Gateway Pundit reports this –
Kagan told fellow protesters at the rally:
“I’m very opposed to two government policies that directly violate our policy of nondiscrimination and directly impact our students,” stated Dean Kagan at the rally. “The first is ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’…. The second is the Solomon Amendment which effectively forces educational institutions to make exceptions to their nondiscrimination policy when it comes to the military and military recruitment.”
My Comment: Kagan’s very biased and disturbing position on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell during her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law should be brought out during her Senate Confirmation hearing. Some may say that this is not important enough to fight about >>> oh yes it is! Kagan could very well be the deciding vote on several issues that are crucial to traditional family oriented citizens. I am one of them. I care about the direction this country is going at break neck speed. I don’t have to apologize for my opinions so I won’t! I don’t think that Kagan should be confirmed because of her radical, out of the mainstream attitude toward our way of life in America. After all she has stated that Socialism is just fine with her and she wants to see it brought forward in America.
Gary Bauer had this to say about Kagan’s nomination
Kagan To The Court
President Obama today nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The conventional wisdom in Washington is that Kagan was the “safe pick,” having already been through the Senate’s confirmation process. In his remarks today, President Obama urged a quick vote for Kagan, specifically citing her previous confirmation as Solicitor General.
But while the nominee may be the same, the job is different and conservative senators should treat this confirmation process differently. Even the liberal media gets it. Consider this quote from the Associated Press: “Supreme Court justices wield enormous power over the daily life of Americans. Any one of them can cast the deciding vote on matters of life and death, individual freedoms and government power. Presidents serve four-year terms; justices have tenure for life.”
One of Kagan’s “advantages” is that she is a stealth nominee with no judicial experience – the first nominee in nearly 40 years who has not been a judge. Having been Solicitor General for less than two years, Kagan has a very thin public record for senators to scrutinize. That said, what we do know about Kagan clearly suggests she is a committed liberal activist.
For example, during her tenure as dean of Harvard’s law school, Kagan banned military recruiters from the campus in opposition to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on open homosexuality in the military. As Ed Whelan wrote at National Review Online, “Kagan elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security.”
Whether Obama wants to admit it or not, America is going to be at war against radical Islamic terrorists for a long time. Yet in the middle of this war, the president has nominated someone to the Supreme Court who didn’t want to let military recruiters speak to students.
Would a “Justice Kagan” allow military interrogators to speak to captured terrorists? Or would she require that they have access to ACLU lawyers first? And what other forms of communication would she prohibit?
On a related issue, senators should question the solicitor general (the government’s top lawyer, charged with defending federal laws in court) about a 2009 Department of Justice brief which stated, “The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed.”
Did Solicitor General Kagan approve that brief? Would a “Justice Kagan” elevate her own ideological commitment above that of the voters who have approved marriage protection amendments in more than 30 states?
The individual mandate in ObamaCare is guaranteed to come before the high court soon. Kagan’s senior thesis at Princeton might provide some clues as to how a “Justice Kagan” might rule. Entitled, “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900–1933,” Kagan seems to lament the failure of the socialist movement to thrive in America.
She wrote that the failure of socialism to take root here as it did in Europe is “a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. …In unity lies their only hope.” Would a “Justice Kagan” seek to fundamentally change America by upholding socialized medicine and ObamaCare’s individual mandate that dictates how every American must spend their hard-earned money?
And, given the recent outrageous ruling against the National Day of Prayer, senators should ask Elena Kagan if she thinks senior citizens have a right to pray before they eat and where she might draw the line on religious liberty.
posted by rightthingtodo May 12, 2010