Kagan Sits in Judgment of Obamacare — Despite Cheering Its Passage and Assigning Lawyer to Defend It
ZIP | March 26, 2012 3:35 pm
Her presence on the Court invalidates any pro-ObamaCare decision.
She should be impeached for NOT recusing herself.
No big surprise here; we all knew the reason for her nomination, appointment and quick Senate confirmation. Any Republican senator who voted for this evil hobbitt should be drawn and quartered. And for those Democrats who voted for confirmation, the Repubs should be screaming this from the rooftops in their states come re-election time.
The treason is almost complete – on to that pesky 2nd Amendment.
Don’t forget this!
Whatever decision is reached will be suspect whether pro or con by her refusal to recuse herself.
So where the the RINOs in Congress to dispute this kangaroo court?
She wouldn’t recuse herself. That would require some tiny bit of integrity and that’s something that you just can’t have in the Obama administration.
Reply I received from Windsey Gwaham on the Kagan vote:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan to he an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you.
As I have previously stated, Ms. Kagan is not someone I would have chosen, and I do not agree with her legal or judicial philosophy. Her views are well to the left of my views, and if I based my vote on the issues where we disagree, then I could come up with a hundred reasons to vote no. But. under both the constitutional and historical standards of Supreme Court confirmations, my vote is not supposed to be based solely on whether I, as a Senator, agree with the nominee. Elections have consequences, and one of those is that the President is permitted to choose his nominees for the Supreme Court. No one should be surprised he has now chosen a nominee who reflects his views, and I imagine that in our current political climate, anyone this President would have chosen would have been presumed to be unqualified by conservatives because they hold differing political views.
One of our most distinguished founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, wrote about the responsibilities of the Senate in dealing with confirmations in Federalist Paper Number 76. He wrote.
“To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity’ of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, would tend generally to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family-connection, from personal attachment, and from a view to popularity.”
Our great Constitution puts a requirement on me, as a senator, to not replace my judgment for the President’s. I am not supposed to think of the 100 reasons I would pick somebody different. It puts upon me a standard that has stood the test of time: Is the person qualified? Are they a person of good character? Are they someone who understands the difference between being a judge and a politician? In my view, Ms. Kagan passes those tests.
The role of the Senate in judicial nominations is changing, and I do not see the changes as positive. The Court is the most fragile of the three branches. So while it is our responsibility to challenge and scrutinize the Court, it is also our obligation to honor elections, respect elections, and protect the Court.
Two great conservative leaders – our own Strom Thurmond and conservative Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm – spoke wise words about the role of the Senate in Supreme Court confirmations in an era in which I believe Senators better understood and executed their constitutional duty with respect to judicial nominees.
In debate on the nomination of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3 in 1993), Senator Thurmond said,
“/ am mindful that Judge Ginsburg is President Clinton’s nominee, and I did not expect to agree with her on all of the issues. Based on her lack of specificity in a number of areas, I cannot be certain as to where we disagree.
508 HAMPTON STREET 401 WEST EVANS STREET 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET 530 JOHNNIE DODOS BOULEVARD 140 EAST MAIN STREET 124 EXCHANGE STREET
SUITE 202 SUITE 111 SUITE 700 SUITE 202 SUITE 110 SUITE A
COLUMBIA. SC 29201 FLORENCE. SC 29501 GREENVILLE, SC 29601 MOUNT PLEASANT. SC 29464 ROCK HILL, SC 29730 PENDLETON, SC 29670
(803)933-0112 (843)669-1505 (864)250-1417 (843)849-3887 (803)366-2828 (864)646-4090
Although I have reservations about this nominee, I like to support the President in choosing his nominees when I can. 1 shall give her the benefit of any doubts I have and shall support her. ”
Similarly, conservative Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm said this in the confirmation of Justice Steven Breyer, another liberal appointee to the Court from President Bill Clinton (confirmed by a vote of 87-9 in 1994).
“So I’m going to vote for this nominee not because I agree with him philosophically, but because I believe he is qualified. I believe he is credible. I believe his views, though they’re different than mine, are within the mainstream of thinking of his political party.
Whether I like it or not — and 1 do not – I do not – the American people put Bill Clinton into the White House. This nomination is a result of that. I’m not going to stand in the way of it because I differ philosophically with this nominee. ”
My vote for Ms. Kagan does not mean that I am pro-choice, or that I do not respect the constitutional right to bear arms. I am strongly pro-life, and I believe that the Second Amendment is one of our most central freedoms, and the legislation I have supported reflects these values. I voted for her because I believe that the last election had consequences and that this president chose someone who is qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this Court, whose views are in the mainstream of liberal philosophy, and who understands the difference between being a judge and a politician.
We must protect the independence of the judiciary by making sure that hard-fought elections have meaning in terms of their results within our Constitution. I can assure you we will fight to ensure the same when a Republican is elected President and selects a Supreme Court nominee.
Does adhering to the constitutional ideal for the confirmation of judges mean that the President gets a free pass on all nominees? Of course not, and I have voted against nominees put up by both President Obama and President Bush when I believed they were unqualified and did not understand the essential distinction between judicial review and advocacy. At the end of the day, Ms. Kagan is not someone I would have chosen, but I think under both the constitutional and historical standards of the Senate she should be confirmed.
Lindsey O. Graham United States Senator
AMEN, Rufus. Kagan has opened herself to review, by her arrogant dismissal of her complicity in getting this trainwreck forced upon us to begin with. She arrogantly and negligently sits in judgement in a matter that she was a proponent of, previously. That is ESTABLISHED– and not a “conspiracy theory”.