First, let’s consider what we actually KNOW About Nominee Kagan:
1) She argued that movies, library books, and other media may be banned or censored in some circumstances, before SCOTUS in the CU v. FEC case.
2) She believes the Court can continue expanding rights and governmental power/control and supports broad executive powers. She vigorously defended "EXTREMELY BROAD EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY" before her 9-0 smack down from the Court on her challenge of the Solomon Amendment.
3) She wrote, “The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court’s decisions . . . If that is too results oriented … so be it. . .”
4) In her senior thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," she bemoaned the death of socialism in this country.
1) She argued that movies, library books, and other media may be banned or censored in some circumstances, before SCOTUS in the CU v. FEC case.
2) She believes the Court can continue expanding rights and governmental power/control and supports broad executive powers. She vigorously defended "EXTREMELY BROAD EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY" before her 9-0 smack down from the Court on her challenge of the Solomon Amendment.
3) She wrote, “The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court’s decisions . . . If that is too results oriented … so be it. . .”
4) In her senior thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," she bemoaned the death of socialism in this country.
Now, consider some reactions from Liberal Academians and Bloggers:
“She appears to have gotten tenure at the University of Chicago based on a single article, something that’s not allowed at most top schools, she is certainly a nominee who has one of the thinnest records, in terms of writing, that we have seen in years.”” said Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at The George Washington University
“Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for ‘American Idol,’ not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him.” - liberal blogger Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake
While Kagan did win tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, her limited body of academic work played a role in the university’s decision not to allow her to reclaim her post after her White House stint, associates said.
“She appears to have gotten tenure at the University of Chicago based on a single article, something that’s not allowed at most top schools, she is certainly a nominee who has one of the thinnest records, in terms of writing, that we have seen in years.”” said Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at The George Washington University
“Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for ‘American Idol,’ not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him.” - liberal blogger Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake
While Kagan did win tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, her limited body of academic work played a role in the university’s decision not to allow her to reclaim her post after her White House stint, associates said.
My personal reaction to her nomination:
The SCOTUS was envisioned and designed to be an independent entity for a reason -- to avoid executive pressure. Like an umpire, the SCOTUS should have the reputation of an impartial entity, interpreting our basic document, the Constitution, not amending it or changing it. Otherwise, it is a useless, bureaucratic monstrosity and the tool of an over-reaching executive power grab.
Justice, especially on the SCOTUS, MUST look at the facts and only the facts of the case, apply the tenets of the constitution and render a decision based upon the constitution, period. The court should not be functioning as another government agency supporting the executive branch and its ideological views.
I may be old fashioned but I think the Supreme Court's highest duty is to protect the liberties of the American people as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. More often than not, it should not be assisting the inevitable thrust of the government for more power, but reining it in. The race, wealth, politics, or status of the people involved is immaterial.
Consider that nominee Kagan tried to kick military recruiters off the Harvard campus, despite the federal law authorizing it. Like Pres. Obama, she appears ambivalent about whether federal law needs to be followed. She seems to think you can ignore it if it suits you or it is politically expedient. Is this the proper attitude for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land? I think not.
Unfortunately, Madam Kagan, like Judge Sotomayor do not believe that this is the case. They have stated that the court should consider cases, not based upon the constitutionality of the issue but on the basis of the individual. President Obama is doing his level best to appoint functionaries who support this ideological belief in the expansion of a central government. Madam Kagan is another example of this effort and I find her appointment very threatening to the operation and independence of the SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS was envisioned and designed to be an independent entity for a reason -- to avoid executive pressure. Like an umpire, the SCOTUS should have the reputation of an impartial entity, interpreting our basic document, the Constitution, not amending it or changing it. Otherwise, it is a useless, bureaucratic monstrosity and the tool of an over-reaching executive power grab.
Justice, especially on the SCOTUS, MUST look at the facts and only the facts of the case, apply the tenets of the constitution and render a decision based upon the constitution, period. The court should not be functioning as another government agency supporting the executive branch and its ideological views.
I may be old fashioned but I think the Supreme Court's highest duty is to protect the liberties of the American people as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. More often than not, it should not be assisting the inevitable thrust of the government for more power, but reining it in. The race, wealth, politics, or status of the people involved is immaterial.
Consider that nominee Kagan tried to kick military recruiters off the Harvard campus, despite the federal law authorizing it. Like Pres. Obama, she appears ambivalent about whether federal law needs to be followed. She seems to think you can ignore it if it suits you or it is politically expedient. Is this the proper attitude for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land? I think not.
Unfortunately, Madam Kagan, like Judge Sotomayor do not believe that this is the case. They have stated that the court should consider cases, not based upon the constitutionality of the issue but on the basis of the individual. President Obama is doing his level best to appoint functionaries who support this ideological belief in the expansion of a central government. Madam Kagan is another example of this effort and I find her appointment very threatening to the operation and independence of the SCOTUS.
One of the most dangerous views expressed by Nominee Kagan is her seeming desire to move toward administrative law. If what she writes and says is true, she has little respect for the rules of law, let alone the constitution if it doesn’t support those, who in her view, are the underdogs. She has written and seems to believe that person A deserves a different level of justice than person B because A and B are of different races, religions, political parties, income levels, sexual orientation or whatever. I firmly believe that anyone who holds these views should not be considered qualified to serve on any court in this country and most especially a lifetime appointment the SCOTUS.
Posts
