http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152209Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council Action organization has summarized the concern over President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"She has the least amount of experience of any nominee in the last three decades. Her judicial experience is zero, as is her real-world experience, having spent most of her career in academia or working as a Democratic Party insider," he wrote.
"Her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School is marked by kicking the military off campus during the height of the Iraq War, a move that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled was wrong-headed," he continued. "In her brief tenure as solicitor general, she argued that the federal government has the power, under campaign finance laws, to ban certain books and pamphlets."
She also served, he noted, on an advisory committee for Goldman Sachs during the financial meltdown of 2007.
Obama today nominated his "friend," Kagan, to that position.
(Story continues below)
A wide range of interests across the country were shocked because of her lack of experience, her dedication to partisan Democrat causes, her hostility to the U.S. military, her approval of censorship, her support for homosexual "marriage," her abortion advocacy, and even her kid-gloves handling of Harvard faculty caught in plagiarism.
Perkins raised several of the issues.
"Kagan has called for the Senate to use the Supreme Court confirmation hearings 'to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues,' and that a nominee's views on issues are fair game to be discussed. She should be evaluated by the U.S. Senate with the very standards she set for this process," he said.
"Any justice nominated to the Supreme Court should apply the Constitution faithfully and according to the intent of the founders who drafted it. As Thomas Jefferson said, the judiciary becomes a 'despotic branch' if judges decide for themselves what is and is not constitutional,” said Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb, of the Alliance Defense Fund.
"When judges begin to legislate, then the law can be distorted to fabricate rights that don't exist, such as a 'right' to same-sex 'marriage,' for example. We have no constitution at all if it is merely a document we can interpret as we please and modify in ways other than the Constitution itself prescribes," he said.
ADF CEO Alan Sears said, "Thomas Jefferson noted in 1804 that 'the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and the executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.'"
Richard Pearcey of the Pearcey report explained that the issue should be whether Kagan is in the "enduring definitional mainstream of American thought and practice."
"Does she affirm the Constitution and the Declaration, both as written and not as merely 'living' documents that can be essentially rewritten by creatures of the federal government as they see fit and as opinion polls or gun barrels seem to allow?" he wrote. "And does she affirm, along with the Founders, the centrality of the Declaration's Creator who is the basis of unalienable rights and the giver of the 'blessings of liberty'?"
He continued, "And does she affirm the federal government as a limited enterprise authorized by 'We the People' under God and limited in its authority to the precise wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?"
"If she does not, then she is an individual outside of the American mainstream," he said.
The American Family Association simply put it in terms of national security, opposing her because of her hatred of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Kagan had tossed military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus because of the military's "discrimination" against homosexuals because they were not allowed to openly portray their chosen lifestyle in the ranks.
While she said the policy "causes me deep distress," the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that it was correct.
"Kagan has already tipped her hand on one of the most important issues that is likely to come before the Supreme Court. Overturning 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will have a devastating impact on military morale, recruitment and retention. Plus, there will be no possibility of promotions for officers and chaplains who defend natural marriage as a matter of conscience," said AFA President Tim Wildmon.
"Any officer with deeply held views about the immorality of homosexual behavior would have no future in Elena Kagan's military. Our national security is far too important to become a plaything in the hands of judicial activists like Ms. Kagan would certainly be. Her nomination ought to be rejected on these grounds alone."
The AFA sent out an alert to its 2.4-million member network urging them to contact their senators and insist that they investigate Kagan's impartiality on matters pertaining to the homosexual agenda.
At the Center for Military Preparedness, President Elaine Donnelly said, "It is unfortunate that President Barack Obama has chosen to replace the only military veteran on the Supreme Court with extensive wartime experience with a nominee whose only significant record indicates deliberate hostility and opposition to laws protecting the culture and best interests of the American military.
"Senators considering this nomination should question Elena Kagan's flawed logic and anti-military attitude that she expressed by signing an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment in Rumsfeld v. Fair. It is significant that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that legislation, which protects equal access for military recruiters on college campuses, with a unanimous (8-0) vote. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not agree with Kagan’s anti-military views.
"In addition, Elena Kagan's record as solicitor general should be considered a serious problem. In her current capacity, Kagan failed to appeal the unjustified and problematic procedural ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service," she wrote.
At Jewish World Review another issue was raised.
"Kagan does have an identifiable, though overlooked, track record on one matter and it's a telling one. As dean of Harvard Law School in 2004 and 2005 she treated two liberal law professors with kid gloves when they were busted for plagiarism. Her chicanery was so blatant that even a leftist academic said she should be fired for her 'whitewash." the Review said.
