Archive for the ‘ Law ’ Category

US Supreme Court refuses to hear argument against Kagan

English: Justice Elena Kagan in the Justices' ...

In his year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted.  They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Unfortunately, I suspect he is wrong.  I believe Justice Kagan is a plant.  She was placed on the court for the sole purpose of ruling on this case.  If I am correct, it would necessitate that she is not, as the Chief Justice wrote, “of exceptional integrity.”

I received this email today from Grassfire Nation and I’m posting it here.  It supplements and updates my essay on Elena Kagan from last November.

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on 
whether Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the
ObamaCare lawsuit.

This was no surprise. The Supreme Court is the most isolated 
and powerful branch of government. Despite the overwhelming 
evidence indicating that Kagan should recuse herself, the
Court has refused to take any action.

Let’s review the facts…

The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) has carefully documented 
Kagan’s work on behalf of ObamaCare while she served as 
Obama’s Solicitor General.

Continue reading

Where is the outrage? Elena Kagan, Justice on a Mission

Justice Kagan was a member of the Obama administration and it is now apparent she was actively involved in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare.  Traditionally, Justices recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal investment or are otherwise connected.  In fact, Kagan appears defiant to any notion of backing away from this case.

I can only imagine the left’s reaction had G.W. Bush appointed a Justice who’d cheered and pushed along the USA Patriot Act and then later ruled on the very law’s constitutionality.  There would be recall petitions, screams for assassination on MSNBC, (I’m not joking), and protests on the steps of the Court.

In this instance, the press is quietly approving.

Background

In 2010, Obama nominated Elana Kagan.  She, like Miers in 2005, had no prior judicial experience but she was an administration insider.  Her lack of judicial experience was vigorously defended, as opposed to Miers who was blasted for it..  Bloggers and journalist hit the history books (likely the first time since college) to trudge up examples of previous Supreme Court Justices who were confirmed without prior experience*.  FYI, Kagan was the first Justice confirmed without previous judicial experience in 38 years, the last being Justice William Rehnquist** in 1972.

As all liberal women are, Kagan was held as some sort of intellectual powerhouse, as opposed to Miers who was touted as an idiot, (all conservative women and minorities are labelled thus.)  Kagan’s prior experience as the Dean of an Ivy League Law School was somehow grand résumé material.

When A Plan Comes Together

At the time of her nomination, (May 10, 2010), Democrats held a super-majority in the Senate and solidly controlled the House.  The administration and their allies in Congress were actively pressing hard for what turned out to be a seriously over-reaching agenda.  In March, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law and by many states were lining up to challenge the law.  Everyone knew a Supreme Court challenge was coming.

The nomination of Elana Kagan was no accident.  Nothing Obama does is an accident.  Every move is politically and ideologically motivated.  The Administration knew a legal challenge to Obamacare was coming, they knew Democrats would lose the House in November, and they needed insurance.  Kagan was that insurance policy.

Kagan now holds a position on, what for liberals represents, the most powerful legislative body in America.  When Congress can’t get something done liberals always have the courts.  But I digress.

I find it hilarious that liberals are calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself while insisting Kagan has no conflict since her “role was insignificant” in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Justice Thomas has no connection to the issue and it is a stretch to imply his judgement would be influenced because his wife works with people who oppose the law.

Using liberal logic, Kagan has friends who support Obamacare, there is solid evidence she supports Obamacare, she worked in the Administration as they were pushing the legislation, there is no way she should be allowed to weigh in on this case.  That is if the Court answered to anyone.  It is a shame that there are not clear laws defining what a conflict of interest is and when a jurist should by necessity recuse themselves or be forcibly recused.  But that’s not how it works.

In fact the entire reason Kagan is on the court is to hear this case.  Her qualifications are inconsequential, she was nominated specifically to defend the Administration’s ideology.  National Healthcare has been a socialist goal since the Wilson Administration and the costs be damned.

Unfortunately, I believe this single law could ultimately be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.  If allowed to continue, Obamacare will, in the end, cost 10 times the original estimates and coupled with other out-of-control entitlements will drive the nation into bankruptcy.

15 Trillion now and growing.  I predict sometime between 18-21 Trillion the nation will follow the Greek tradition.  Only question, who bails us out? Continue reading

NAACP Declared Irrelevant

On Tuesday, July 13, 2010, leaders of the country’s largest civil rights organization accused tea party activists of tolerating bigotry and approved a resolution condemning racism within the political movement.

If the NAACP can muster the backbone to condemn “racism within the political movement”, will they also condemn the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division for refusing to pursue black defendants?

In the case of the Tea Party, there was no federal investigation into the allegations of racism but it did little to stop the NAACP from condemning the Tea Party.

In the case of the Civil Rights Division, however, evidence against the division was advanced by an ex-Justice official who raised “grave questions” about whether the division is “color blind” in its enforcement of the law.

“This testimony raised serious concerns as to whether the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement policies are being pursued in a race-neutral fashion and further calls into question the department’s decision to change course in the New Black Panther Party litigation,” Chairman Gerald Reynolds wrote.

The probe stems from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the New Black Panther Party were videotaped in front of a polling place dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.

Former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams testified last week before the commission that his former employer not only abandoned the Black Panther voter intimidation case for racial reasons, but had instructed attorneys in the division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.

With the evidence at hand, unless the NAACP holds true to its principles and condemns Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division, then the NAACP can be declared irrelevant.

%d bloggers like this: