How strange! Just as Barack Obama grew up around and surrounded himself with socialists/Marxists, so did Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan. They are like two peas in a pod.
Miss "I don't know what a legal progressive is" happens to be a radical leftist, and no matter how she spins it during her confirmation hearings, she will be an activist judge. If she weren't, President Obama would never have even considered her.
What a shame that we have to go all the way across the world to New Zealand to learn about Elena Kagan's past connections. Once again, the American Pravda has let down the American people.
Read from New Zeal:
Obama File 105 "A Pattern of Socialist Associations" - Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, Elena Kagan (the Early Years)
"Obama File 104 here
President Barack Obama's nomination to the U.S. Supreme court, Elena Kagan, has been sold to the public as a 'moderate' - yes, a little liberal leaning, but moderate none the less.
In this first of a series of posts, I look at Elena Kagan's patterns of association.
If Elena Kagan is a moderate, why then has she long associated with people connected to three interrelated organizations - the Communist Party USA, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee/ Democratic Socialists of America and the far left Washington D.C. think tank, Institute for Policy Studies?
Raised on New Yorks' Upper West Side, Elena Kagan's parents were both politically active in a place and era where politics was dominated by the Democratic, Socialist and Communist parties.
Elena's mother Gloria Kagan campaigned to elect far left Democratic Congressman, William Fitts Ryan. Her older brother Marc Kagan was active in the socialist influenced New Directions movement in the Transport Workers Union. When one of its leaders, Roger Toussaint, was elected union president in 2000, Mr. Kagan became his chief of staff, until a falling out occurred in 2003.
Marc Kagan's former comrade and boss, Roger Toussaint is prominent in the communist initiated Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, which now led by D.S.A. member William Lucy. He also serves in the leadership of the Center for the Study of Working Class Life at Stony Brook University, alongside Ray Markey from the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence and D.S.A. leaders Gerry Hudson, Mark Levinson, Stanley Aronowitz and Frances Fox Piven, co-originator of the infamous Cloward - Piven Strategy.
Elena Kagan would later dedicate her Princeton history thesis on socialism in New York City to her activist brother.
'I would like to thank my brother Marc whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism and in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.'
Kagan first became interested in politics in high school and worked as a legislative intern for Rep. Ted Weiss, a Democrat from New York, during the summer of 1978, and as deputy press secretary for Rep. Liz Holtzman in the summer after her junior year.
The late Ted Weiss was very far to the left. In 1978 Congressmen Ted Weiss, John Burton, Ron Dellums (D.S.A. member), John Conyers (D.S.A. supporter) , Don Edwards, Charles Rangel and others, attended a meeting organized for the Soviet front World Peace Council on Capitol Hill.
W.P.C. delegation members included President Romesh Chandra (Communist Party of India), KGB Colonel Radomir Bogdanov and Oleg Kharkhardin of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union International Department.
In 1981 another World Peace Council delegation led by Romesh Chandra toured the U.S. to publicize the 'nuclear freeze' then being promoted by Leonid Brezhnev.
This group met with several far left Congressmen at the Capitol, including Weiss, John Conyers, George Crockett, Ron Dellums, Don Edwards and Mervyn Dymally."
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The RINO's have no guts and will confirm this leftwing activist.
The hearings are nothing more then kabuki theater.
The majority of senators are unqualified to judge whether an individual is qualified to be a Justice of the SCOTUS.
Lindsey Graham’s idiotic question about what Kagan did at Christmas and the democrats softball questions proves that these senators aren’t serious about the process, their allowing individuals to sit on the SCOTUS that will follow party lines instead of following the Constitution.
They should take an equal branch of government and our Constitution more seriously.
Yes, they should take this seriously... just as they should ave taken it seriously when they allowed clowns like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia take their seats on SCOTUS.
Bottom line: if a judge agrees with your particular world view, they're a great jurist. If they oppose your viewpoint, they're radical judicial activists.
C'est la vie.
DiogenASS: No, It's should be mandatory that a nominee be a sitting judge on the bench with a case history to determine whether they can give an opinion based solely on the Constitutionally of the case and not based on their political party line.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: a leftwing ACLU lawyer & activist believes the Constitution is a living document and her interpretations must always meet the leftwingloon smell test.
