Kagan Hearings Day 3:
Kagan: Precedent can[sic]be more important than Original Intent
- (Video) Questions by Senator Cornyn (R-TX), June 30, 2010
Judicial activist Elena Kagan tells Senator Cornyn Precedent can be more important than Original Intent.
There is nothing more that any United States Senator, Republican or Democrat (who have also taken Oaths of Office to uphold the U.S. Constitution) needs to know about this domestic enemyof the
U.S. Constitution - Elena Kagan, TO VOTE "NAY" TO HER NOMINATION. Oath-Breakers such as Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) who voted "Yea" for Judicial Activist, Racist, La Raza Member, Feminist, Roman Catholic, Sonia Sotomayoron August 6, 2009, should be receiving volumes of e-mails and phone calls during the Senate recess break this week (July 5-9)to admonish him to uphold his
Oath of Office this time, and TO VOTE "NAY" TO KAGAN'S NOMINATION.
If this pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-Christ, feminist lawyer Kagan is confirmed by the U.S. Senate
for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, we can expect her to work to re-make America in the
image of her own anti-Biblical worldview; she would not be "hindered" by the Original Intent of the
U.S. Constitution, and therefore she would not be "hindered" by the Oaths of Office she would take
as a Supreme Court Justice, to uphold the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:
Text of the Oaths of Office for Supreme Court Justices [ from the SCOTUS website ]
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office.
1. The Constitutional Oath
As noted below in Article VI, U.S. Constitution, all federal officials must take an oath in support of the
Constitution: [ emphasis added ]
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
NOTE: - The Oath of Office is to support and defend the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, not
Supreme Court Precedent !!!
- Also, Article VI., U.S. Constitution explicitly states there are three things which are
"the supreme Law of the Land" –
1) The U.S. Constitution itself;
2) Laws of the United States (Federal Laws) made in pursuance thereof; and
3) U.S. Treaties
NOT ONE WORD IN THE U.S CONSTITUTION ABOUT THE SUPREMACY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
OR PRECEDENT !
2. The Judicial Oath
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ______under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
By her record, by her [repeated non-] answers before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, it is clear Obama's nominee Elena Kagan has no intention of upholding the Original Intent of the
U.S. Constitution - therefore, no United States Senator should give Kagan their vote for confirmation; and every Senator should do their utmost to block her confirmation,
including blocking the vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Rule IV. of that Committee provides a way for the vote to be blocked, IF ALL SEVEN REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON THE COMMITTEE STAND FIRM, and do all within their power to block these DANGEROUS, UNQUALIFIED, DOMESTIC ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION.
"They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them." Proverb 28:4, KJB
______
After their recess, after U.S. Senators on the Judiciary Committee return July 12 to the Capitol in Washington, D.C., there will be the question of actually voting on the Elena Kagan nomination in the Committee. However, if the Republican Senators choose to truly uphold their oaths, and to do all in their power to block the appointment of this dangerous nominee, the Rules of the SenateJudiciary Committee [ Rule IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE ] require that at least one Republican vote in favor of bringing the Kagan nomination to a vote. That means one of these seven would have to be a "Benedict Arnold" - and betray their oath and their country:
Sessions (AL), Hatch (UT), Grassley (IA), Kyl (AZ), Graham (SC), Cornyn (TX), and Coburn (OK).
These are the nine Republican traitors who voted “Yea” for the final Senate floor confirmation vote for
Sonia Sotomayor on August 6, 2009:
Alexander (TN), Bond (MO), Collins (ME), Graham (SC), Gregg (NH), Lugar (IN), Martinez (FL), Snowe (ME), Voinovich (OH)
Looking at these two lists, the ONLY Senator who voted for Sotomayor on August 6, 2009, who
is also on the Senate Judiciary Committee today, considering the appointment of Elena Kagan,
is Senator "Grahamnesty" (RINO) from the greatly deceived State of South Carolina.
Lindsey Graham should be receiving volumes of e-mails and phone calls during the Senate recess break this week (July 5-9)to admonish him to uphold his Oath of Office this time, and
TO VOTE "NAY" TO KAGAN'S NOMINATION. May Americans who live both outside and inside the State of South Carolina feel free to call this prone-to-compromise United States Senator.
"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." Proverb 29:2, KJB
Are we "mourning" enough yet America ? - while the wicked beareth rule ?! - call and e-mail
Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) and tell him TO VOTE "NAY" TO KAGAN'S NOMINATION !!!
