Information on Supreme Court Nominee, Elena Kagan

Some info on Kagan:
(1) From “Point of View” (6/28): “If the American people come to understand how far left this nominee is, there will be little support for her confirmation. Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has said that if Kagan is confirmed “you will have a court that is much more to the left than we have today.” That says a lot, considering the justice she will replace is one of the more liberal members of the court.
She believes that international law should take precedent over the Constitution. While Dean at Harvard Law, she dropped the required course on the Constitution and replaced it with a required course on international law.
 
She is pro-abortion and has contributed financially to pro-abortion groups. She also believes that abortions should be taxpayer funded.
 
She is anti-military. While Dean of Harvard Law School, she kicked military recruiters off campus in defiance of a federal law which had been upheld by the Supreme Court on a unanimous vote.
 
She is pro-homosexual stating she “abhorred” the military’s ban on open homosexual service calling it a “moral injustice of the first order.”
 
She believes that the government may ban political pamphlets and books during an election season, in violation of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
 
She is pro-socialism once writing glowingly of “socialism’s greatness.”
(2) From Rush Limbaugh quoting Kagan and Senator Jeff Sessions (Alabama) when Sessions asked about “don’t ask, don’t tell” (6/29):KAGAN:  Senator Sessions, I have repeatedly said that I believe that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is unwise and unjust.  We were trying to make sure that military recruiters had full and complete access to our students but we were also trying to protect our own anti-discrimination policy and to protect the students whom it is — um, uh, whom it — it — it — the policy is supposed to protect, which in this case were our gay and lesbian students.  And we tried to do both of those things.

SESSIONS:  Well, you couldn’t do both, as it became clear as time went on.

RUSH:  Of course she’s trying to say here she respects the military. She’s trying to protect the military’s rights.  Sessions won’t have anything of it because that’s not what happened at all.  He then says, “Well, they were appearing to recruit on your campus. They were simply following the policy of the US Congress effectuated by law, not their idea.  And that you were taking steps to treat them in a second class way, not give them the same equal access because you deeply opposed the policy.  Why wouldn’t you claim to the Congress and not to the dutiful men and women who put their lives on the line for America every day?

KAGAN:  All that I was trying to do was to ensure that Harvard Law School could also comply with its anti-discrimination policy, a policy that was meant to protect all the students of our campus, including the gay and lesbian students who might very much want to serve in the military, who might very much want to do that most honorable kind of service that a person can do for her country.

RUSH:  Here’s Sessions summing all this up…

SESSIONS:  I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality.  I know what happened at Harvard.  I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy.  I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds.  This is what happened.

RUSH:  There’s Jeff Sessions telling the truth.  She lied.  She misrepresented her entire behavior regarding recruiters on campus at Harvard…”
(3) From Transcript of Barack Obama in 2001 on the Constitution:
…”If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that…”