Term limits on their appointments would be nice, theirs no need to feel threatened with a lifetime appointment, they can play God if they choose too without any fear of dismissal, similar to tenured teachers.
Bottom line: eliminate tenure for teachers and lifetime appointments for the Justices, problem solved.
Ever hear of a thing called the Constitution, AnonyMouse? You're demanding strict constructionist opinions by a Supreme Court, yet you want to go against what the Constitution says about the selection and tenure for judges!
Do you realize that about 1/3 of all Supreme Court justices were never judges before joing the Court?
Do you realize that the Founding Fathers believed it vitally important that judges NOT have their positions threatened, so that they wouldn't feel political pressure that might affect their decisions?
Thank you, AnonyMouse, for proving once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Although, in your case, you tend to have less than a little knowledge.
DiogenASS: That's what Constitutional Amendments are for moron!
If you're talking about "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" to mean life tenure, the key question is whether some other constitutional provision makes impeachment the sole means of removing judges. People who reach this conclusion typically cite the provision that guarantees that judges may serve "during good behavior." Apparently, they assumed that serving during good behavior is a not-so-obvious reference to impeachment. Perhaps bad behavior is a synonym for high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning that if you are impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, you have misbehaved and can no longer avail of the guarantee of tenure during good behavior.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they mayresign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior).
Life tenure creates at least three problems:
First, it allows bad judges to remain on the bench indefinitely (except in the extraordinarily rare case of impeachment).
Second, life tenure allows all judges, including some very good ones, to remain on the bench when they are no longer doing their best work (or even close to their best work).
Third, life tenure allows judges to remain on the bench, even as their productivity and effectiveness dwindle, while they wait for the election of an ideologically compatible President who will nominate an ideologically compatible successor.
It is time to give serious thought to a Constitutional Amendment limiting judicial tenure to a non-renewable fixed term of years.
And, if you're trying to tell me that the justices don't feel any political pressure which might affect their decisions or they don‘t base some of their decisions on their own political ideology (with the young liberal clerks fresh out of law school writing most of the opinions for the justices), then you're living in a fantasy world!
Interesting.... AnonyMouse comments once again on one of my prior comments that never actually gets displayed on Ms. MoreLies' blog. How did AnonyMouse know what I said, Ms. MoreLies?
Of course some justices feel political pressure.... how do you figure George Bush got elected back in 2000, anyway? The five rightwingnuts on SCOTUS decided their boy had to get into the White House, so they made it happen. Legal commentators on both the left and the right noted that it was one of the most political -- and worst -- decisions of SCOTUS in a long time. NOT because it let Georgie Porgie in the back door of the White House, but because its legal "reasoning" was so suspect.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I publish your comments and can't even remember the last time I rejected one.
Long ago, when I did choose to delete them, I was never stealth-like about doing so. Why would I change now?
DiogenASS: I was responding to your comments posted July 5, 2010 5:53 PM.
WOW, Could it be telepathy? Or, is it possible you could be a long lost twin? Or, have you ever experimented with mushrooms?
either way, relax and calm down, it's not good for you mentally and it’s bad for the heart to be upset about things that are so small and insignificant.
AnonyMouse, you say you were was responding to my comments posted July 5, 2010 5:53 PM.ecause
Really?
Because, as I write this on the evening of July 6, there are seven comments on this post. NONE of them are from me on July 5, 2010 5:53 PM.
Something smells on the far rightwingnut fringe!
(But, then again, it usually does.)
DiogenASS: your posts on
July 4, 2010 3:19 PM
July 5, 2010 5:53 PM
are visible!
When was the last time you had your eyes checked?
While you're on vacation, are you drinking excessively?
Is your OS old and outdated?
Or, is your imagination just working overtime?
Maybe it's time to buy a new computer, lay off the booze, have your eyes examined and see a shrink.
Just a suggestion
Interesting. Blogger.com must be screwing up. The July 5 comment wasn't there last night, and now it is. (Go ahead and make your obligatory "drunk" or "blind" comments, AnonyMouse, but it's the truth.)
Just now, it showed 2 comments on another thread, but led to an error message when one tried to see the comments.
I guess a rightwingnut runs blogger.com
Post a Comment