Elana Kagan for Supreme Court
Kagan slammed own memo during 1st Senate hearing
Obama pick calls her (own) writing 'dumbest thing I ever read'
NEW YORK – Government funds must not be granted to any religious organizations seeking to prevent teen pregnancies, since such groups may "inject" religious teaching," argued Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court.
However, when questioned during Senate hearings earlier this year about her argument – made in a 1987 legal brief – Kagan reversed course and called her own memo "the dumbest thing I ever read."
Are you leery of what Kagan stands for? Here's the documentation on all the president's men – and women!
"It would be difficult for any religious organization to participate in such projects without injecting some kind of religious teaching," wrote Kagan in the brief.
She continued: "The government is of course right that religious organizations are different and that these differences are sometimes relevant for the purposes of government funding. ... But when the government funding is to be used for projects so close to the central concerns of religion, all religious organizations should be off limits."
Kagan authored the memo while clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall. The case was filed in response to a Supreme Court decision that reversed a lower court ruling allowing religious groups that help prevent teen pregnancies to receive government funds through the Adolescent Family Life Act.
The case centered on a religiously affiliated group that provided pregnancy testing, adoption counseling, educational services and childcare.
The Supreme Court had ruled the act did not require grantees be affiliated with religious groups, "although the Act clearly does not rule out grants to religious organizations."
Kagan, however, took issue with the Supreme Court to argue religious groups should never receive government funds under the act.
Her memo could have been a surefire point of controversy for her nomination to the Supreme Court.
However, asked about her memo in February 2009 Senate confirmation hearings for her nomination as solicitor general, she called her 1987 argument "the dumbest thing I ever read."
Continued Kagan in Senate testimony reviewed by WND: "I indeed believe that my 22-year old analysis, written for Justice Marshall, was deeply mistaken. It seems now utterly wrong to me to say that religious organizations generally should be precluded from receiving funds for providing the kinds of services contemplated by the Adolescent Family Life Act."
Kagan doesn't like the 2nd
Elena Kagan and the Military
As the dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan opened her arms to big law firms hoping to recruit the newest crop of Ivy League lawyers searching for six-figure salaries. Harvard’s status as one of America’s best law schools made it a natural place to find top talent.
But for recruiters wearing military uniforms, Kagan had a starkly
different message: You’re not welcome here. Even though the
military’s JAG Corps relies on law school graduates for its ranks,
Kagan mounted an unprecedented legal challenge to bar these
recruiters from visiting the Cambridge campus.
The White House has tried to shrug off Kagan’s legal warfare on military recruiters as an insignificant blip during her Harvard tenure. Vice President Joe Biden even distorted the truth to justify Kagan’s position.
But the facts tell a different story. Biden tried to spin Kagan’s
position as consistent with the law. But it’s quite clear that
Kagan was determined to undermine the Pentagon’s plan to have
military recruiters on campus when, shortly after setting foot on
campus, she challenged the Solomon Amendment.
The issue has surfaced as one of the most significant events in
Kagan’s career. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member on the
Judiciary Committee, spoke at length about it Monday, saying Kagan is “scarred by her open mistreatment of the military and her disregard for a very clear law.”
He promised to make it an issue during Kagan’s confirmation hearings in
late June. At issue is what Kagan did, and when, upon assuming the deanship at Harvard Law.
On May 11, Biden argued Kagan simply followed legal decisions and the actions of her predecessor. “Let me put this quickly in perspective,” the vice president said. “For 20 years before she came there, military recruiters were not allowed on the campus in the same way other recruiters were.”
Biden continued: “Then we passed the law called the Solomon Amendment, before she got there, saying that, no, no, you had to let military recruiters on. You couldn’t do that. So military recruiters were on. Then, in fact, what happened was the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional. She was then dean.> She went back to the previous 20-year practice at Harvard, 20+ years. Then the Supreme Court said, ‘Nope, Solomon Amendment saying they have to be allowed on campus is correct.’ She immediately reinstated them.”
