|This week the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee begins deliberation to confirm Elena Kagan as the 121th U.S. Supreme Court Justice. This particular confirmation hearing will not be an easy one for Elena Kagan due to past comments made by her. Her background will also prove to be troubling for her in the confirmation process, especially since she served as an advisor to President Clinton. The feeling among many Democratic senators is Elena Kagan is a "shoe in". However, as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) so aptly stated, "This is a confirmation not a coronation". |
As it stands right now the U.S. Supreme Court is the third and currently last branch of the Federal Government dominated by conservatives. Most of the conservative Justices are Constitutional Constructionists. Constitutional Constructionists interpret court rulings based off of a literal translation of our Constitution. This is exactly what the founding fathers determined for the U.S. Supreme Court to do. As Justice Clarence Thomas stated during his confirmation hearing, "my client is the Constitution". Whereas Justice Thurgood Marshall, who Elena Kagan clerked for, stated the Constitution given to us by the Framers was "defective". The U.S. Supreme Court currently provides the only balance in our Federal Government right now. On average a Justice remains on the bench 35 to 40 years. This confirmation, just as all are, is highly critical.
Elena Kagan is a political activist. Her background clearly portrays this. If confirmed, Elena Kagan will have to excuse herself from 11 of the next 24 cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court during the next session. There are several reported incidents of her activism. While serving as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan restricted access for military recruiters to the law school campus. This was in violation of the Solomon Amendment which requires any school receiving federal funding to welcome and assist military recruiters. Kagan's justification was that she "abhorred" the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. She stated, "This is a profound wrong – a moral injustice of the first order". Yet Kagan financially supports pro-abortion, anti-life organizations and supports tax payer funded abortion.
Another troubling aspect of Kagan's views is her support of the government banning free speech rights of organizations and corporations in an election year. In 1996, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was quoted, "Campaign finance laws . . . easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices, insulating current officeholders from challenge and criticism". This thinking falls in direct line with the "Disclose Act" which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week. This bill passed the House mostly along party lines during this contentious election year in hopes by Democrats to stop corporate funded political ads aimed at them.
Another troubling view that Kagan holds is applying international law precedent to our courts. While serving as Dean of Harvard Law School Kagan stopped a course on the U.S. Constitution and replaced it with a course on international law. Her judicial hero is Aharon Barak, a former Israeli justice who stated that a judge "may give a statute a new meaning…the statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning that suits new social needs".
Friends, if you truly value our freedom, I strongly encourage you to call, e-mail, write or fax your two U.S. Senators and tell them to strongly oppose Elena Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.