Elene Kagan, Obama’s latest Supreme Court nominee, has a thin, but telling resume.
She opposed letting military recruiters onto the Harvard campus.
She blocked lawsuits filed on behalf of 9/11 families against the Saudi monarchy for its role in the terrorist attacks. As Obama’s Solicitor General, she declared in a brief to the Supreme Court that her office agreed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims”.
While working for the Clinton regime, she refused to investigate a staffer on the White House Council on Environmental Quality when he tipped off eco-terrorists holed up in the Oregon forest, thus endangering U.S. Forest Service law enforcement agents.
She handled a plagiarism scandal involving Obama’s law professors by giving them slaps on the wrists.
She was on the Goldman Sachs Research Advisory Council from 2005 to 2008, for which she received a $10,000 stipend.
Her views on free speech:
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
— Ellen Kagan, arguing, in her role as Solicitor General for the United States of America, that depictions of animal cruelty were unprotected by the First Amendment.
The case involved the filming of deliberate acts of animal cruelty for amusement. The acts described in a Humane Society brief are pretty graphic and despicable.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/08-769_cert_amicus_humane.pdf (pages 16-17)
My question is this: Why was this pursued as a “free speech” issue, when it was nothing less than documented crimes? It was a clear violation of the federal law against animal cruelty. Why weren’t the sick fucks who made these videos hunted down, prosecuted, and imprisoned?
The debate over the “free speech” depiction of animal cruelty aside, there are broad implications in her statement.
Kagan also said she looked forward to a time when a, quote, ‘more leftist left will once again come to the fore.’
The Dems raised all kinds of hell with nominees by Republican presidents, especially when they noted lack of experience, reticence with regard to release of the candidate’s judicial analysis, and the “wrong race” for the political purpose.
One interesting case in point:
George W. Bush nominated Estrada to a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 9, 2001. He received a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association.
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada’s lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada’s writings while employed there.
A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General wrote a letter objecting to the Democrats’ demand for memos that Estrada had written while he was with the office. While not addressing past instances where such memos had previously been released, the letter argued release of prior memos by government employees to the public would endanger the Solicitor General Office’s ability to provide confidential legal advice to the Executive Branch.
Leaked internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups’ desire to keep Estrada off the court partially because “he is Latino,” and because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee. Democratic spokesman for Durbin said that “no one intended racist remarks against Estrada” and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was “politically dangerous” because Democrats knew he would be an “attractive candidate” that would be difficult to contest since he didn’t have any record.
On March 6, 2003, there was the first of six failed cloture votes on Estrada. Fifty-five senators voted to end debate on his nomination and allow a final confirmation vote, and forty-four senators voted not to end debate. After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six month long battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003. Bush nominated Thomas B. Griffith in his place, who was confirmed in 2005 under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal.
With the benefit of hindsight, Jan Crawford Greenburg has said of the nomination that “[i]f Majority Leader Bill Frist had shown real leadership, he would never have allowed a Democratic minority to achieve the first-ever filibusters of appeals court nominees. If Trent Lott had been majority leader, Estrada would have been confirmed.”
Kagan’s views are diametrically opposed to the spirit and the meaning of the Constitution. She will make decisions inclined to aid and abet Obama’s vision of a socialist, centralized government with unchecked powers.
Having said that, the Dems will ram her confirmation through as swiftly and as arrogantly as they did ObamaCare.