Thread: Kagan has some explaining to do today. Amnesty judge?

Today the Senate begins consideration of the lifetime appointment of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Critics have said that her judicial record is non-existent, and there are few clues to how she will rule on the country’s highest court. However, her past actions do signal her views on one of the most important issues likely to come before the Court in the near future: a state’s right to play a role in the enforcement of immigration laws.

Here is what we know so far:

In 2007, the state of Arizona passed an immigration law that allowed it to revoke the business licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. This provision was challenged but upheld in both the district court and even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Most recently, the Obama administration decided to challenge the 2007 Arizona immigration law and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the provision. But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The administration argued that Arizona’s law revoking the business licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants is unconstitutional. But this argument is completely baseless as the two lower courts already confirmed.

Furthermore, still on the books today is a 1986 federal statute that created penalties for employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. This law specifically addresses the question at issue in the Kagan-backed litigation. Congress authorized states to revoke the business licenses of employers that intentionally hire illegal immigrants. So why has Kagan pursued such an aggressive, unconstitutional political agenda?

The views expressed in the court brief are troubling given the Obama administration’s weak record on enforcing federal immigration laws. Compared to fiscal year 2008, the number of administrative arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in employer-sanctions cases has fallen by 80 percent, the number of criminal arrests has fallen by 68 percent, the number of indictments has fallen by 74 percent, and the number of criminal convictions has fallen by 75 percent.

The Obama administration argues that it has increased the number of audits of employers. But audits do almost nothing to stop illegal immigration or discourage illegal hiring. Audits can result in fines, though employers consider them just the cost of doing business. Illegal workers are typically not arrested and are simply turned loose in the community to compete with U.S. citizens and legal immigrants for other jobs.

When ICE does engage in worksite enforcement actions, it allows the illegal workers simply to walk down the street to the next employer to seek employment. If the federal government is abdicating its responsibility to enforce our immigrations laws, how can the administration protest when individual states seek to protect their residents?

Arizona is lawfully doing exactly what it has to do to protect legal workers and compensate for the failure of the Obama administration to enforce federal immigration laws. Kagan has shown that she is hostile to a states’ rights to enforce immigration laws and may be putting a liberal political agenda above the law and ahead of the people.

Can Kagan be objective and set aside her personal vides and support the U.S. Constitution, or will she be another rubber stamp for President Obama’s radical agenda? With the Supreme Court likely to be asked to rule on these issues soon—the American people deserve to know the answers to these questions. Even more so, the American people deserve to have Supreme Court decisions rendered by justices who adhere to the Constitution, not politics.

Rep. Lamar Smith is a Republican Member from Texas and Rep. Todd Tiahrt represents Kansas in the House of Representatives.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/kagan ... z0sFSplSot

She is just another of his way out wackos , she will make the law up as she goes and we all know it , So do people like Jeff Sessions

At this point she couldn't do much harm on the court because its one lib replacing another lib

But if we lose one more Justice on our side , then we are toast , the court will swing their way , That would shoot the chances of getting any help from them on any immigration issues including the Arizona law and anchor baby deal ,
Any illegal immigration issues that make to the court would be sided with the illegals.

But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This is huge news! Can anyone help us locate more information on this specific claim?

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This is huge news! Can anyone help us locate more information on this specific claim?

W

Concerns Over Kagan’s Immigration Views Add to Debate Ahead of Hearing House Republicans want the Senate to grill Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on her involvement in a federal challenge to an Arizona immigration law, adding a new layer of questioning into the mix with Kagan’s hearing set to begin Monday.

The immigration issue would be one of several concerns that have developed among Kagan’s critics in recent weeks. Though her nomination has been overshadowed in Washington by other issues ranging from the BP oil spill to the Afghanistan command shake-up, Republicans are looking to throw up hurdles next week to Kagan’s confirmation. She may not be the most controversial nominee, but she’s still got questions to answer and Republicans are not taking a filibuster off the table.

Fourteen Republican representatives on Thursday wrote to the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, urging him to press Kagan on her role in the administration’s Supreme Court filing in May challenging a 2007 Arizona law. The law gives the state the right to suspend business licenses of employers hiring illegal immigrants.

The representatives — including Texas Rep. Lamar Smith and California Rep. Gary Miller — said the administration had “no legal basisâ€

This morning when asked if claims that she is "A Legal Progressive" could be called true her response was "I don't know what that term means."

WASHINGTON — At the opening of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan quickly backpedaled from her past call for nominees to speak more openly about their constitutional views.

Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule only on pending cases or “cases that might come before the court in the futureâ€

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he is more concerned about the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court than he was during the hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

In an interview with CBS Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford on "Washington Unplugged" today, Sessions called the confirmation hearings "very important," citing a Supreme Court's decision today on gun rights.

"One vote switch would have made it possible for any city or any state in America to completely ban the ownership rights of guns," Sessions said.

Sessions expressed concern that "she's unwilling to enforce plain rights, the right to keep arms and the right to speech, and maybe have a tendency that so many of the other activist judges have to find rights that aren't in the Constitution that seem to fit their personal agendas."

Asked by Crawford how he thought Kagan would have decided in today's case, Sessions said she was at the center of President Bill Clinton's administration's efforts to restrict gun ownership in "any way politically possible."


Sessions also called Kagan's decision to restrict military from recruiting offices at Harvard University when she was Law School dean "inexcusable," a sentiment he repeated in his opening statement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

She is a Liberal Activist. No doubt about it as she likes to get involved to push her liberal progressive agenda...

Filibuster or whatever you have to do to keep this radical out.

On the front of the United States Supreme Court building is engraved the legend: “Equal under the lawâ€

sotomayor lied durig her SCOTUS hearing, said the right to bear arms was an constitutional right to all americans. she was one of the 4 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES that voted AGAINST gun rights for chicagoans YESTERDAY, kagan is a liar, and a progressive liberal socialistic communist. if she takes a seat on the SCOTUS, it will be a tragedy.