In reality, Kagan inherited a policy from former Dean Robert Clark that gave military recruiters full, unfettered access to campus. Clark reversed Harvard’s long-standing policy opposing military recruiters on July 29, 2002, because the U.S. Air Force threatened the university’s federal funding two months earlier. Kagan took over as dean on July 1, 2003. Then on Jan. 12, 2004, in signing an amicus brief seeking to restrict military recruiters. Biden conveniently forgot to mention that.
Even more significant is that the amicus brief addressed a case in the 3rd Circuit unrelated to Harvard. But Kagan, determined to undo Harvard’s policy, still joined forces with the faculty to challenge the Solomon Amendment.
On Nov. 29, 2004, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a district court in New Jersey should issue a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. The appeals court didn’t address Kagan’s statutory argument and its decision didn’t even apply to Massachusetts (located in the 1st Circuit), but the very next day, Nov. 30, 2004, Kagan chose to reinstate Harvard’s ban on military recruiters.
Biden suggested otherwise, implying the 3rd Circuit had jurisdiction over Harvard. It did not. Biden also failed to mention that on Jan. 20, 2005, the 3rd Circuit refused to enforce its decision even for the New Jersey district in question, pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan didn’t care. She kept Harvard’s ban in place.
Less than a month later, on Feb. 18, 2005, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association announced it would help students “investigate career opportunities” in the military. Kagan began to gradually shift her position. But even then, as the Veterans Association warned it couldn’t provide assistance on par with the career services office, Kagan played tough with the recruiters.
In fact, it wasn’t until the Sept.
20, 2005 — after the Pentagon threatened to halt the school’s
federal funding if it continued to defy the law — that Kagan
backed down. That wasn’t the last thing she had to say,
however. The following day, on Sept. 21, 2005, with the case now
before the Supreme Court, Kagan again
filed an amicus brief with 39 colleagues from Harvard Law.
The Supreme Court soundly rejected her argument, ruling 8-0 on March 6, 2006, to uphold the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment.
“Ms. Kagan’s conduct may have been applauded by some in the progressive circles of academia, but the American people I think will be uneasy about it,” Sessions said.
Biden’s defense of Kagan also troubles Sessions. “I think it’s time we get these facts straight,” Sessions said of Biden’s remarks. “It is a significant matter, a very significant matter, and it is a matter of significance such that whoever comments about it, whether it’s the Vice President of the United States even, they should be accurate.”
With so little else to examine — Kagan has no judicial record and
little experience as a lawyer — she needs to come clean on her
treatment of military recruiters.
Kagan's First Case as Solicitor General Was
Suppressing Pro-Life Free Speech
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- And old saying reminds people that if they forget history, they are condemned to repeat it. For a national pro-life group, an idea of where Elena Kagan will go on the Supreme Court is easily seen by taking a look at where she's been, and her first case she argued as Solicitor General worries Americans United for Life.
As the top lawyer for the Obama administration arguing cases before the high court, Kagan's first case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, had her arguing for campaign finance reform limits that suppressed the free speech rights of pro-life groups.
The case is the first Kagan argued, and lost, and it saw the Supreme Court go against Kagan's request and had it striking down a campaign finance reform provision that prohibited corporate independent expenditures for electioneering communication.
"In reality, the decision was a victory for the First Amendment," Americans United for Life says in a new memo provided to LifeNews.com.
"If the First Amendment right to freedom of speech means anything, surely it guarantees the right to speak about candidates for public office. Corporations may exercise their right to political speech," AUL says.
In practice, campaign finance reform laws have
negatively impacted non-profit policy groups more dramatically
than the vilified “big corporation,' AUL
Confirmation, Trouble Signs Seen in Past Stands
Kagan's Position on Marital Status Discrimination is Unacceptable
I didn't realize it but Kagan is Jewish. Now, I hate to sound anti-semitic but jews stick together, it is not just a cliche. So if you have been reading anything I have had to say you will know I have been big time on the media and the banks for destroying this country. Who owns the media and the banks?????
Kagan Promoted Shariah Law at Harvard
Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Barack Obama White House. But no more.
Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.
Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.
Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.
Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 -- and likely more today.
At Harvard, Elena Kagan "proceeded to forge the law school's 'Islamic Finance Project."" It's purpose, according to McCarthy, was "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."
Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers -- now in the Obama administration -- accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam's history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.
Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes "good ideas wherever they originate" and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.
For this reason -- if for no other -- senators should vote no on her confirmation.
Kagan caught in lie
7-29-10 We now know that Elena Kagan corrupted a scientific
finding that was presented before the Supreme Court. Her
corruption caused the Supreme Court to rely on faulty science and
extend the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion for many
Kagan's corruption of evidence exposes her as a far-left political activist whom former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says is unfit for the Supreme Court.
And we have the proof -- her HAND-WRITTEN memo! (Go here to see it):
Now, evidence is mounting that Kagan made matters worse by lying to the Judiciary Committee about her role in manipulating scientific evidence.
During the hearings, Kagan did everything in her power to avoid taking responsibility for corrupting ACOG's scientific conclusion.
When Sen. Hatch directly asked Kagan, "Did you write that memo?", Kagan first tried to avoid the question. When pressed, Kagan barely acknowledged that "the document is certainly in my handwriting," yet never admitted to being the author of the statement.
But then she proceeded with a verbal cover-up that now leaves her exposed. Kagan said:
"There was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG... to get it to change its medical views on the question."
This directly contradicts the fact that Kagan's own memo and hand-written note prove that she did, in fact, "propose" language that ACOG used... verbatim!
If senators would have the courage to consider the evidence, they will quickly see all the elements of a full-fledged "KaganGate" -- a conspiracy to manipulate scientific findings combined with a cover-up under oath.
The only way Kagan will be held accountable is if grassroots Americans rise up and demand that the fast-tracking of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court be stopped immediately.
Again, more than 20,000 letters from Grassfire Nation team members have already been hand-delivered to the Senate.
Here's the timeline, detailed by former deputy assistant attorney general Shannen Coffin in the National Review (see link at the end of this message):
1. Kagan, while working for Clinton, received a draft of ACOG's scientific finding that was being prepared for submission to the federal courts in a key partial-birth abortion case.
2. ACOG's draft stated that ACOG "could identify no circumstances under which [partial-birth abortion]. . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
3. Kagan noted in an internal memo that ACOG's finding "would be a disaster" to Clinton's position to keep partial-birth abortion legal.
4. So Kagan sent a memo to ACOG suggesting new language for ACOG's scientific finding on partial-birth abortion. Specifically, Kagan recommended ACOG say that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." Kagan's note totally warped the meaning of ACOG's original statement.
5. This statement -- hand-written on the memo by Kagan -- was included word-for-word in ACOG's final submission to the courts. The courts then relied upon ACOG's supposed science, with no knowledge that a Clinton political operative named Elena Kagan had corrupted the entire process.
6. Because Elena Kagan corrupted evidence before the Supreme Court, the horrendous partial-birth abortion procedure remained legal for years -- and our legal process all the way up to the Supreme Court was tarnished.
7. And just this month, Kagan attempted to cover up her role in the evidence tampering conspiracy during the Judiciary Committee hearings.
Kagangate: A Coverup Of Obamacare Conflict-Of-Interest?
Judicial Watch and the Media Research Center have obtained potentially explosive e-mails that could prove Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan provided misleading answers during her Senate confirmation hearings when she said she had no involvement as U.S. Solicitor General in any strategizing over how to defend the health care reform law known as Obamacare. Whether or not she had any such involvement is crucial in determining whether she must recuse herself from cases dealing with the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Moreover, if the evidence does establish Kagan’s involvement as Solicitor General, Justice Kagan may have violated federal law governing recusals. That is because she evidently decided to participate in the decision of the Supreme Court in April 2011 not to “fast-track” for Supreme Court review Virginia’s lawsuit challenging Obamacare.
Federal statute 28 U.S.C. 455 states that a judge must step aside “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or in which he (or she) “participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
During her Senate confirmation hearings for a seat on the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan denied any substantive personal involvement in connection with her Office of Solicitor General’s provision of legal advice on Obamacare or consideration of litigation strategies to defend Obamacare from constitutional challenges.
