supreme court

AUDIO: Kagan challenged by Supreme Court conservatives over anti-free speech positions

The clip below is a recording from oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, which pitted the government's campaign finance laws vs. the free speech of unions and corporations in political campaigns.  The case was ultimately decided in favor of free speech by a 5 to 4 margin.  Which tells you all you need to know about how tenuous our free speech rights really are.

The audio of Kagan's argument in favor of restricting free speech rights, (including defending the government's right to ban pamphlets if it so chose), should tell you all you need to know about Kagan.

But if you do need more, feel free to view our Kagan Fact Sheet.  And pass it on!

***

TAKE ACTION: Join our campaign to say NO to Kagan today.

Kagan hearings offer an opportunity

As the Senate Judiciary Committee gets set to start its confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, the question is no whether she'll eventually be cleared by the committee, (given that it has a majority of Democrats), but whether Republicans will use the hearings as an opportunity to point out her record.  Or even promote a REAL discussion about the proper role of judges in our government.

In the past, Kagan commented that such hearings are usually a farce and that the public doesn't learn much about where judges are really coming from.  Truer words...  So how does she feel about being forthcoming on the issues now??

Republicans should press the issue and ask direct questions and demand direct answers.  Here's a short preview of a longer list of issues they should force her to address:

Filed under: 

Pro-abortion group circulating pro-Kagan talking points

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is now distributing favorable talking points on Capitol Hill regarding Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

Of course this comes as no surprise, given that she's been nominated by a pro-abortion President.  But what is interesting is their attempt to "sell" Kagan as a mainstream judge, despite the fact that during her time in the Clinton White House she worked to find political cover for then President Clinton to veto Congress' ban on partial birth abortion.

(Via LifeNews)

Filed under: 

Confirmed: Kagan's a liberal (suprise!)

Newly released memos from her days as a law clerk confirm what conservatives have suggested all along - that Elena Kagan is a political liberal whose views are outside of the mainstream in America.  And they are a stark reminder for all Americans that elections have consequences.

Just when poll after poll confirms that Americans are becoming more conservative as well as more pro-life, we're faced with a potential lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of someone who would likely use the power of the court to interpret and apply the Constitution in such a way as to move the country in the opposite direction.

Via CBS:

...while working as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood
Marshall - made her positions clear on some of the nation's most contentious social issues.

The documents, buried in Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress, show Kagan standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal left,
at a time when the
Rehnquist Supreme Court was moving to the conservative right...

The Marshall documents are legal memos summarizing cases the Court
had been asked to consider. They cover the spectrum of hot-button
social issues: abortion, civil rights, gun rights, prisoners' rights
and the constitutional underpinnings for recognizing gay marriage...

Conservative cheat-sheet on Kagan?

With Obama'a nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to fill Justice Stevens' seat on the high court, the commentary is all over the map.  Some of the most interesting criticism is the supposed liberal complaints that she's not liberal enough.  Uh-huh.  Sounds a lot like the folks in the White House spin lounge are trying to make conservatives feel better by making them think liberals are worried she'll be their version of David Souter.

Not buying it.

On the right side of the aisle, there's plenty to be concerned about, as David Weigel point out today...

Observing Our National Day of Prayer

"And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him." - 1 John 5:14-15 (NAS)

"... Casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you." - 1 Peter 5:7 (NAS)

"... For he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." - Hebrews 11:6a (NAS)

 

To Our Prayer Partners,

We are now in the season when our nation comes together for a day to storm heaven for America. We are asking each of you to pray and contact your elected officials on Thursday, May 6th.

A United States Federal Judge has ruled our National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. There is a Bipartisan group working to overturn this ruling and we thank the Lord for each of these men and women that are taking a strong stand for prayer.

Our elected officials in DC are considering a new Supreme Court Justice.  Please lift this critical appointment up in prayer. Pray for a born again believer and one that takes a strong stand against the abortion issues.

Continue to pray about the health care reform and what is best for our nation and each citizen living in America. Agree with me that the devil cannot rob or steal another thing from the American people. Bind the devil and cast him out and release Godly Holy Spirit favor and blessing on America and each elected official and each citizen in Jesus name.

Supreme Court hears case on Christian student club

The Supreme Court heard a case this week involving the First Amendment rights of the Christian Legal Society and whether or not it's lawful for public schools and colleges to deny Christian groups the same recognition or benefits that are offered to other campus organizations which are secular.

The case hinges on the fact that the society maintains a membership clause that requires members to sign a statement attesting to their Christian Faith.  As a result, they've been denied recognition by the University of California's Hastings College of Law in (you guessed it) San Francisco.

As one can imagine, the Court is "divided" along the usual liberal/conservative lines, with newly added Justice Sotomayor seeming to come down on the "liberal" side of things and taking the position of the school's right to dictate policy.  On the other hand, Justice Scalia pointing out that the school's policies would "require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes...", adding that "That's crazy".

Abortion groups pressure Obama for a pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee

The ink is barely dry on retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' letter of resignation and the pro-abortion crowd is already haranguing for a "pro-Roe" replacement.

This week, both the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the National Organization of Women (NOW) issued statements calling on President Obama to nominate another pro-abortion Justice...

"Given the current composition of the court, we will assess the eventual
nominee's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in
the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation
process," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said.

"One thing is certain: opponents of women's freedom and privacy
will use this vacancy on the court as an opportunity to further their
attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions," Keenan
added.

The National Organization for Women also weighed in on Stevens' retirement
and called on Obama to ignore qualified male jurists and only pick
a woman for the high court. ...

Filed under: 

Speculation and Fallout on President Obama's Supreme Court Pick

Now that Justice Stevens has made it official that he will be resigning at the end of the current term, Barack Obama gets his second opportunity to make a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court.  And the speculation is as rampant as the implications are huge.

Most of the early suggestions seem to point to Obama going back to his "short list" from his pick last year, which resulted in Sotomayor's nomination.  The high profile names on that list are Solicitor General Elen Kagan and Court of Appeals judge Diane Wood.

Of course the timing couldn't be worse for Senate Democrats, who are
already weary of political combat in the aftermath of ObamaCare...which
came in the aftermath of the fight over the stimulus, etc.,
etc....which means that the Democrats in red/purple states that are up for re-election this year aren't too keen on having Obama pick anyone
deemed "too radical".  They see it as adding one more log to the fire of increasing conservative opposition and activism.

But from Obama's standpoint, he's surely considering that the Republicans are likely to make some pretty big gains in the Senate this November, meaning that, if he really wants another radical liberal (of course), now's the time to nominate them, rather than go with a moderate now to satisfy some Democrat senators.

Filed under: 

Personhood for corporations (but not the unborn)

Columnist Cal Thomas raises a point to ponder in the light of last week's decision by the Supreme Court which (essentially) extended First Amendment rights to corporations and unions.

He points out that, for purposes of the Constitution, the court rightly decided that these entities are comprised of citizens, so they have the rights of citizens when it comes to free speech.

The ruling came the week of the annual March for Life, which draws
thousands to Washington to mark that same court's 1973 Roe v. Wade
ruling. The march has become not so much a protest as an affirmation of
the value of all human life.

What makes the ruling and the march ironic is that the 1973 court,
in essence, downgraded a human fetus to the level of nonperson, while
the modern court has invested "personhood" in corporations. Does anyone
else see a contradiction or at least a moral inconsistency in these two
rulings?

Of course, as Thomas mentions, the difference in conclusions has a lot to do with the court making the decision...and in this case "who" was on the court.

Syndicate content