Obama Nominates another “Mini-Maobama”

B-HO is nominating another “mini-maobama” for the Supreme Court.  If he wasn’t ABSOLUTELY sure that she was a dyed in the wool liberal, she would never be nominated.

As Mr. Meese points out, due to her alarming lack of experience and casework, the senate must be VERY thorough in vetting this nominee.  They must interpret the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as they wish it were written.


http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/10/morning-bell-former-attorney-general-ed-meese-on-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/

Morning Bell: Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Posted May 10th, 2010 at 9:37am in Rule of Law

According to multiple sources, at 10 am today President Barack Obama will announce his decision to name Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan, who served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. But this does not mean she is in any way a stranger to the Senate confirmation process. In fact, in 1995 she authored an article on judicial confirmations for the University of Chicago Law Review where she wrote:

The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. … [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.

On this point, we find agreement with Ms. Kagan. As we documented first with the Justice Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, and again with the University of California at Berkeley law school Associate Dean Goodwin Liu hearings, President Obama’s leftist legal nominees have been completely unwilling and unable to defend their liberal legal views from Senate questioning. Instead they have retreated or renounced their past writings in an all too familiar spectacle that Kagan has said: “takes on an air of vacuity and farce.” We sincerely hope that Kagan continues to reject this model and that the U.S. Senate fulfills its proper advice and consent role. Responding to the news of Kagan’s nomination, Former Attorney General Ed Meese released the following statement:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

The American people agree. According to a national post-election 2008 survey of 800 actual voters, the polling company, inc. found that 70% of respondents preferred that judges not base their decisions on personal views and feelings. And according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll by a 16 point margin more Americans believe the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution instead of considering changing times and current realities. And finally, the latest Gallup poll shows that more Americans “would prefer a new Supreme Court justice who makes the court more conservative (42%) over one who would make the Court more liberal (27%).” Let’s hope the Senate gives the American people what they want.



http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/10/Martin.kagan.Supreme.court/index.html?hpt=T1

Left is mute on racial double standard in Kagan pick

By Roland S. Martin, CNN Political Analyst//
// -1) {document.write(‘May 10, 2010 — Updated 1549 GMT (2349 HKT)’);} else {document.write(‘May 10, 2010 11:49 a.m. EDT’);}
// ]]>May 10, 2010 11:49 a.m. EDT

//

tzleft.roland.martin.cnn.jpg

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Roland Martin says that there’s a double standard in pick of Elena Kagan for Supreme Court
  • Of 29 posts Kagan filled at Harvard Law, 28 were whites, 1 was Asian-American, he says
  • He says left ignores troubling issues about diversity in pick to protect Democratic president
  • Martin: Feminist, civil rights groups should demand answers about Kagan’s diversity record
//

Editor’s note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith” and the new book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House.” He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a Sunday morning news show.

(CNN) — If a white Republican president of the United States appointed a white male as his next Supreme Court justice, and upon the inspection of his record, it was discovered that of the 29 full-time tenured or tenured track faculty he hired as dean of Harvard Law, nearly all of them were white men, this would dominate the headlines.

It would be reasonable to conclude that the special interest groups that vigorously fight for diversity — civil rights organizations, feminist groups and other liberal institutions — would be up in arms, declaring that this person’s records showed him unwilling to diversify academia, and unqualified to consider diverse views as one of nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. There would be widespread condemnations of Republicans having no concern for the nonwhite males in America.

But what if the choice were made by a black Democratic president, and it was a woman? A white woman? A white Democratic woman?

Some of you may not like the fact that I am focusing on the race of the individual, but when diversity is raised, the person’s skin color, gender and background are considered germane to the discussion. And if there is silence from black and female organizations, their race and gender matter as well.  (Diversity only seems to matter politically if the conservatives aren’t using enough of it to suit the left.)

We may very well witness this now that President Obama has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Guy-Uriel Charles, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics, has heavily scrutinized Kagan’s hiring record as head of Harvard Law School. In a scathing blog post, he has said that of the 29 positions Kagan had a chance to fill, 28 were white and one was Asian-American. And of the group, only six were women — five white and one Asian-American.

These numbers on the surface are appalling, and would be ripped to shreds by those who value diversity, but my gut tells me that even though Kagan has been tapped by Obama, the normally vocal and persistent voices in this area will be tight-lipped and quiet, unwilling to oppose or heavily criticize the nomination of a woman to the court, and especially one made by an African-American Democratic president.

If that does happen, Republicans will rightly cry foul, saying it represented a double standard — that the silence was a signal of partisan hacks more concerned about not offending the Obama administration, rather than the ideals they hold near and dear.

They don’t want to be seen as going against an ally, and they are more concerned about their access to the White House than the mission they have always valued.

Even before she was chosen, the White House was fighting back against the attacks on her record by Charles, which have been amplified by Salon.com.

According to the site, the White House has disseminated talking points stressing that the real issue is not those who took the jobs, but the offers Kagan made. In addition, they highlight the number of other African-Americans on the faculty, as well as the percentage of minority students during her tenure.

So basically, the White House wants everyone to believe that Kagan made offers, but nearly all of the minorities chose not to go to work for the most prestigious law school in America. (What does a bull do when his bowels are full?)

Folks, I wasn’t born yesterday.

The real issue will be reaction from the left. It is shameful and disgusting when civil rights organizations, feminist groups and others lose their conviction and sense of purpose when a Democrat gets in the White House. They need to decide what matters: their principles or their politics; their mission or their liberal money; their convictions or chicken dinners in the White House.

Some have already spoken up. The Black Women’s Roundtable of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation released a letter Sunday night questioning Kagan’s commitment to civil rights, as well as criticizing the Obama administration for its failure to seriously consider African-American female judges.

“As we continue to promote the legacy of our late founding leader and Co-Convener, Dr. Dorothy I. Height, we will always seek to highlight the concerns of Black women, our families and our communities. Thus, as Dr. Height stated in our previous meeting with your Administration, we believe it is time for African American women to be represented in all sectors of government — including the Supreme Court of the United States, which in its 221 year history has not had a Black woman nominated to serve on our highest court in the land,” the letter stated.

“Our trepidation regarding General Kagan is premised on the lack of a clearly identifiable record on the protection of our nation’s civil rights laws. As women leaders, we greatly respect General Kagan’s intellectual capabilities and highly accomplished record in the Administration and academia. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of a specific emphasis on the civil rights laws utilized in the protection of racial and ethnic minorities and those traditionally disenfranchised in this nation.”

Credibility and consistency are vital for any organization. And if the leaders of civil rights and feminist organizations do not demand strong and clear answers from the White House about Kagan and her diversity track record as dean of Harvard Law School, they are failing the people they say they represent.

Demanding accountability about diversity isn’t a one-way street meant only for Republicans. Democrats should never get a pass either. (Well said, Sir.)


Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: