Kagan slammed own memo during 1st Senate hearing
Obama pick calls her (own) writing 'dumbest thing I ever read'
NEW YORK – Government funds must not be granted to any religious
organizations seeking to prevent teen pregnancies, since such groups
may "inject" religious teaching," argued Elena Kagan, President Obama's
pick for the Supreme Court.
However, when questioned during Senate hearings
earlier this year about her argument – made in a 1987 legal brief –
Kagan reversed course and called her own memo "the dumbest thing I ever
read."
Are you leery of what Kagan stands for? Here's the documentation on all
the president's men – and women!
"It would be difficult for any religious organization to participate in
such projects without injecting some kind of religious teaching," wrote
Kagan in the brief.
She continued: "The government is of course right that religious
organizations are different and that these differences are sometimes
relevant for the purposes of government funding. ... But when the
government funding is to be used for projects so close to the central
concerns of religion, all religious organizations should be off limits."
Kagan authored the memo while clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall.
The case was filed in response to a Supreme Court decision that
reversed a lower court ruling allowing religious groups that help
prevent teen pregnancies to receive government funds through the
Adolescent Family Life Act.
The case centered on a religiously affiliated group that provided
pregnancy testing, adoption counseling, educational services and
childcare.
The Supreme Court had ruled the act did not require grantees be
affiliated with religious groups, "although the Act clearly does not
rule out grants to religious organizations."
Kagan, however, took issue with the Supreme Court to argue religious
groups should never receive government funds under the act.
Her memo could have been a surefire point of controversy for her
nomination to the Supreme Court.
However, asked about her memo in February 2009 Senate confirmation
hearings for her nomination as solicitor general, she called her 1987
argument "the dumbest thing I ever read."
Continued Kagan in Senate testimony reviewed by WND: "I indeed believe
that my 22-year old analysis, written for Justice Marshall, was deeply
mistaken. It seems now utterly wrong to me to say that religious
organizations generally should be precluded from receiving funds for
providing the kinds of services contemplated by the Adolescent Family
Life Act."
As the dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan opened her arms to big law firms hoping to recruit the newest crop of Ivy League lawyers searching for six-figure salaries. Harvard’s status as one of America’s best law schools made it a natural place to find top talent.
But for recruiters wearing military uniforms, Kagan had a
starkly different message: You’re not welcome here. Even though the
military’s
JAG Corps relies on law school graduates for its ranks, Kagan mounted
an unprecedented legal challenge to bar these recruiters from visiting
the Cambridge campus.
The White House has tried to shrug off Kagan’s legal warfare on
military recruiters as an insignificant blip during her Harvard tenure.
Vice President Joe Biden even distorted the truth to justify Kagan’s
position.
But the facts tell a different story. Biden tried to spin Kagan’s
position as consistent with the law. But it’s quite clear that Kagan
was determined to undermine the Pentagon’s plan to have military
recruiters on campus when, shortly after setting foot on campus, she
challenged the Solomon Amendment.
The issue has surfaced as one of the most significant events in
Kagan’s career. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member on the
Judiciary Committee, spoke
at
length
about
it
Monday, saying Kagan is “scarred by her
open mistreatment of the military and her disregard for a very clear
law.”
He promised to make it an issue during Kagan’s confirmation hearings in
late June. At issue is what Kagan did, and when, upon assuming the
deanship at Harvard Law.
On May 11, Biden argued Kagan simply followed legal decisions and the actions of her predecessor. “Let me put this quickly in perspective,” the vice president said. “For 20 years before she came there, military recruiters were not allowed on the campus in the same way other recruiters were.”
Biden continued: “Then we passed the law called the Solomon Amendment, before she got there, saying that, no, no, you had to let military recruiters on. You couldn’t do that. So military recruiters were on. Then, in fact, what happened was the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional. She was then dean.> She went back to the previous 20-year practice at Harvard, 20+ years. Then the Supreme Court said, ‘Nope, Solomon Amendment saying they have to be allowed on campus is correct.’ She immediately reinstated them.”
