult supervision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Bears repeating ...

What a ship of fools this nation has become

10 posted on 07/21/2010 10:01:19 AM PDT by clamper1797 (Would you hold my hand ... If I saw you in heaven ... to my angel in heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gurn
Glad to see Sen. Coburn cite the Wickard v. Filburn case. I remember that one from my constitutional law class like it was yesterday. A real eye-opener. The government can tell you how much wheat you can or cannot grow on your own property...even just for use on your own farm (as was the case for Roscoe Filburn... ie, the wheat was NOT in "interstate commerce")

Their strained "logic" was that, if every farmer did the same, then "in the aggregate", it would affect interstate prices and production, which ARE within federal purview.

A horrible decision, and a direct result of FDR's threat to "pack the courts", if I recall correctly.

11 posted on 07/21/2010 10:03:58 AM PDT by Teacher317 (I'm sore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232
Sen. Coburn you and a few other Conservative Sen. and Reps. need to through a blanket party for L. Graham!

I'll second that!

12 posted on 07/21/2010 10:05:09 AM PDT by Edgerunner (Second Amendment Spoken Here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Edgerunner
How do you through a blanket party?
13 posted on 07/21/2010 10:12:48 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It’s a sad day in America when a President chooses a totally unqualified, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control, anti-military wicked individual as one of the highest judges in the land.

DemocRats are woefully ignorant and have no business trying to manage any affairs in this nation.

I hope as many of these traitors and scumbags are swept out of office as possible in November.


14 posted on 07/21/2010 10:16:03 AM PDT by Lions Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Kagan = Soto II


15 posted on 07/21/2010 10:16:21 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
When you’re an atheistic commie, and you don’t believe in God, then an “oath” is no big deal. IIRC, atheists were not allowed to testify in courtrooms until sometime in the 20th century for exactly that reason. They are untrustworthy.

This is the entire problem in a nutshell. Ever since 1948, when the Supreme Court started elevating the "rights" of the atheist minority onto the same footing as the "natural law" majority, our legal system is operating under a logical impossibility: either God exists, or God doesn't exist, based on the whims of individuals or the successes of their lawyers. Our Constitution's footing in natural law was cuckolded right there.

This question should have been met with the same derision as the "flat earth" discussion; instead, the minority proponents of anti-religion seek, and are succeeding, to dominate all conflicts of rights before the law.

16 posted on 07/21/2010 10:49:15 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (" 'Bush did it' is not a foreign policy." -- Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

BTW, I received a survey from a conservative organization this week asking who I favor to run for president in 2012. I had to think about it for a long time. Finally, I wrote, “Tom Coburn.”


17 posted on 07/21/2010 10:50:38 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (" 'Bush did it' is not a foreign policy." -- Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

the fix is in. this is only window dressing for the base.


18 posted on 07/21/2010 11:12:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
How do you through a blanket party?

Never served in the military huh?

19 posted on 07/21/2010 11:42:16 AM PDT by itsahoot (Republican leadership got us here, only God can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
I know what a blanket party is, I just don't know how to through one.

Through is a preposition, not a verb.

20 posted on 07/21/2010 12:00:15 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

lie ten up. its knot that hugh a deal. ewe can bee sew series.

teeman


21 posted on 07/21/2010 12:42:59 PM PDT by teeman8r (NO vember is coming... vote them out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cranked
Kagan = Soto II

Just don't forget to substitute a knish for the lard-fried refritos on the catering order...

22 posted on 07/21/2010 12:43:13 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Through is a preposition, not a verb.

Yep I sure missed the sarcasm, I have been reading bad writing long enough to ignore glaring mistakes, as have most today.

I remember well my teacher in the 40's, telling me a preposition is anywhere a squirrel can go. We used to have to diagram sentences, but that is no longer part of the curriculum in any government school, as far as I know.

23 posted on 07/21/2010 1:38:52 PM PDT by itsahoot (Republican leadership got us here, only God can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
After reading that, I am more than a little curious as to why Sen. Grahmnasty would vote to confirm this wretch.

Me thinks someone has pictures!

24 posted on 07/21/2010 1:48:19 PM PDT by SMM48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Senator Coburn, I agree with every word you wrote.

Please do me a favor. The next time you see Lindsey Graham, please punch him in the face for me. Thanks!


25 posted on 07/21/2010 2:03:11 PM PDT by upchuck (Our margin of victory this November MUST BE greater than their margin of fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Only the form, the shell of our federal institutions remain. An oligarchy of executive and congressional staffers along with Hussein, Pelosi and Reid concocted National Socialist Healthcare. There we no hearings and their own rat members were expected to rubber stamp what the oligarchy decided.

In like fashion, our oligarchs presented us with the farce of the Kagan hearings. Once again the little rats were expected to rubber stamp the nomination of a person hostile to our founding and traditions to the Supreme Court.

She will pretend to make constitutional rulings and we will pretend to respect and obey them.

26 posted on 07/21/2010 2:27:09 PM PDT by Jacquerie (The end of the state is the good life - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The real issue is will the Republicans have enough guts to filibuster her? You would think that, having had Sotomayo lie during her interviews, they would wise up. It still galls me that a well qualified and proven jurist like Robert Bork was never seated. A major loss to this nation.
27 posted on 07/21/2010 3:02:14 PM PDT by Boomer One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If the Repubs ever get a majority, they need to impeach these bozos and usurpers and convict. Haha, we’ll have some phony teethgrinding for fund raising and then they will call it off

But hey if the Repubs managed the economy well, for the MIDDLE CLASS, Repubs you could do what pretty much what you wanted.

Big mistake, this is where the fight has been for 40 years: not Vietnam, not Iraq and not Afghanistan. Let nutty muslims have afghanistan. If we can have our constitution back, we can deport and block any more muslims from coming in here and solve many many other problems.


28 posted on 07/21/2010 3:31:44 PM PDT by Piers-the-Ploughman (Just say no to circular firing squads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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