Thread: Obama Steers the Court Left further exposes his reckless lib

Obama's selection further exposes his reckless liberal agenda

Obama Steers the Court Left

By Phyllis Schlafly Friday, May 14, 2010

Barack Obama has thumbed his nose at veterans and many other Americans by trying to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens with the liberal Elena Kagan. She is mainly noteworthy for excluding military recruiters from Harvard Law School.

This nomination illustrates how far Obama has fallen from his lofty rhetoric about ending insider politics. Kagan, a campaign donor to Obama, has never decided a single case.

Obama’s selection further exposes his reckless liberal agenda even though polls show that Americans are waking up to his deceptions. A Gallup poll released last week showed that 42 percent of Americans want a new Supreme Court Justice who will move the Court in the conservative direction, while only 27 percent want a new Justice who will make it more liberal.

Obama chose to appease the 27 percent. So he replaces the last military veteran on the Court, leaving it without anyone who made the sacrifice of serving our nation in war.

The liberal double standard is undeniable
The liberal double standard is undeniable. Liberals who insisted that Clarence Thomas was too inexperienced to be on the Supreme Court now defend a nominee who has written little, litigated even less, and not decided a single case.

Instead, Obama tries to force on Americans someone whose background shows she is more interested in remaking the law than in applying it impartially. A baseball umpire would be a better selection and probably fairer, too.

Thirty one Senators voted against Kagan’s confirmation as Solicitor General about a year ago, finding her too inexperienced for even that less important job. Several said that they would consider voting against her if nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is much for Senators to ask Kagan about. When she played an insider role in the Clinton Administration, she reportedly supported taxpayer funded abortion.

Senators who pretend to be pro life, such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, will be voting for 40 more years of Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand if they vote in favor of Elena Kagan. Now age 50, Kagan could serve for 40 years on the Supreme Court.

Millions of pro life young people voted for Obama in 2008. The man they supported is now doing everything he can to impose more abortion on our nation.

After watching Bart Stupak cave in on the pro abortion health care bill, and then announce his resignation a few weeks later, no American is likely to be fooled by the misleading rhetoric of the abortion lobby. Students for Life and its president Kristan Hawkins have already posted a petition at iopposekagan.com to oppose confirmation of Kagan. http://www.iopposekagan.com/

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, notes that “Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law.â€

Do you suspect that Kagan, as Law School Dean at Harvard, had anything to do with locking up Obama's records from that school? He might owe her big time if she's involved in the cover up.

Touche' ReggieMay! (See I'm multicultural! )

I'm all for freedom of speech but in recent years I find myself challenged to uphold it in all cases. The most recent example that we are familiar with is that "Machete'" film that we fear will inspire violent acts.

One of the criticisms of Kagan is her possible position on free speech, which apparently she did not portray very eloquently (ironic huh?)

She may be right in one sense;

"Defending a 1999 federal ban on depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan boldly asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of speech that, along with such historical exceptions as defamation, incitement, and obscenity, is entirely outside the scope of the First Amendment. "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection," she wrote, "depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.""

From this article:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/12/t ... of-silence