Sign the Petition on Leah Lax's website www.Leahlax.com Make history in throwing out the first fake and worst President this country ever had, Donate to remove Obama and clean this country up. Republicans give you Pie in the Sky promises and you end up with nothing but Words. Just Words
Sen. Sessions: 'Deeply Disturbed' Over Kagan's Role in Obamacare
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2011 01:20 PM
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions is leading the charge saying that newly released emails seem to show that Kagan was heavily involved in policy discussions on how to make sure Obamacare passed through Congress.
Now Sessions is putting pressure on embattled Attorney General Eric Holder – who, at the time was Kagan’s boss – to come clean on what she knew and when she knew it.
Sessions, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Holder he is “deeply disturbed,” that the emails were not released at Kagan’s confirmation hearings in June last year.
Kagan is responsible for making the decision whether she should recuse herself from the case when the Supreme Court hears challenges to President Barack Obama’s signature law next spring. A decision on the constitutionality of the law is expected by late June or July, just in time for the two political parties’ National Conventions.
She has to decide whether her role as Obama’s Solicitor General at the time the law was drawn up and passed could be seen as an unacceptable conflict of interest. The law says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
It goes on to say they should also quit a case “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
Sessions, who was attorney general of Alabama before he took his seat in the Senate in 1997, fired off a letter to Holder on Tuesday, demanding written testimony on why the emails were not presented before.
“I am deeply disturbed by these developments and believe that the Justice Department should have provided these documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Justice Kagan’s confirmation hearing,” he wrote.
“The Department’s failure to provide this information to Congress … as well as your apparent inattention to these matters, is unacceptable.”
In the emails, Kagan expresses her delight that the act was passing through Congress and is kept up to date with its progress.
In perhaps the most damaging email chain from January 2010, two weeks before Obamacare was passed by the Senate, Brian Hauck, the senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Tom Perelli wrote to Kagan’s deputy Neal Katyal, saying that Perelli wanted “to put together a group to get thinking about how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.”
Katyal immediately replied, “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak to Elena and designate someone,” and forwarded Hauck’s email to Kagan with a note saying, “I am happy to do this if you are ok with it.”
Within minutes Kagan responded, “You should do it.” And Katyal, who went on to become acting solicitor general after Kagan was elevated to the Supreme Court, emailed Hauck saying, “Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG (Office of the Solicitor General) to be involved in this set of issues.”
He told Hauck “I will handle this myself,” along with an assistant “and will bring in Elena as needed.”
Kagan has said that she first became aware that she was being considered as a potential Supreme Court justice on March 5, 2010. Seventeen days later the House of Representatives passed Obamacare and she sent an email to Justice Department adviser Laurence Tribe saying, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
Holder told the Senate Justice oversight committee that he recalled instances in which staff members would “physically, literally move” Kagan out of the room when Obamacare was being discussed. During her confirmation hearings she said her involvement in the matter was limited to one meeting where the matter came up briefly.
Another conservative who thinks Kagan has a conflict of interest in the case is Newt Gingrich , who told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that she should step down from the case.
“It is unconscionable that a person who actually advised in the writing of Obamacare will now sit in judgment on what they help write," the presidential candidate said. “I think clearly Kagan should recuse herself. It’s clearly a conflict of interest, and I think a very bad judicial setting for her to now be rendering judgment on the bill she helped write.”
As to how the high court will rule in the case, Gingrich says: “You never quite know, but my hunch is that they are going to decide that it is unconstitutional to have a mandate” to buy health insurance.
If Kagan planned to recuse herself the court would normally have announced that she took no part in deliberations when it announced it would hear the case. On Monday the court docket showed that she had taken no part in several cases, but not the vital one “Florida et al vs. Department of Health and Human Services.”
The left has also called on conservative Justice Clarence Thomas to step down as his wife Virginia heads the lobbying group Liberty Central which has been at the forefront of challenges to Obamacare. He too has shown no sign that he will.
But the case against Thomas is not seen to be as strong as that against Kagan, who conservatives say helped craft the law’s defense.
Utah’s two Republican senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, have both questioned whether she should hear the case. And Louisiana GOP Rep. John Fleming said this week, “Before the Supreme Court case is heard, we need to know if Justice Elena Kagan helped the Obama administration prepare its defense for Obamacare when she was solicitor general.
“The Justice Department must answer serious questions about whether Justice Kagan has an inherent conflict of interest, which would demand that she recuse herself from the Obamacare case,” Fleming added.
But Russell Wheeler, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, told The Christian Post, “If she really thought her impartiality was compromised, she would step down.
“No justice wants to say that he or she didn’t have prior contact with the case only to be proven wrong in the near future. No Justice is going to try and pull a fast one, especially in today’s high tech society where the truth will eventually be found out.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Sen. Sessions: 'Deeply Disturbed' Over Kagan's Role in Obamacare
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Few fireworks erupted as the Senate opened up floor debate over Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan this week. Conventional wisdom remains that President Barack Obama’s second nomination to the high court will be confirmed with little trouble.
Despite the appearance of a fait accompli, numerous conservative groups have provided a wide range of reasons to oppose the Kagan nomination. Among the oft listed concerns are: her lack of experience, her perceived hostility to the military and free speech, her abortion and gay rights records, and her apparent reverence for foreign law. All these points have acted to obscure what some argue is one of her primary disqualifications — her sympathetic view of Sharia, or Islamic law.
Kagan’s detractors point to her time as the dean of Harvard Law School as the primary demonstration of her approval of Sharia. Andrew McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, wrote in an article on The National Review’s website that as Harvard Law School dean, Kagan “became the champion of sharia.”
Included in Kagan’s offensives as dean, according to McCarthy, was condoning the acceptance of $20 million from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal — who blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy — to fund programs on Islam. She also spearheaded the “Islamic Finance Project,” a program aimed at mainstreaming Sharia-compliant finance in America. And, as some point out, she awarded the Harvard Medal of Freedom to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who critics say is a promoter of Sharia.
Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, told The Daily Caller that Kagan would help advance Sharia law in America out of ignorance. “[Kagan] would knowingly and wittingly abet the advance of Sharia, but she wouldn’t do it understanding anything about Sharia. She would do it out of her ignorance.”
Spencer attributes Kagan’s fondness for Sharia to naïveté and liberalism. “There is a general tendency on the part of political liberals in the United States today to take a benign view of Islam and Islamic law,” he said. “They are generally uninformed and share a hatred of the West and Western civilization.”
According to Spencer, Kagan will be a willing accomplice in the ongoing stealth jihad — or the institution of Sharia into non-Muslim societies via non-violent means, such as the courts and mainstreaming Islamic customs — currently underway against the West. “The goal of the jihad is to assert the primacy of Islamic law over non-Muslim society and over Muslim societies where it is not fully enforced, and that can take place either through violent or non-violent means and the goal is the same,” he said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/05/critics-allege-elena-kagan-is-sympathetic-to-sharia-law/#ixzz1dvBrxO21
The US senate voted 63 to 37 in favour of Kagan's appointment. Photograph: Alex Brandon/AP
Please remember the Senate was mostly Democrats at the time she was voted in.
Elena Kagan More Favorable to Islam and Sharia Law Than U.S. Military
I know: since when did we expect liberals to be consistent?
Still, it strikes me as rather odd that President Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan would try to bar military recruiters and ROTC from the Harvard campus over the the fact that homosexual conduct is considered incompatible with military service, yet would welcome a center for Islamic studies (and $20 million) from Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz.
The astute observer of history and current events will note that Islam and Sharia Law is not only extremely harsh toward homosexuality (as it is harsh toward pretty much everything under the sun), as well as treats women like mongrel dogs.
From Fox News:On Wednesday, during a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted Harvard University accepted a $20 million gift from Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz in 2005 that was used to establish a center for Islamic Studies in his honor.
At around the same time the university was accepting the gift, Kagan, as dean of the Harvard Law School, was actively seeking to exclude military recruiters from the campus for banning gays from serving openly in the military.“Ms. Kagan was perfectly willing to obstruct the U.S. military – which has liberated countless Muslims from the hate and tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban,” Sessions said. “But it seems she sat on the sidelines as Harvard created an Islamic Studies Center funded by – and dedicated to – foreign leaders presiding over a legal system that violates what would appear to be her position.”
Perhaps $20 million speaks louder than her pro-homosexual principles.
Or perhaps it is simply more of that modern liberalism which, to be quite blunt, unfailingly embraces evil and shuns good. Modern liberalism always loathes America, American principles and values, American exceptionalism, and especially the U.S. military since it is the defense of all those values they despise.
We must remember, too, that liberals hold the doctrine of multiculturalism and the practice of appeasement in very high regard. In fact, appeasement of other cultures in preference over American principles and values is one of the highest acts of “righteousness” that can be performed on the Left.
So it makes a twisted sort of liberal sense that, while liberals would normally froth at the mouth over condemnation of homosexual conduct for the immoral and unhealthy behavior it is, and freak out at real or perceived sexism, the same or worse condemnation is to be ignored when done by a culture at odds with Americanism. Perhaps they consider Islam the lesser of two evils when compared to disgusting American values.
Figuring out liberals and trying to make sense of what they do is an ongoing challenge, but Lord willing, I’ll always be here to help. 
Anyway, Kagan should answer for this double standard, because while her hypocrisy may make perfect sense on the Left, to real Americans, it makes no sense whatsoever. And Americans should not sit quietly while someone with such anti-America leanings is appointed to the nation’s highest court.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.