VIDEO: Carter and Obama, Mirror Images
Hope and Change… Isn’t this all just a page from Jimmy Carter’s playbook?
The Perpetual Campaign Continues
Obama’s visit on “The View” yesterday just illustrates how uncomfortable he is being president.
Judge Bolton: Judicial Activist
Federal Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling that blocked parts of Arizona’s immigration law is severe judicial activism.
Kagan’s Lying Her Pearls Off
And those are some really big pearls!
Kagan Refuses to Answer Whether Marriage is a State Issue
Kagan just said she wouldn’t answer whether marriage was a state issue … wait for it … because there’s a case coming down the pike. This is a load of horsepucky. It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal | Read More »
Kagan Refuses to Answer Whether Marriage is a State Issue
Kagan just said she wouldn’t answer whether marriage was a state issue … wait for it … because there’s a case coming down the pike. This is a load of horsepucky. It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed’s human lover is filing a case.
Then she said she wasn’t going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value — a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution — and she followed that whopper up by saying “there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition … what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don’t get the full weight.”
Unreal. Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972. She doesn’t answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument.
In other words, she’s pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.
Kagan: Kelo Destroyed Property Rights In Order to Save Them
Senator Grassley just grilled Kagan on Kelo, the case that suggested that states can simply grab land from A and hand it to B if B generates more tax revenue. Kagan actually said that the goal of Kelo was to “kick it back to the states” — in other words, Kagan was saying that the Court okayed the Kelo project in order to incentivize states to pass anti-Kelo laws.
Well, put me in a dress and call me Shirley if that explanation didn’t just explain away the problem with Plessy v. Ferguson. That judgment said that segregation didn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment. By Kagan’s logic, this was actually an attempt to incentivize states to avoid segregation laws.
This is backward thinking at its finest.
The Ass-Kissing Begins
Diane Feinstein reminds me of a scene from Jaws in which Robert Shaw describes a shark: “Dead eyes. Lifeless eyes.” That’s Feinstein all over.
Just moments ago, the shark went soft. Feinstein went off on a tangent praising Kagan’s “well-ordered mind.” Blah blah blah. Then she got to her point: just 48 of 163 active appeals court justices are women. Women are just 191 of 794 district court justices. And Kagan is a feminist hero. “We’re making progress, but every advance has really been hard fought,” intoned Feinstein. Then she commented on the Ledbetter case, saying that she found it shocking that the court held to a technicality. Finally she stated, “You’re a wonderful role model for women … you’re reasoned, you have a commitment, you have a dedication and a staying power, and you do us all well.”
How does this forward the constitutional process, exactly? The Ledbetter case was clearly rightly decided, and should be a test case for justices — it’s a case of “hard cases make bad law,” a phrase used to mean that even if a party is sympathetic, ruling in their favor may create crappy precedent.
Feinstein seems to be saying that female justices would be more likely to push law aside in favor of sympathy. Isn’t that sexist?
Kagan Lies Again About Her Abortion Views
Elena Kagan was just asked whether she wrote a note on a memo from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Here is the relevant text of the ACOG memo:
“Terminating a pregnancy is indicated in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D&X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decision about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and potentially dangerous.”
Kagan wrote on the memo, “This would be a disaster.” What, exactly, would be a disaster? Presumably, the sentence reading that ACOG could find “no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
Kagan was just grilled on this, and at first, she refused to acknowledge that the note was written by her. She said it was “in my handwriting,” then began to say that it may have been the product of several people telling her what to say. Finally, she settled on the defense that what she was labeling a “disaster” was the articulation of the paragraph, not the underlying science. She claimed that she was merely trying to square the text of the ACOG statement with the positions it had articulated to the Clinton Administration.
The final statement from ACOG kept similar language, but heavily played up situations in which partial-birth abortion might in fact be the best medical situation, leaving the text a laborious and conflicting thicket: “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.”
That statement is much more convenient for a woman who believes wholeheartedly in a right to partial-birth abortion. It at least gives a shout-out to the radical abortion left.
But hey, it was just in her handwriting.
Kagan’s Grand Theory of Constitutional Interpretation
Elena Kagan just admitted, "I have no grand theory of constitutional interpretation. I’m a pragmatist and rely on various sources." This IS a Constitutional theory. It is a constitutional theory in which the Constitution is utterly irrelevant. When you say | Read More »