Elena Kagan Will Legislate From the Bench
May 25, 2010
by Richard Evans
OBAMA APPOINTEE GETS SACKS OF GOLDMAN MONEY
The focus on Kagan's lack of qualifications distracts from the fact that she was a Goldman Sachs adviser. After her appointment as Solicitor General, Kagan took a six-figure salary cut yet her net worth somehow grew 74 percent during her year as Solicitor General. This has been explained variously as refinancing a $1.4 million home to "lucking out on the rebound of the stock market." This year, Kagan listed assets of $1,762,519 and no liabilities, with $740,000 of that figure in cash.
The crucial qualification for Supreme Court Justice is objectivity. A quick Constitutional Law refresher course is required:
The US government was founded with power split into three branches. The Legislative branch - elected representatives of the public - is given the power to make laws and amendments to the Constitution.
The Judicial branch is supposed to rule on cases based upon the existing laws. In order to do that, the ability or skill which distinguishes a judge from prosecutor or litigator is ability to rise above all personal political bias and follow the letter of the law - even if the judge doesn't like the law.
Kagan is on the record as supporting gay activism. As a Supreme Court justice, will she be unbiased when cases involving gays being 'out' in the military arise? Does she even believe that a judge should be unbiased?
Kagan's graduate thesis at Oxford made the rounds last week. Ordinarily reviewing something a Supreme Court nominee wrote in college would be absurd - but her lack of track record leaves little choice.
An article in National Review Magazine last week published key passages of Kagan's thesis pointing out that she believes the judiciary itself exists to "achieve certain social ends" and it's valid for judges to "mold and steer the law to promote certain ethical values".
She wrote: "As men and as participants in American life, judges will have opinions, prejudices, values. Perhaps most important, judges will have goals. And because this is so, judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid. The law, after all, is a human instrument--an instrument designed to meet men's needs.... Concern for ethical values thus has an important role to play in the judicial process. For in the last analysis, the law is a very human enterprise with very human goals."
That's crystal clear. "Judges with goals" means political agendas. That means the judge doesn't apply the laws on the books, but seeks to make the case serve to change laws of the land. That's the essence of judiciary activism.
It is interesting. The woman has no experience as a judge whatsoever, which would have been absurd once upon a time when judges were sworn to be impeccably impartial and required decades of experience.
Her Supreme Court appointment is designed to make it an unelected policy making body.
Her references to achieving "certain social ends" is code for Communist revolution. The Rothschilds, who ultimately fund Kagan (and Obama), always mask their dictatorship in sweet smelling platitudes.
Justice Antonin Scalia has frequently criticized the judicial activism trend. Issues such as abortion and legalization of euthanasia are matters for vote by state and Congressional representatives, not by judicial rulings by 'activists' judges. "What I am questioning is the propriety, indeed the sanity, of having value-laden decisions such as these made for the entire society . . . by judges" he said in 2004 (Boston Globe, Sept. 29,2004).
Elena Kagan's lack of a track record is being spun as a 'plus' by the Illuminati-controlled media. The buzz word with talking whores right now is 'outsider'.
The New Republic calls it a 'blank slate'. They're playing on public frustration with the old crowd. And the suckers always do vote out the old faces -- for the illusion there are 'real' people on the ballot, just because they haven't been in office yet.
SHOULD KAGAN BE GIVEN A CHANCE?
No. The Supreme Court is hardly the place for on-the-job-training. It's a lifetime unelected position and Kagan stands to be ruling on the US laws till the 2040's. Supreme Court appointments aren't a place for 'Affirmative Action' either.
Let's be honest - everybody can tell Kagan's appointment is a done deal. Her appointment is deliberate - it lowers the bar for qualifications for the highest bench in the land. Track record and proven experience are out the window. Appointments based on gender and sexual preference are 'in'. Is Congress going to approve anybody but Jewish lesbians?
The Illuminati are doing a wonderful job of destroying America.
Sotomayor Not First Hispanic Judge- You Guessed it -the other one Was Jewish Too!