In reality, Kagan inherited a policy from former Dean Robert Clark that gave military recruiters full, unfettered access to campus. Clark reversed Harvard’s long-standing policy opposing military recruiters on July 29, 2002, because the U.S. Air Force threatened the university’s federal funding two months earlier. Kagan took over as dean on July 1, 2003. Then on Jan. 12, 2004, in signing an amicus brief seeking to restrict military recruiters. Biden conveniently forgot to mention that.
Even more significant is that the amicus brief addressed a case in the 3rd Circuit unrelated to Harvard. But Kagan, determined to undo Harvard’s policy, still joined forces with the faculty to challenge the Solomon Amendment.
On Nov. 29, 2004, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a district court in New Jersey should issue a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. The appeals court didn’t address Kagan’s statutory argument and its decision didn’t even apply to Massachusetts (located in the 1st Circuit), but the very next day, Nov. 30, 2004, Kagan chose to reinstate Harvard’s ban on military recruiters.
Biden suggested otherwise, implying the 3rd Circuit had jurisdiction over Harvard. It did not. Biden also failed to mention that on Jan. 20, 2005, the 3rd Circuit refused to enforce its decision even for the New Jersey district in question, pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan didn’t care. She kept Harvard’s ban in place.
Less than a month later, on Feb. 18, 2005, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association announced it would help students “investigate career opportunities” in the military. Kagan began to gradually shift her position. But even then, as the Veterans Association warned it couldn’t provide assistance on par with the career services office, Kagan played tough with the recruiters.
In fact, it wasn’t
until the Sept. 20, 2005 — after the Pentagon threatened to halt the
school’s federal funding if it continued to defy the law — that Kagan
finally backed down. That wasn’t the last thing she had to
say, however. The following day, on Sept. 21, 2005, with the case now
before the Supreme Court, Kagan
again filed an amicus brief with 39 colleagues from Harvard
Law.
The Supreme Court soundly
rejected her argument, ruling 8-0 on March 6, 2006, to uphold
the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment.
“Ms. Kagan’s conduct may have been applauded by some in the progressive circles of academia, but the American people I think will be uneasy about it,” Sessions said.
Biden’s defense of Kagan also troubles Sessions. “I think it’s time we get these facts straight,” Sessions said of Biden’s remarks. “It is a significant matter, a very significant matter, and it is a matter of significance such that whoever comments about it, whether it’s the Vice President of the United States even, they should be accurate.”
With so little else to examine — Kagan has no judicial record
and little experience as a lawyer — she needs to come clean on her
treatment of military recruiters.
Kagan's First Case as Solicitor General Was Suppressing
Pro-Life Free Speech
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- And old saying reminds people that if they forget history, they are condemned to repeat it. For a national pro-life group, an idea of where Elena Kagan will go on the Supreme Court is easily seen by taking a look at where she's been, and her first case she argued as Solicitor General worries Americans United for Life.
As the top lawyer for the Obama administration arguing cases before the high court, Kagan's first case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, had her arguing for campaign finance reform limits that suppressed the free speech rights of pro-life groups.
The case is the first Kagan argued, and lost, and it saw the Supreme Court go against Kagan's request and had it striking down a campaign finance reform provision that prohibited corporate independent expenditures for electioneering communication.
"In reality, the decision was a victory for the First Amendment," Americans United for Life says in a new memo provided to LifeNews.com.
"If the First Amendment right to freedom of speech means anything, surely it guarantees the right to speak about candidates for public office. Corporations may exercise their right to political speech," AUL says.
In
practice,
campaign
finance
reform
laws
have
negatively
impacted
non-profit
policy
groups
more dramatically than the vilified “big
corporation,' AUL notes.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6386.html
Support
Kagan Confirmation, Trouble Signs Seen in Past Stands
Kagan's Position on Marital Status Discrimination is Unacceptable
I didn't realize it but Kagan is Jewish. Now, I hate to sound
anti-semitic but jews stick together, it is not just a cliche. So
if you have been reading anything I have had to say you will know I
have been big time on the media and the banks for destroying this
country. Who owns the media and the banks?????
