Posted on 07/30/2010 1:27:32 PM PDT by Sopater
I'm getting really tired of this argument.
Bad is only getting worse each time we lose another appointment. This would not be passing up a Meir for a Roberts. This would be passing over evil for evil.
Because that's what this all is. They are all evil. We have to fight against every single one of them because every time we let one through... it's just more evil added to the evil we've already let in the gate. The only difference between any of them is that some may be able to pass themselves off as less evil... but they all come from the same source: pure evil that cannot be watered down.
The time is here. It is now. The only ones left to fight it are us. No one else is going to come riding to our rescue.
If this charge is true, Kagan is unethical. It would be better to have an ethical liberal than one who is not.
Someone like Cass Sunstein would not get approved. So I say yes try to out her if this charge is true, and there actually could be a “better” liberal nominated.
No, there isn't a requirement. However, as she is an attorney [and knows the law against falsifying evidence], if she were sanctioned by SCOTUS - her nomination might be in peril.
I did hear of this allegation about a month or so ago - where some commission or organization produced an opinion on partial birth abortion in a dociment. Kagan then wrote a paper for the Clinton Administration that significantly departed from what the opinion stated. That paper was then submitted to SCOTUS during a subsequent case.
Her writing the paper did not in and of itself constitute a vioaltion - as long as she [herself] had no involvement in its submission to SCOTUS. However, if she was the one who submitted it to SCOTUS [or had knowledge thereof of its submission], and did not notify SCOTUS of its inaccuracies - she might have a problem.
I believe Edison tried over 1300 times before he finally came up with a working light bulb.
You are right. I sort of like Klayman, he files complaints that are true, and at least stands to be counted! Who does win a lot of these type of suits? like you say, these judges don’t want to be reminded to look in their own back yard!
Matter of fact is, Kagan is a baby murdering,anti constitution communist scumbag carpet muncher. and besides that, shes ugly....
He was among the first to smoke banana peel. He tried all kinds of material to make filaments.
The point of advise and consent is to weed out scum like she. That process has been hampered in the rail road time table to get her on the SC. Even light in the loafers Graham said she looked ok to him, sans this info.
The confirmation process must be put on hold till this is beat to death, period. Any sanction levied by the SC must be taken into consideration. This would be similar to having a previously disbarred attorney, Clinton, put on the court..there must be no taint in such an appointment...sorry it is a lifetime one, not one that has the benefit of a set time. As someone else said, no matter if another person is equal to her or more liberal, the fact they are not tainted is the bar, not whether or not she passes the political litmus test.
Suuure she is. Just take out a little of what you don't like, move some words around and what've you got? No more pesky *critical cases*! Easy, peasy.
My question is, why wasn’t this vetted at her hearing?
(Chirp...chirp...chirp....)
If she’s willing to falsify reports, she doesn’t need to have anything to do with the Justice Department, not even as an ambulance chaser.
Is there something we can do to get this max exposure on the forum? We need to shut down the DC phone lines don't ya think?
I detest Kagan. I was simply pointing out a fact.
“Kagan, while she was an Associate White House Counsel in the Clinton administration, falsified an expert medical report, prepared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). In this report, ACOG had originally found that partial birth abortion was in fact not medically necessary to save the life of a woman, but Kagan changed the report’s finding to say that it was an appropriate procedure under some circumstances. This altered report was then relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down legislation banning partial birth abortion.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the above is factual (that “Kagan changed the report’s finding to say that it was an appropriate procedure under some circumstances”) then Kagan is undeserving of the public trust.
Kakan doesn’t meet the ethical bar of a notary public (http://www.nationalnotary.org/userimages/Notary_Code.pdf)— let alone a Justice of the Supreme Court Of The United States.
Her actions in this case appear to be in violation of the public trust.
If she has violated the public trust in the past it would be foolhardy for one to assume that she won’t violate the public trust in the future.
Thus, we must do everything in our power to prevent such a person from sitting on the Supreme Court Of The United States.
STE=Q
How do you know she’s not a Van Jones? I would think they’ve done what they can to hide as much of her past as possible.
“She is a criminal liar”
WHOA, here’s the smoking gun. Right after the following words, you can see the proof in Kagan’s OWN handwriting (just click the link below):
“Kagan then apparently edited the word “not” out of the statement to make the statement more favorable for supporters of partial-birth abortion.”
I see possible scandal from the ACOG as well.
It does seem as if the ACOG tried to help Kagan:
“And when ACOG adopted the exact language Kagan had suggested, she sent a note to her bosses saying the statement “turned out a ton better than expected” (underlined in her original handwriting).”
more http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37814
-IF- Kagan gets confirmed, she needs to recuse herself from all abortion cases.
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.