______
Solicitor General Elena Kagan
Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing
C-SPAN Networks
______
Kagan: Precedent can[sic]be more important than Original Intent
Solicitor General Elena Kagan: "... you look to text, you look to structure, you look to history,
very much including and very especially the original understandings, and you look to precedents,
and in one or another cases, one of those may be more important than others of them. "
Good questioning below by Senator Cornyn (as also by Senators Session, Kyl, and Coburn) - however, the question is - Will these men use every procedural means at their disposal, including Rule IV. of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, to contend with (Proverb 28:4, KJB), to do all they can to BLOCK this
DANGEROUS, DOMESTIC ENEMY of the U.S. Constitution, Elena Kagan from getting a lifetime
seat on the United States Supreme Court ?
Confirmation Hearing, Day Three: Wednesday, June 30
Q&A Sessions By Senator
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Video - Total 26+ minutes (57:00 - 01:23:30)
Exchange between Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan
[Excerpts, emphasis and internet links added]
Transcription below of excerpted portion - Video - seven minutes (01:00:00 - 01:08:00)
Senator John Cornyn: I want to ask you a little bit more - we've talked a lot about Constitutional interpretation,
and I want to read a statement to you - and this is not a trick question, so if you want me to read it again, or
go over it more slowly, I will. And I want to get your thoughts on this statement of Constitutional interpretation.
And it starts this way, "Original understandings are an important source of Constitutional meaning. but so too
are other sources that judges regularly invoke: the purpose and structure of the Constitution, the lessons
of precedent, and historical experience, the practical consequences of legal rules, and the evolvingnorms and
traditions of our society. " [ emphasis added ] Do you generally agree with that statement, or is there any part
of it that you disagree with ?
Solicitor General Elena Kagan: You know I think I would ... I'm trying to think ... I mean I think what I've said,
is that, you look to text, you look to structure, you look to history, very much including and very especially the
original understandings, and you look to precedents, and in one or another cases, one of those may be more
important than others of them.[ emphasis added ] In some cases, you might look to all of them, and that's a
kind of pragmatic approach, not an approach that takes a sort of grand over-arching philosophical view,
as to, you know, it's just one thing, and it's got to be that one thing in every case. And that's the way I would
approach the ...
Senator John Cornyn: And that's consistent with what you've said as I've heard you testify yesterday and today.
And really the part of it that I was interested in, was the part, the last phrase, which talked about 'evolving norms
and traditions of our society'. What role do you think a judge's opinion of the 'evolving norms and traditions of
our society' have in interpreting the written Constitution ?
Solicitor General Elena Kagan: Well I think that traditions are most often looked to, in considering the liberty clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. I think every member of the Court thinks that the liberty clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment applies to more than physical restraints, and I think almost every member thinks that it gives some
substantive protection, and not just procedural protections. And then the question becomes, 'What substantive
protections does it provide ?' And I think what, I think the best statement of the approach that the Court has used
is actually Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement in the Glucksbergcase, because he says, he basically agrees with
both of those things; that the due process clause provides substantive protection, and means more than restraint
from physical restraint. But then the question is 'Well how do you define that, and how do you appropriately
limit that ?', because it's for sure the case, that the courts should not use that clause to appropriate decisions
that best belong to the American people.
Senator John Cornyn: "Let me ask you another follow-up question. The author of the statement that I read is
Goodwin Liu, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and a pending judicial nominee. But he goes
on to conclude, based on that statement of what the appropriate role of the interpretation of the Constitution is.
He goes on, or he has concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to provide citizens
with certain social and economic rights, including a high quality education, expanded health insurance, child care,
transportation subsidies, job training, and a robust Earned Income Tax Credit. He also believes or has written that
the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right tosame-sex marriage[ CCL: sic - "sodomite coupling" ]. He says that
evolving norms can change the ambit of theSecond Amendment's protection, as interpreted by the Court. He's also
opined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the nationalization of education by prohibiting the local funding
structure that States use to support their education systems. In applying this interpretation standard, would you ...,
well, I'm not going to ask you whether you agree with that, because that might ask you to decide a case that would
come before the Court. Correct ?
Solicitor General Elena Kagan: Well I ...