"Kagan's essential absolution of both professors has been virtually unnoticed in the flood of stories about her possible Supreme Court nomination this year and in 2009 when she was considered a top candidate to replace liberal Justice David Souter. "
The report documented the cases of professors Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree, who "both were caught swiping the words of others."
"She let the professors off easy for the kind of offense that for which any Harvard undergraduate or law school would have been suspended if not expelled," the Review said.
According to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, it is Kagan's dedicated support for abortion that is the problem.
"Obama has nominated a hard core abortion advocate to replace Stevens on the SCOTUS. That is why we need to act NOW!" the organization said.
The Christian ministry Pray In Jesus Name.org already had announced a petition to generate opposition to Kagan.
The petition effort noted Kagan's bold criticism as dean of Harvard Law of federal policy and her objections to the "don't ask, don't tell" process that included throwing military recruiters off campus.
Also, she argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act, contending the law should be overturned.
"Needless to say, Kagan is a bomb-thrower, who would rule as a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-Christian activist, and she must be filibustered if nominated," wrote the organization, which is sending senators petitions opposing Kagan.
She has been identified by LifeNews.com as an ardent pro-abortion advocate.
Sen. John Cornyn, a pro-life Texas Republican, said the nation "deserves a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to deciding cases impartially based on the law, not on personal politics, preferences, or what's in the nominee's 'heart.'"
According to LifeNews.com, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America has raised concern that Kagan "treated pro-life activists like violent criminals, creating a task force in the Department of Justice and a grand jury to investigate peaceful pro-lifers. This raises serious concerns that she shares the hostile view that religious beliefs are a form of 'hate.'"
At Move America Forward, spokesman Danny Gonzalez said military families and their supporters are unhappy with the choice.
"Kagan was the last person from Obama's short list that military personnel and their families want to see appointed to the Supreme Court. Not only has Kagan never even been a judge, she as a record of being radically anti-military," he wrote.
"President Obama should be appointing to the Supreme Court only those who truly appreciate the heroism and contribution to our freedom we get from the United States military. Kagan fails that test, and we hope she will be summarily rejected in confirmation by the United States Senate,” said Gonzalez
The American Center for Law and Justice, which focuses on constitutional law, said Kagan's judicial philosophy needs to be examined in the Senate.
Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ's chief counsel, said, "The fact that Elena Kagan has no previous judicial experience underscores the importance of closely examining her judicial philosophy – will she abide by the Constitution, or will she take an activist view? With the Senate's constitutional role of providing 'advice and consent' regarding nominees, we call on the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide full and thorough hearings and ask the tough questions about Kagan's past and how she views the role of Justices, the Constitution, and the rule of law. While no nominee should express legal opinions concerning specific issues, the American people deserve to know whether this nominee – which could serve for many decades – embraces the philosophy of judicial activism."
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, called the selection of Kagan "irresponsible."
"Kagan is a liberal activist and political operative with no experience as judge. A Supreme Court nominee ought to have significant practical experience as a lawyer or a judge – especially a nominee for the nation's highest court. Her decision to throw the military recruiters off of the campus of Harvard Law School during a time of war shows she is far to the left of mainstream America. The fact that she continued to work in the Clinton White House after it became clear that President Clinton lied under oath raises questions about her ethical judgment. And her record, as spotty as it is, shows that Ms. Kagan is a committed liberal judicial activist," he said.
Added Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the House Republican leader, "Given her lack of judicial experience, or time spent as a practicing lawyer, other aspects of her record must be thoroughly examined, including her troubling decision to ban united States Armed Forces recruiters from Harvard Law School."
Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, called for tough questions.
"Judges should interpret, not make the law. The Senate should press hard to question Elena Kagan on her judicial philosophy. The public deserves to know whether Kagan will use her transnational law philosophy as a lens through which she views the Constitution. And the public needs to know whether her personal views will trump the Constitution, as they appeared to do when she banned military recruiters from campus," he said.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, warned that Kagan clearly will be using her position "to push her personal and political agenda."
"The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution as it was written, but instead its recent activism has amended it as the justices would like to rewrite it. Nearly all of the social conflict in this country stems from the court's extra-constitutional interference with the voice of the people. The very last people in America who should be amending the Constitution are the Supreme Court justices."
He said the selection reflects Obama's willingness "to sacrifice experience and judicial impartiality for political activism."
"The Senate needs to ask Kagan – if she thought it was OK to try and set military policy as the dean at Harvard Law School, does she think it is also appropriate for her to set policy of how our military should conduct itself if she is a member of the Supreme Court?" suggested Dennis Whitfield, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union.
Topic: Alarm bells sounding over Kagan's agenda (Read 1049 times)