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

Skip to comments.

Evidence 'Contradictory' to Kagan's Confirmation Testimony, 49 Lawmakers Call for Investigation
CNS News ^ | July 1, 2011 | By Terence P. Jeffrey

Posted on 07/01/2011 3:46:34 PM PDT by Islander7

Full title: Citing Evidence They Call 'Contradictory' to Kagan's Confirmation Testimony, 49 Lawmakers Call for Judiciary Committee Investigation

Forty-nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives--including the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and two presidential candidates--are pointing to evidence they say is "contradictory" to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's confirmation testimony and calling for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the matter.

The lawmakers also say they believe that evidence already made public shows that Kagan must recuse herself from any court cases involving the health care bill signed into law by President Barack Obama while she was serving as Obama's solicitor general.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; elenakagan; kagan; liar; obama; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
"Regrettably the Justice Department has been uncooperative to date with repeated FOIA requests that seek the full body of relevant emails from the Office of the Solicitor General that would reveal the scope of Kagan's involvement in PPACA defense activities," the 49 congressmen said in their letter to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers.

The documents relating to Kagan and the health-care issue that have been released thus far by the Justice Department are the result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by CNSNews.com in May 25, 2010--before Kagan's confirmation hearings.

1 posted on 07/01/2011 3:46:39 PM PDT by Islander7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Islander7
What do you bet she perjured herself in Senate confirmation testimony?
2 posted on 07/01/2011 3:51:25 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Sure smells like it!


3 posted on 07/01/2011 3:54:49 PM PDT by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

When I first saw this I thought the link was CBS news. How I WISH it were! Will America ever hear about this?? She MUST recuse herself for all of the Obamacare cases, but she also should be forced to step down from the bench for lying... I realize we will all be skiing in hell on THAT day...


4 posted on 07/01/2011 3:56:48 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

Only 49? It should be every Republican.


5 posted on 07/01/2011 3:57:15 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islander7
She perjured herself at her Confirmation Hearing.

If she is as smart as The Wise Latina, she will recuse herself from all things Obamacare.

6 posted on 07/01/2011 4:00:09 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
What do you bet she perjured herself in Senate confirmation testimony?

Yeah, so what? What are we gonna do about it? Impeach her? With our Congress (and Senate)?

7 posted on 07/01/2011 4:00:28 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
How I WISH it were!

Things have moved on. CBS is meaningless. How folks get themselves informed is no longer from CBS-ABC-NBC.

8 posted on 07/01/2011 4:03:00 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

IMO, judicial impeachments will become more prevalent. Why? Necessity against cornered Rats trying to preserve Marxism via dicta.


9 posted on 07/01/2011 4:05:23 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

That’s a good start. After all she was asked by the senate if she had any dealings with the health care bill or other litigation in health care and she flat out lied and said ‘no’. So, yes,she should be impeached on that crime alone. Perjury is a crime.


10 posted on 07/01/2011 4:05:41 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bvw

My bet is she will be impeached. After Nov 2012.


11 posted on 07/01/2011 4:06:56 PM PDT by Principled (Get the capital back! NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Islander7
I suspect not only conservatives increasingly question the constitutional legitimacy of laws from Congress and decisions from the courts.

If things continue as they have, at some point, the people will reject and pull down the rotten edifice of our government.

The question is when. Scotus approval of Obamacare should be the time to rip it all apart, for the Constitution by Scotus will have been flipped into a instrument of oppression.

12 posted on 07/01/2011 4:10:15 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HollyB
Perjury is a crime.

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is, so to speak. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see her or Sotomayer gone, I'm just saying it's unlikely that it will happen.

13 posted on 07/01/2011 4:10:15 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HollyB
Perjury is a crime.

Perjury is a crime only when a Republican does it.

14 posted on 07/01/2011 4:17:49 PM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

I think the house of cards will start to tumble. The Truth will come out, now what to do with the truth? It’s coming from different angles and most of it points to the JD. The politicians are picking up some momentum and it is excellent that they are admitting there is corruption. 1. Libya, 2. fast and furious, 3. Kagan. I’ll stop there, we know the situations. It’s a slow start, but momentum is building.


15 posted on 07/01/2011 4:21:08 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Yeah, so what?

This is an excellent example of how negativism obviates recognizing opportunity. The noise of a congressional inquiry over possible perjury in testimony could force her to recuse herself where she might not otherwise do so, which could be a deciding factor when the case comes before the Supreme Court.

I'm big on creating all the advantages for my side that I can. Aren't you?

16 posted on 07/01/2011 4:24:28 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HollyB

I hope you are right, but I’m not holding my breath. I see as a more likely outcome a large minority that is increasingly aware of what is happening, but not enough to force Congressional action. I’ve read too much classical history to be optimistic based on what I’ve seen so far.


17 posted on 07/01/2011 4:26:00 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

Having lived in Chicago for many many years I recognize this as the Chicago style of governing. It has produced more politicians in striped jump suits than any other place I can recall. Chicago has been the mother of American Marxism and political corruption since the days of Bath House John and the 1st ward machine.


18 posted on 07/01/2011 4:27:49 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islander7
Put this on the back burner unless we take the Presidency and Senate. Until then, we are tilting at windmills. IMO.
19 posted on 07/01/2011 4:28:01 PM PDT by cashless (Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER thaln a TEA BAGGEE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Principled

Our republican reps (especially the Senate) have no balls. Therefore, she may get some sort of “ bipartisan “ reward.


20 posted on 07/01/2011 4:50:03 PM PDT by festoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 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