Senator John Cornyn: I was going to ask whether you agree or disagree with some of those stated opinions about
what the Fourteenth Amendment means, as Professor Liu has articulated.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan: You, you said a lot there. And I think that the view that I would have, is consistent not
with any particular article by Mr. Liu or otherwise, but is consistent with the way that the Court has approached these
questions and I particularly think of the Glucksberg case, which does talk about the way the Court looks to traditions,
looks to the way traditions can change over time, but makes sure, makes very clear, that the Court should operate with real caution in this area, that the Court should understand that the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide clear sign posts, should make sure that the Court is not interfering inappropriately with the decisions that really ought to belong to the American people. And so, should understand that the clause protects things, but should act in this area with appropriate caution, and respect for democracy.
Senator John Cornyn: Well I know you understand, sort of the gist of where I'm coming from, the concern is of course that if judges, particularly federal judges, who serve with lifetime tenure, believe it's within their power to interpret the Constitution based on their subjective notion of what represents 'evolving norms and traditions', that you very quickly become very separated from, and untethered by, anything you might call a written law, or law representing the consent of the governed. That's the concern, and I'm sure you understand it. I'm not asking whether you agree. I'm just ... I'm suggesting that that's my concern. And you seem to agree that judges ought to act very carefully, and I would suggest, my own view is that, that is not an appropriate role for a federal judge to render subjective judgments about evolving norms and traditions; that's what Congress is here for, to act responsively to the needs, and the desires, and the wishes of the American people. And of course we stand for election, and we can be replaced, if the people disagree with us. But not judges. Let me change topics here, quickly ...
(End this portion of Senator Cornyn's questioning at 01:08:00)
Other questioning by Senator John Cornyn of Solicitor General Elena Kagan continued to 01:23:30.
______
______
Senatpr Tom Coburn (R-OK): “And her [ CCL: Kagan's ] reliance was that, ‘Well, here's the precedent that's been set, and we can't go back to original intent,’ which comes back to
another thing that she said earlier in the hearing -- is that precedent trumps original intent.
And I think most Americans would reject that. If that was the case, then we would have never
had Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Plessy-Ferguson would still be the law. And to have
a Supreme Court nominee that actually says precedent trumps original intentis worrisome,
in my opinion.”
Senatpr Tom Coburn (R-OK): “I wouldn't rule out a filibuster.”
(VIDEO) Watch the full interview with Sen. Tom Coburn HERE.
Good comments in an ABC interview of Senator Coburn - however, again, the real, bottom-line question is - Will these Senator Coburn (OK) - and the other six Republicans on the SenateJudiciary Committee: Sessions (AL), Hatch (UT), Grassley (IA), Kyl (AZ), Graham (SC), andCornyn (TX) - use every procedural means at their disposal, including Rule IV. of the SenateJudiciary Committee, tocontend with (Proverb 28:4, KJB), to do all they can toBLOCKthisDANGEROUS, DOMESTIC ENEMYof the U.S. Constitution, Elena Kaganfrom getting a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court ?
______
Sen. Coburn: Kagan 'Ignorant' of Constitutional Principles; 'I Wouldn't Rule Out a Filibuster'
June 30, 2010 2:12 PM
[emphasis added]
ABC News' Rick Klein reports: Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn has provided some of the most contentious exchanges
of the rather tame Elena Kagan confirmation hearings. He's raised questions about Kagan's generally liberal political beliefs, and contends that Kagan would usher in vast expansions of government power as a member of the Supreme Court.
On ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line” today, Coburn ratcheted up his critique of Kagan, saying she hasn’t been as forthcoming about her views as she should be, and questioning her interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as well as her expressed willingness to follow court precedents.
“I think the thing that's very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find
that she's ignorantof the Constitution's limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us.
“And her reliance was that, ‘Well, here's the precedent that's been set, and we can't go back to original intent,’ which comes back to another thing that she said earlier in the hearing -- is that precedent trumps original intent. And I think most Americans would reject that. If that was the case, then we would have never had Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Plessy-Ferguson would still be the law. And to have a Supreme Court nominee that actually says precedent trumps original intentis worrisome, in my opinion.”
As far as what his concerns amount to, Coburn said he isn’t prepared to say that a GOP-led filibuster won’t be warranted.
“I wouldn't rule out a filibuster,” he said. “Look, my two main concerns are …: We're in trouble as a nation, and one of the reasons we're in trouble is the expansion of the federal government into areas that our Founders never thought we should be in. And we have a nominee to the Supreme Court that is fully embracing that and with no limits in terms of the Commerce Clause. So to me, that's very concerning. The second point I would make, again, is that she believes precedent trumps original intent. And she defended that. And so that -- both those things are very concerning -- should be very concerning to the American people.”