Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd...

[Henry Hawk]

Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY


Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her "judicial hero." Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan's praise of Barak is "disqualifying in and of itself." Bork said that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris." He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern."

During Kagan's confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Sen. Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using "reasonable foreign law arguments." Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution says our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."

Extreme Feminism

Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, Sept. 17. Kagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist to the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches.

Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged the "use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making ... to help actually decide cases," and opined that "international tribunals' rulings must be treated as law."

Kagan's hero is also a transnationalist. In his book "The Judge in a Democracy," he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their "enlightened democratic legal systems."

Kagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, she signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called "profoundly wrong."

That popular law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan's argument, proving what an extremist she is.

Kagan showed her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same act was passed by Congress, signed by President Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Feldman has published a New York Times magazine article in which he worries about how the high court will rule on lawsuits over ObamaCare, Obama's corporate takeovers and the stimulus spending cronyism. Feldman hopes Kagan's appointment means "the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought" to seize the courts .

The left is counting on Kagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama's transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Kagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the "living Constitution."

A Rasmussen poll reports 42% of Americans oppose Kagan's confirmation, and only 35% favor her. Are senators listening?

[The Troll]

Constitution Is Endangered If Hagan OK'd By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth." Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Hagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution. When Hagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court. The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs." Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt? Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Hagan called him her "judicial hero." Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan's praise of Barak is "disqualifying in and of itself." Bork said that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris." He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern." During Kagan's confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Sen. Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using "reasonable foreign law arguments." Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution says our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." Extreme Feminism Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, Sept. 17. Hagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist to the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches. Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged the "use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making ... to help actually decide cases," and opined that "international tribunals' rulings must be treated as law." Kagan's hero is also a transnationalist. In his book "The Judge in a Democracy," he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their "enlightened democratic legal systems." Hagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, she signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called "profoundly wrong." That popular law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan's argument, proving what an extremist she is. Hagan showed her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same act was passed by Congress, signed by President Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court. Feldman has published a New York Times magazine article in which he worries about how the high court will rule on lawsuits over ObamaCare, Obama's corporate takeovers and the stimulus spending cronyism. Feldman hopes Kagan's appointment means "the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought" to seize the courts . The left is counting on Hagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama's transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Hagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the "living Constitution." A Rasmussen poll reports 42% of Americans oppose Kagan's confirmation, and only 35% favor her. Are senators listening?

       You want to quote Phyllis Schlafly,  pinched nosed, pursed lips,  old church lady who for years spend all of her time trying to take women's right to own their own bodies.  Trying to get the government and The Supreme Court to  make abortion illegal.  Who's own uterus had went bye bye or dried up.  Minding someone Else's business and lyhing, that's her business. 

  Constitution endangered with Hagan, hell no.  The constitution was put in danger with Robert's.  Who pushed the giving to corporations the same rights as a human being.

  Oh, she has never been a judge, Oh how terrible.  William Rehnquist who was nominated by Nixon for justice and Reagan for Chief Justice was never a judge.  How in hell did that get by the Republicans.

  Red Neck Jess Sessions and Lindsay Graham, who should come out of the closet, giving her hell for not letting the military recruiters on the campus of Harvard.  Is bull shit, smoke and mirrors.  Every day these Republican "inquisitors" look more and more just stupid.  Is there no end to the Republican shit. 

   

[Sandy Eggo]

Oh, this is great! I thought this was going to be another of of those irrational-fear-created-by- fact-challenged-right-wing-propaganda-being-meted-out-by-Henry threads.

Just call me The Amazing Kreskin

[Henry Hawk]

Oh, this is great! I thought this was going to be another of of those irrational-fear-created-by- fact-challenged-right-wing-propaganda-being-meted-out-by-Henry threads.

Just call me The Amazing Kreskin

Hey Kreskin, guess what I am thinkin NOW?

[Sandy Eggo]

That your post has some merit because you "agree with a lot of what she says" and that I'm being short-sighted or biased b/c I pointed out that it's crap.

SSDD

[kimmi]

That your post has some merit because you "agree with a lot of what she says" and that I'm being short-sighted or biased b/c I pointed out that it's crap.

SSDD

  AMAZING!! Do it again!

[Sandy Eggo]

LoL!

[LOsborne]

Henry is quoting Phyllis Schlafly? Holy shit. I must now reconsider my opinion of Henry's powers of discernment.

Tell me, Hank, how do you lend any credibility to a women who made a CAREER out of demonizing women who have careers?

[followsthewolf]

I have to agree.

I'm very disappointed.

[The Troll]

I have to agree.

I'm very disappointed.

  Let's face it FTW, the kid is brain dead.       

[Henry Hawk]

First of all, I can careless if Schlafly is respected by you guys or not....she made a few very interesting observations that brought attention to me, that has REAL concern about ANYONE who may potentially become our next SCOTUS.

She point out that Kagan's personal hero is this Isreali activist judge AharonBarak...

She commented that Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."......and that...a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself.....I find this attituted quite disturbing....also she believes that ... integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws....THAT is a load of crap in my opinion....The U.S. Constitution states that our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.".....

Now if anyone here has NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws....then we truly are sinking quickly as a nation....I hope and pray that this woman does NOT get confirmed.....I hope and pray that IF democrats simply try to pass her on, that at least the republicans has the courage to fillibust her..........

I really wish that you guys would quit merely accepting everything that this POTUS does as something good, just because he is a great speaker, or just because he is a democrat, and take ONE thing serious, and examine WHAT is being done....the Healthcare Bill is a joke...and this nominee reflects more of this man's logic and inability to lead this country....

Keep on hammering away at me, I am NEVER going to back down from what I know is RIGHT and WRONG for this country....ya'll are stuck with me!! 

[Sandy Eggo]

When you're hot, you're hot!

And damn! I'm on fire!

Predictions .25ç @ the sandbar

[The Troll]

First of all, I can careless if Schlafly is respected by you guys or not....she made a few very interesting observations that brought attention to me, that has REAL concern about ANYONE who may potentially become our next SCOTUS. She point out that Kagan's personal hero is this Isreali activist judge AharonBarak... She commented that Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."......and that...a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself.....I find this attituted quite disturbing....also she believes that ... integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws....THAT is a load of crap in my opinion....The U.S. Constitution states that our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."..... Now if anyone here has NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws....then we truly are sinking quickly as a nation....I hope and pray that this woman does NOT get confirmed.....I hope and pray that IF democrats simply try to pass her on, that at least the republicans has the courage to fillibust her.......... I really wish that you guys would quit merely accepting everything that this POTUS does as something good, just because he is a great speaker, or just because he is a democrat, and take ONE thing serious, and examine WHAT is being done....the Healthcare Bill is a joke...and this nominee reflects more of this man's logic and inability to lead this country.... Keep on hammering away at me, I am NEVER going to back down from what I know is RIGHT and WRONG for this country....ya'll are stuck with me!!

  No George W. , sorry I mean Henry,  your never wrong like you idol George W. was never wrong.

  Talk about your activist Judges.  How about Roberts and his cronies in the Supreme Court, giving the corporations cartblanch in spending money in the elections and taking away your property and selling to private companies so they can make more money it taxes.  Yeah, we want more Roberts to screw the common man to death.  The bastard.

[Henry Hawk]

So, you guys have NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws?

[Bo D]

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."[/i]

She lied. And even worse, she picked unrelated comments and put them together to mean something totally different than what was actually said.

A transcript of what Obama ACTUALLY SAID!

"OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, 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 vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, 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 it 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 it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021