Help FR fight ..click the pic ..thank you!
Posted on 05/01/2012 4:52:27 PM PDT by IbJensen
What would you say if you learned that a member of the highest court in the land has spent the last 30 years openly advocating for the destruction of the US Constitution and even went so far as to accept $20 million from Shariah Law proponents to accomplish her goal?
That Supreme Court Justice is Elena Kagan.
The year after Ronald Reagan entered the Oval Office with the goal of restoring America to greatness; Elena Kagan penned a telling and disturbing senior thesis titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In that body of work, Kagan lamented that "a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States"; and that," no "radical party" had yet "attained the status of a major political force." Kagan went on to sound a rally cry for "those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."
Apparently, this was no mere college dalliance, as the Elena Kagan has spent the rest of her career working to remove the underpinnings of freedom and destroy the American Constitution from within. And Kagan's grand plan has worked very well indeed.
After graduate school Kagan went on to become Dean of Harvard Law, where she removed Constitutional Law classes from the curriculum, and replaced those necessary and time honored classes with required studies of international law. And in what appears to be a game of using a mutual enemy's resources to accomplish ones' true objective, Kagan also accepted a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal - a noted Shariah Law proponent - to implement an "Islamic Studies" program.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at answers.yahoo.com ...
Kagan was a known communist, with a long paper trail. Anyone who voted for her is our enemy!!
Some blame goes to Republican senators who are always ready to confirm enemies of the US as SC justices.
>>That is why his elegibility is so important.<<
Oh I sooo agree with your post. You hit the nail smack dab on the head.
Oh goody! Just try to imagine who all he will choose in his 2nd 4 years.
Some?
Some?
I hope you're not under the illusion that Romney will appoint a better class of people to the high court. Check his record of judicial appointments, if you need confirmation.
The only possible check we have against more Commies being appointed to the Supreme Court in the next administration, is the Senate. I don't have to tell you what to do.
Yes, and the rest to BO for nominating such treasonous people.
Look at what progressives put Thomas through over the fantasies of Anita Hill. Here we have real evidence of someone who hates America and functions well outside the mainstream, yet the GOP cannot simply raise this point during her nomination hearings?
>”Bush deserves credit for his three appointees, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.”
Bush appointed only two Supreme Court justices, Roberts and Alito and he had to be dragged against his cronyism into the appointment of Alito.
Bush’s first opportunity to name someone to the Supreme Court came in June 2005. Still thankful and loyal to the Texas Christian Society that formed his inner ring and most loyal supporters for his 1st and 2nd term wins, Bush carefully studied a list of potential picks and dutifully interviewed many on the list while finally settling on Roberts. This is to Bush’s credit.
At the same time that Bush was deliberating on keeping his promise of appointing only “strict constructionists” to the courts, political polls on the situation in Iraq showed plummeting support for the President.
As a disaster was looming in Iraq, before General Petraeus was able to turn the tide, Bush was polling in very low numbers in job approval. Most likely he was disturbed by his increasingly unpopular 2nd term as President and shared with his wife his frustration and fears of a failed presidency. Most likely Laura Bush steered him to distance himself from his conservative base who she identified as the cause of the unpopularity.
Wiki: “First Lady Laura Bush announced in an interview during an official visit to Africa a preference for her husband to nominate a woman to O’Connor’s seat. Bush was surprised at his wife’s public comments on the Supreme Court, but said he would be open to hearing her advice when she returned from her trip.”
Laura Bush went on to announce publicly two additional times that she wanted a woman nominated.
The result of Bush’s deliberations was the announcement of Harriet Miers, a liberal leaning crony of Laura Bush’s with thin credentials. Only the vociferous opposition of Senate conservatives caused Miers to withdraw her nomination.
Fred Thompson stepped in to guide President Bush to Alito. Both of Roberts and Alito have saved a great deal of the heritage of the Framer’s Constitutional intent.
In sum, it was not Bush’s hand that led to Alito, it was direct confrontation with Senate conservatives and conservative members of his inner ring that reminded him of the people that had worked so hard to elect him.
Had Bush succeeded in appointing Harriet Miers, many of the recent Supreme Court decisions would have gone to the Left.
And people worry we’ll lose all of Lugar’s experience if he loses. Good riddance.
Well, yes, the Harriet Miers fiasco would have been a disaster, if Bush had succeeded. It was indeed another case of cronyism, and as you suggest Laura Bush pushed it very, very hard.
We fought it hard here in FR. Thank God it failed, and Bush reconsidered.
I was also thinking of Clarence Thomas, but that was the first Bush—after the Souter disaster.
No, it’s true. Harvard had common law courses as a requirement for freshman law students. Those were replaced under Kagan’s revision of the curriculum, by positive law and international law.
Common law had been basic to all legal training at least back to the time of Magna Carta.
And the curriculum revision was especially disastrous because Harvard tends to be a model for other law schools.
she also committed fraud against the Supreme Court in 1996 during the partial birth abortion ban case.
A statment from a group of OB/Gyn’s had been submitted that declared there is no medical condition that exists in which a dilation and extraction abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.
Elena Kagan took it upon herself to alter the wording of that statement to mean the exact opposite.
She then presented the altered statement to the Court, and they found it persuasive.
She is a criminal.
Now, the Socialists/Commies are shouting out with glee...that their crazy plan is coming to fruition.
That’s far worse than anything Abe Fortas ever did.
later
The one & the same Prince Alwaleed who purportedly financed Obama's Harvard education?? Interesting, eh?
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.