The following are responses by Elena Kagan to Supplemental Questions from Senators Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn:
Question: Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
Question: Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
Kagan told the Senators that she would recuse herself from any Supreme Court case involving a matter in which she “participated in formulating the government’s litigating position… If I gave advice about the government’s litigating position or the content of a filing, then I would recuse myself from the case. In my view, this level of participation in a case would warrant recusal.”
But a series of “smoking gun” e-mails obtained by Judicial Watch and the Media Research Center pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on February 24, 2011, reveal that Kagan positioned her Solicitor General Office (OSG) to be involved in the strategy to defend Obamacare from the very beginning.
In an e-mail (“Re: Health Care Defense”), authored by Kagan’s deputy Neal Katyal and dated January 8, 2010, Katyal responded to an e-mail from his Department of Justice colleague Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, who had suggested that a group be put together to think about “how to defend against inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.”
Katyal wrote back enthusiastically within three minutes of receiving the e-mail from Brian Hauck:
“Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.”
Within a half a minute of responding to Hauck’s e-mail, Katyal fired off another e-mail directly to Kagan: “I am happy to do this if you are ok with it.”
Four minutes later, Kagan responded: “You should do it.”
The circle was completed two hours later on January 8, 2010 when Katyal followed up with this e-mail to Hauck:
“Elena would definitely like OSG to be involved in this set of issues…we will bring Elena in as needed.”
On March 21, 2010, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health care litigation meeting that was evidently organized by the Obama White House: “This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.”
Kagan decided to respond by asking for Katyal’s phone number, rather than creating a further written record of her intentions regarding participation in any White House Obamacare litigation strategy meetings.
There are other e-mails withheld by the Obama administration that raise more questions about Kagan’s truthfulness in responding to questions about her involvement as Solicitor General advising on legal questions related to Obamacare. From the Vaughn index that the Obama administration did disclose, which describes the items being withheld in general terms, it appears that Kagan was copied on e-mails discussing “what categories of legal arguments may arise and should be prepared in the anticipated lawsuit.” Another four dealt with “expected litigation” against the health care law. Elena Kagan wrote one of the four being withheld.
Once Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court, the apparent cover-up of her role in Obamacare legal strategizing began.
On May 17, 2010, a spokeswoman from the Justice Department, Tracy Schmaler, sent Kagan’s deputy Katyal an e-mail, with the subject line “Re: HCR [health care reform] litigation,” asking:
“Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG office was consulted?”
Within one minute, Katyal started to cover up Solicitor General Kagan’s tracks, responding that she had never been involved:
“No, she never has been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.”
Katyal informed the Solicitor General and nominee to the Supreme Court at once about the inquiry he had received from the Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, and how he responded.
If Kagan had never been involved “in any” bit of Obamacare and delegated everything to her deputy Katyal, then one would think she would have simply let Katyal directly handle all inquiries with Schmaler and remain uninvolved.
However, Kagan decided to take no chances. She wanted to manage the apparent cover-up herself. Within just seventeen minutes of Schmaler’s original inquiry to Katyal regarding Elena Kagan’s involvement in the “HCR litigation,” Kagan sent an e-mail to her deputy and cc’d Tracy Schmaler:
“This needs to be coordinated. Tracy, you should not say anything about this before talking to me” (emphasis added).
On June 15, 2010, Katyal sent Kagan an e-mail with the subject line “Fw: connecting you two,” warning Kagan that “AG just told me that he expects a big story coming out shortly about whether you are recused in health care litigation. I went over the timing and that you have been walled off from Day One.” The remainder of the e-mail was blacked out.
The official line that Kagan was “walled off from Day One” is a blatant lie, as evidenced by the e-mail exchanges of January and March 2010 referenced above.
A Congressional investigation needs to be launched at once, since Justice Kagan has already refused to recuse herself and participated in a Supreme Court decision not to accelerate consideration of Obamacare’s constitutionality. Subpoenas should be issued demanding all e-mails in unredacted form relating to Obamacare which mentioned Kagan’s name in the body of the e-mails or which were addressed to or received from Kagan while she was Solicitor General, including e-mails on which she was copied. Kagan’s diaries and White House visitor logs should also be subpoenaed.
If there is sufficient evidence establishing that Elena Kagan lied under oath during her confirmation hearings or violated the Federal statute governing recusals, impeachment proceedings must be considered.