Having worked with Elena Kagan at the
Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political
moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the
Barack Obama White House. But no more.
Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank
Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review
Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against
Kagan's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for
Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.
Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and
European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in
which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of
Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of
the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable
institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for
transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only
invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.
Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and
which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance
Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include
radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked
entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe
investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the
ground that the contract could aid Israel.
Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah
Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by
2007 -- and likely more today.
At Harvard, Elena Kagan "proceeded to forge the law school's 'Islamic
Finance Project."" It's purpose, according to McCarthy, was "to promote
Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."
Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers -- now in the Obama
administration -- accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a
program of studies of Islam's history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no
objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a
billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin
Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin
Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard
Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study
of Shariah.
Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently
on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has
already noted that she welcomes "good ideas wherever they originate"
and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of
U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah
Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the
First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way
up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule
dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah
law from American jurisprudence.
For this reason -- if for no other -- senators should vote no
on her confirmation.
7-29-10 We
now know that Elena Kagan corrupted a scientific finding that was
presented before the Supreme Court. Her corruption caused the Supreme
Court to rely on faulty science and extend the brutal practice of
partial-birth abortion for many years.
Kagan's corruption of evidence exposes her as a far-left political
activist whom former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says is unfit for
the Supreme Court.
And we have the proof -- her HAND-WRITTEN memo! (Go here to see it):
http://www.grassfire.net/r.
Now, evidence is mounting that Kagan made matters worse by lying to the
Judiciary Committee about her role in manipulating
scientific evidence.
During the hearings, Kagan did everything in her power to
avoid taking responsibility for corrupting ACOG's scientific
conclusion.
When Sen. Hatch directly asked Kagan, "Did you write that
memo?", Kagan first tried to avoid the question. When
pressed, Kagan barely acknowledged that "the document is
certainly in my handwriting," yet never admitted to being
the author of the statement.
But then she proceeded with a verbal cover-up that now
leaves her exposed. Kagan said:
"There was no way in which I
would have or could have intervened with
ACOG... to get it to change its medical views on
the question."
This directly contradicts the fact that Kagan's own memo and
hand-written note prove that she did, in fact, "propose"
language that ACOG used... verbatim!
If senators would have the courage to consider the evidence,
they will quickly see all the elements of a full-fledged
"KaganGate" -- a conspiracy to manipulate scientific findings
combined with a cover-up under oath.
The only way Kagan will be held accountable is if grassroots
Americans rise up and demand that the fast-tracking of Elena
Kagan to the Supreme Court be stopped immediately.
Again, more than 20,000 letters from Grassfire Nation team
members have already been hand-delivered to the Senate.
Here's the timeline, detailed by former deputy assistant
attorney general Shannen Coffin in the National Review (see
link at the end of this message):
1. Kagan, while working for Clinton, received a draft of
ACOG's scientific finding that was being prepared for submission
to the federal courts in a key partial-birth abortion case.
2. ACOG's draft stated that ACOG "could identify no
circumstances under which [partial-birth abortion]. . .
would be the only option to save the life or preserve
the health of the woman."
3. Kagan noted in an internal memo that ACOG's finding "would
be a disaster" to Clinton's position to keep partial-birth
abortion legal.
4. So Kagan sent a memo to ACOG suggesting new language for
ACOG's scientific finding on partial-birth abortion.
Specifically, Kagan recommended ACOG say that partial-birth
abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in
a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve
the health of a woman." Kagan's note totally warped the
meaning of ACOG's original statement.
5. This statement -- hand-written on the memo by Kagan --
was included word-for-word in ACOG's final submission to
the courts. The courts then relied upon ACOG's supposed
science, with no knowledge that a Clinton political operative
named Elena Kagan had corrupted the entire
process.
6. Because Elena Kagan corrupted evidence before the
Supreme Court, the horrendous partial-birth abortion
procedure remained legal for years -- and our legal
process all the way up to the Supreme Court was tarnished.
7. And just this month, Kagan attempted to cover up her role
in the evidence tampering conspiracy during the Judiciary
Committee hearings.