Thoughts on the Elena Kagan’s Confirmation Hearings

Posted by courage On June - 29 - 2010

Am I the only one hearing sound bites from the Kagan Supreme Court nomination shaking my head?  I have heard quotes and found myself questioning  the reality of what I just heard.  Wait, I scream in my head.. what did she say?  Oh no she didn’t.  But I find that, oh yes she did.

When asked whether the federal government has the power to dictate through legislation what the American people eat ever day, Kagan never answers.  What sense does this make?  The only logical reason Kagan cannot answer this simple question is because as a progressive, she believes in an all-powerful, tyrannical government disguised as the  benevolent mother.

YouTube Preview Image

This should come as no surprise. And the Progressive agenda marches on, when asked about the Constitution Kagan states the Constitution is “interpreted over time in new contexts.”  Over time… new contexts?  In making this statement, Kagan is saying that the Constitution is irreverent.  Over time the fads  come and go, the strength of the Constitution is its grounding of fundamental freedoms in our society, these freedoms do not change “over time,” rather they are enduring truths which temper moments of uncertainty.

Then from Kagan, “There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law, or international law might be appropriate.” In essence,  she is stating is that foreign laws or United Nation decrees may take precedence over the United States Constitution it determining Supreme Court decisions.  This logic is unacceptable for a Supreme Court judge whose appointment is to determine one thing and one thing only… does the case before them align with Constitutional law or not?

As Solicitor General under Obama, Kagan has argued in front of the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. FEC,she states, “its fine if the Law bans books because government won’t really enforce it.”  Excuse me, when did the United States of America become a totalitarian state, where the First Amendment need not apply? Adhering to Constitutional law does not allow a Justice to say, “well go ahead and violate the Constitution as well as the rights of citizens since while the case before me is unconstitutional, I cannot see it being enforced.”

This country and the direction the founders took in its establishment was founded on public debate via the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers which were widely circulated.  And what of Thomas Paine and his political pamphlet “Common Sense?”  In Kagan’s view, all political discussion could be censored, perhaps not now but in the future.  But don’t worry she doesn’t think it will happen.

YouTube Preview Image

The hearing questions have run from the serious to the absurd.  Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, on the last day of the hearings asked Kagan a question about the movie “Twilight.”  Really Senator?  In what could be considered a job interview for one of the most important jobs in guaranteeing freedom, this is the best question you could come up with?  You ma’am should be fired.

In all likelihood, Kagan will be appointed to a life position on the United States Supreme Court.  Many of the 100 Senators which vote on her nomination are as qualified as she is to sit on the bench, meaning neither them nor her are qualified.

Will the GOP filibuster the nomination?  They should since placing Kagan on the bench carries freedom threatening consequences, as she interprets law through the progressive lens of government control.  It is said elections have consequences and this is a prime example of this fact.

Comments are closed.