June 28, 2010 6:38 PM
Elena Kagan - let us count the ways. . . .
Kagan Pledges to Uphold the Law, as Republicans Raise Concern Over 'Activism'
Published June 28, 2010
June 28: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is sworn in to testify during the first day of her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill in Washington (Reuters).
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan pledged on Monday to do her best to consider "every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law" if appointed to the nation's highest court.
Speaking on the first day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan said the court must ensure that "our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals."
"But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people," she said, adding that her past work in government public service has shown her that, in her words, "no one has a monopoly on truth and wisdom."
Read more at FoxNews.
This woman has nothing to recommend her for the highest court in the land other than a scrupulously empty record so that she can't be challenged, but will slide in as an ideological clone of Obama.
How she became the dean of the Harvard School of Law is beyond me or anyone who thinks leadership should be built by a series of challenges/experiences which prove someone deserving of that kind of responsibility.
While dean of Harvard Law, she accepted $20 million from Saudi Arabia, banned US military recruiters from campus, shielded the Saudis from a 9/11 lawsuit and prohibited Obama's Harvard Law transcript from being made public
She has also compared the National Rifle Association to the Ku Klux Klan and claims as her judicial hero one of the most radical leftist judges in the world.
Is this really the best and brightest America has to offer? At 50, this woman will be on the Supreme Court for decades - and Tweedledum to "Wise Latina Woman" Sotomayor's Tweedledee.
And how inauthentic how they tried to give her a makeover with the boxy suits, pearls, and heels. They're not fooling anyone about the real agenda here.
See all my Elena Kagan posts
Apparently, the GOP feels they are defeated before they begin, but Politico claims they will try to use the hearings as a teachable moment.
Why defeated before the hearings begin? Why aren't the Democrats willing to confront Obama about this weak choice - the way Republicans pressured Bush to dump Harriet Myers for her lack of qualifications?
Because Democrats have no integrity, only a push for "solidarity" and power, no matter how corrupt or harmful.
I'd say we should all be pressuring our senators the same way we pressured them to vote against ObamaCare. Not that it would do any good - these phony self-important autocrats are into doing as much damage to traditional America as they possibly can before they are stopped via the ballot box. Unless they figure out a way to disrupt that process, which they very well may. . . .
Posted in Elena Kagan, Liberal Hypocrisy, Obama Nation, Supreme Court | Permalink
Comments
She is considered a brilliant attorney and has has Supreme Court experience. There have been many justices who have not been judges or practiced law; it is not a requirement for the position for a reason.
What was NOT intended by our founding fathers is that the court is now run by Ivy Leaguers. One cannot even get a clerkship there without going to the "right" schools. With our last 4, including Obama, president also ivy leaguer, it is pretty clear who is running the country these days.
Also the Court will have NO WASPs when Kagan replaces Stevens. It will be pretty much a Catholic court. Only three Jewish justices, including Kagan, who is a done deal, from what I can see.
Posted by: Cath Young | June 30, 2010 9:58 PM
Cath Young, how would this be considered a "Catholic" court if it has "only" 3 Jewish justices?
It does not bother me that these people go to Ivy League schools. What bothers me most is that #1) she is hardly transparent and #2) the stuff that we do know about her is worrisome.
I don't trust the woman. I don't believe that she has enough loyalty to the Constitution to not re-invent it in some way. I believe that the liberal judges want to legislate from the highest bench in the country.
God help this country.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | July 1, 2010 1:07 PM
