Evasion and Double Talk in Kagan Confirmation Hearings

...and just yesterday she claimed (again by question dodging), that the Gov't is not bound by the commerce clause...

During her time in the Clinton White House Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan worked to undermine opposition to the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. She was able to get a contact at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to insert a few lines in a report that was later used as the basis for legal challenges to a state ban on the practice. National Review has the full story. It’s sort of a similar and equally dishonest tactic as that used by Obama officials at the Dept. of Interior who added language supporting a moratorium on oil drilling to a statement by scientists. A statement to which the scientists strongly object.

The memo which Kagan wrote has her handwriting on the document.During the confirmation hearings, Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) asked her a simple question: “Did you write that memo.” What followed was some of the most blatant evasion I have ever heard a public official make; let alone a nominee for the high court. [VIDEO at website]

Kagan Hearings Surpass World Cup For Most Boring TV Event
by Ann Coulter

06/30/2010

The two main points being made by Democrats in support of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court merely serve to remind us that Democrats are inveterate liars.

First, it has been repeatedly observed how wonderful it is that Ms. Kagan is “someone who’s an intellectual heavyweight who’s going to give Roberts a run for the money” — as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., put it.

Whew! Good thing the Democrats got that Hispanic nominee out of the way, so they could appoint somebody with intellectual heft! Hey! What happened to the “wise Latina”? At least now you know what liberals really think of you, Sonia.

Second, liberals are raving about Kagan’s “skill at building a consensus ... reaching out and building coalitions” — as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said last week.

It’s as if they’re talking about a governing majority in the Senate. Next thing you know, liberals will be complaining about a “do nothing” Supreme Court.

On MSNBC’s “Hardball” back in May, Sen. Klobuchar said: “We want to get some things done on this court.”

Get some things done? Amy Klobuchar is not considered a lunatic, but this was a crazy, giveaway moment. (Durbin is not considered a lunatic, just a hack.)

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be “getting things done.” Durbin’s and Klobuchar’s statements reveal a massive misunderstanding of the role of the court.

Congress, as the people’s elected representatives, is supposed to “get things done.” If they don’t, that usually means the people don’t want those things done. It’s not the court’s job to say: “Hey, Congress, you forgot to enact this! Don’t worry, we’ll take care of it.”

But liberals see the Supreme Court as their backup legislature, giving them all the laws Democrats can’t pass themselves because they’d be voted out of office if they did.

Can’t get Americans to approve of abortion? Get the Supreme Court to do it! Can’t get Americans to ban the death penalty? Get the Supreme Court to do it! Can’t get Americans to release criminals? Get the Supreme Court to do it!

Usually Democrats denounce the idea that they want an activist judiciary as a vicious, right-wing lie. But now they’re complaining that the court’s not activist enough — and they need Kagan up there to “get some things done”!

Despite the herculean efforts of liberals to redefine “judicial activism” as “overturning laws,” the two acts are completely unrelated.

It would be like redefining “terrorist” to mean “airline passenger.” Some airline passengers are terrorists and some aren’t — indeed, some battle the terrorists. The two have nothing to do with each other, although, sometimes, both notions come together and you get an airline passenger who’s a terrorist — and blows up the plane.

It makes as much sense to say, “Republicans say they’re against ‘judicial activism,’ but conservative justices strike down laws more than liberals do!” as it does to say, “Republicans claim they’re against terrorism, but they fly more than Democrats do!”

Different things.

As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the proper role of judicial review in a constitutional democracy, the courts have the last word “as to whether a law passed by the legislature conforms to the Constitution.”

It would be every bit as “activist” for the Supreme Court to refuse to strike down a law that violated the Constitution — e.g., Chicago’s anti-gun laws or Congress’ restriction of free speech via the campaign finance laws — as it is for the court to strike down laws that do not violate the Constitution.

We know that laws restricting speech and the right to bear arms violate the Constitution because it says so. The very first two items in the Bill of Rights prohibit the government from infringing on — I quote — “the freedom of speech” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” You can look it up yourself.

If Congress passed a law banning books critical of the Supreme Court and the court refused to strike down that law, that would be “judicial activism.”

Historically, judicial activists have preferred to strike down laws that are perfectly acceptable under the Constitution than to let unconstitutional laws stand. Constitutionally permissible laws include laws against abortion and laws providing for the death penalty.

We know that laws prohibiting abortion do not violate the Constitution because neither abortion, nor its synonyms, nor anything vaguely resembling abortion, is mentioned — much less granted protected status — by the Constitution.

And we know that laws providing for the death penalty are permitted by the Constitution because it goes on and on about capital crimes. The Fifth Amendment, for example, says:

— “No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”;

— “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”;

— “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
States are free to ban the death penalty on their own, but the Constitution requires only three things for the imposition of a death sentence: a grand jury indictment, no double jeopardy, and a hearing. The End. Love, the Founding Fathers.

And yet, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty — even with those three safeguards — as “unconstitutional” from 1972-1976.

Several justices — including Kagan’s mentor, Justice Thurgood Marshall — continually voted to ban the death penalty, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly, repeatedly, unquestionably provides for capital punishment.

That’s how liberals “get some things done.” That’s judicial activism.

I am seriously saddened by appearance of the GOP to have simply given up on fighting her nomination and has for all practical purposes forfeited the game. Worse still, they've done so from the locker room, not even getting into the game and making the other side pay price if they want to win. I understand the concept of keeping one’s powder dry, but if you don't use some of your powder to show the enemy that you won't forfeit without a fight you'll never get a chance to use the powder you've managed to keep dry.

This lady is a disaster. She has absolutely NO qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court service should be pinnacle of one’s judicial career, not an on-the-job training opportunity.

We need to point out loud and clear that putting her on the Supreme Court is likely to have the same outcome as putting Obama in the Oval Office. He had absolutely NO qualifications but managed to convince way too many of us that it didn't matter, that he had the character and natural abilities to overcome the lack of experience. We know now, without a doubt, how false that premise can be.

Keeping this pretender off the highest court in the land is more important right now than even the Nov. election. It's like we're in a war and we've put most of our forces into taking a certain objective, in this case the Nov. election, and the enemy is depending on us being so distracted by that goal that we will give them an easy victory in another theater. We can't let that happen. We have simply got to rise to the occasion and mount a defense of the Supreme Court.

The Chicago gun ban case shows us how just how precariously balanced our grip on the future of America is.

If we aren't careful, and very watchful, we are going to win the battle, the Nov. election, but lose the war.

The problem with letting the current Supreme Court nomination battle slide in favor of pursuing a Nov. change in the control of the either or both houses of Congress is that if we don't win big in Nov. the battles we've forfeited in the run up will come back to haunt us for a long time, longer than many of will be around to regret the mistake.

How on Earth have we arrived at the point when the greatest nation in history can appoint so poorly prepared a person for a seat on its highest court? She's not even a judge, she's never tried a case. She has NO qualifications whatsoever for the position and we need to do whatever it takes to stop them.

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.