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
"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]

To: festoon
SHE has more balls then the Re-pubs.
21 posted on 07/01/2011 5:00:24 PM PDT by jaz.357 (Rush Limbaugh, "Once upon an America")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Islander7, additional:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2742919/posts


22 posted on 07/01/2011 5:33:59 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's the Obamacare, stupid! -- Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

What happens if she does not recuse herself and rules on the Obamacare case?


23 posted on 07/01/2011 5:35:14 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tbw2
I do not know. Mark Levin when asked, didn't know either.

Strange isn't it? I mean it was an open secret that she worships all things Obama. She was not appointed to protect our God given liberties, but instead to be a reliable psycho for Hussein. If Obamacare is found Constitutional 5-4, will you obey that illegitimate law?

24 posted on 07/01/2011 5:51:03 PM PDT by Jacquerie (I know for certain the Constitution means what it says, not what the Supreme Court says it means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Principled
My bet is she will be impeached. After Nov 2012.

And why should the Repubs stop there? How about the 9th Circus? I do not know the number, but probably about 1/3rd of judges should be impeached.

25 posted on 07/01/2011 6:11:19 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (And, therefore, isn't Jim (Robinson) the original Blog Father? - FReeper Aevery_Freeman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

The fact that a Supreme Court Justice nominee would lie under oath to slip into confirmation is brazen and malicious. She is a judicial activist of the worst kind, IMO.


26 posted on 07/01/2011 6:20:40 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (And, therefore, isn't Jim (Robinson) the original Blog Father? - FReeper Aevery_Freeman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator

You’re absolutely right!

The Court should police themselves and ask her to step down.


27 posted on 07/01/2011 6:26:24 PM PDT by 2111USMC (Not a hard man to track. Leaves dead men wherever he goes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

Take notice of the fact that they wanted an INVESTIGATION of the fat liberal slob, not IMPEACHMENT proceedings!

It’s all hot air and nothing else.


28 posted on 07/01/2011 6:54:19 PM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The noise of a congressional inquiry over possible perjury in testimony could force her to recuse herself ...

to avoid the appearance of impropriety, as the saying goes. Worth a shot!

29 posted on 07/02/2011 3:58:06 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
force her to recuse herself

And if she ignores the effort, as she will, what then?

She's already been caught lying under oath. It's time to impeach her. Trying to get her to recuse herself is a weak attempt to avoid having to do the hard work of impeachment.

30 posted on 07/02/2011 9:02:13 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; SE Mom; Fred Nerks; Red Steel; seekthetruth; ...

“Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA,” the letter said.

*snip*

The House members signing their letter to the Judiciary Committee calling for an investigation of Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare noted in the letter that federal law prohibits a Supreme Court Justice from participating in a case where her impartiality might be reasonably questioned or where she expressed an opinion on the matter while serving in government office.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/breaking-49-house-members-call-investiga

~~~~~~~~~~

Ooh .. I hope they’ve nailed her dodge and spin at hearings.


31 posted on 07/02/2011 10:46:23 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
She did twice. Just ran across it reading the link to this thread. When we are in control in 2013 we will have grounds to have her impeached.

When we finally start playing hardball they will think twice about screwing with us all the time.

32 posted on 07/03/2011 4:45:34 AM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cashless

Exactly, good post. May as well be realistic.


33 posted on 07/03/2011 4:47:33 AM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

She is guilty as sin,but no sense bringing it up until we hold all three branches.


34 posted on 07/03/2011 4:52:57 AM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

If federal law prohibits a SCOTUS justice from participating in a case where her impartiality might be reasonably questioned, then there is NO DOUBT - NONE - that Kagan and Sotomayor both violated that law when they took part in the conferences for any eligibility cases, since their very seats on SCOTUS were at stake in those cases.

If they’re serious about seeing justice done on Obamacare, they should be investigating that. Both of Obama’s appointees have violated the federal law already, if what these reps are saying is true. They should go after them. I wonder what the penalty is.


35 posted on 07/03/2011 9:38:14 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator

This is the same gal that interfered with the testimony of a medical association in order to get Stenberg v Carhart to call Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional.

Lying is her native tongue. The Senate was fully aware of that when they confirmed her. None of them minded because that’s the language they speak also.

Washington DC is a treasonous hell-hole.


36 posted on 07/03/2011 9:45:38 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Washington DC is a treasonous hell-hole.

That's scary!

37 posted on 07/03/2011 10:11:03 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (And, therefore, isn't Jim (Robinson) the original Blog Father? - FReeper Aevery_Freeman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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