Kagan Lied
Dec 24, 2011 Political
Associate Justice Elana Kagan lied to the Senate during her confirmation hearings and she should be impeached for this. Her lie was about her involvement in Obamacare prior to her selection to serve on the Supreme Court. Kagan lied about her involvement and recently released documents show that she was involved in the legal issues and that the DOJ tried cover this up by asseeting that she had been walled off from the issue. Many of the documents have been redacted so there is no telling what deeper involvement she had. The Senate should request the unredacted documents and dig as deep into this as it can.
Doug Ross does a great job detailing the documents, Kagan’s response to written questions about her involvement in Obamacare and the DOJ decpetion of “walling” her off.
Ross details how Kagan was asked (in writing) during the confirmation process about her involvement in Obamacare including being asked if she offered her opinions, views or comments (and specifically about a Constitutional challenge of the process of deem and pass). Kagan denied that she had done any of these things but the documents show otherwise. One such occurrence of her involvement took place thirteen days before she sat in front of the Senate judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearings.
Kagan lied, period. Not only did she lie but the DOJ tried to cover up her involvement. This folks, is illegal and she needs to be impeached (and heads at the DOJ need to roll).
Before she is impeached she needs to recuse herself from any debate regarding Obamacare IAW 28 USC 455.
This gang of criminals needs to be put in its place, and soon.
First she recuses, then she is impeached.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: confirmation, doj, doug ross. mark levin, elena kagan, impeach, lies, obamacare, recuse
The New York Times And The Constitution
Jul 22, 2010 Political
The NYT has an editorial about Elena Kagan and the Republicans who oppose her. The thrust of the piece is that they do not understand the Constitution and they are angered that she would not answer the way they wanted with regard to the Commerce Clause. The NYT is convinced that the federal government can do anything it wants under the guise of the Commerce Clause and that it is settled law because of SCOTUS rulings.
So the Republicans, according to the NYT, are supposed to bow down and vote for a person who has a history of ignoring the Constitution and who believes in Socialism just like her buddy Obama.
The problem is, that while the NYT is busy saying that it is OK to do anything under the Commerce Clause including forcing people to buy health insurance, the writer demonstrates that he does not understand the Constitution. The writer’s words show a definite misunderstanding.
The clause was the legal basis for any number of statutes of enormous benefit to society. It is why we have the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act, setting a minimum wage and limiting child labor. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation in the workplace and in public accommodations. In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related. NYT
I will not comment on the enumerated acts because I do not know how Commerce fits in and it is not important to the debate. What is important is the sentence; “In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related.” [emphasis added]
The SCOTUS has ruled Congress can regulate ACTIVITIES. NOT buying health insurance is NOT an activity. The health care law punishes people for INACTIVITY.
The SCOTUS has never ruled that Congress can regulate INACTIVITY under the Commerce Clause (or any other as far as I know). All of the cited items are reported to be results of the imposition of the Commerce Clause and are stipulated as activities.
Even if one buys the argument that the Commerce Clause is unencumbered and allows politicians to regulate any activity whatsoever, no one can make the case that it allows Congress to regulate INACTIVITY. Never in our history has Congress been able to force people to purchase a product.
What will be next? Will we be required to buy a GM in order to help out that car company and its union employees?
The writer is obviously a “Journolist” Socialist who loves the liberal/progressive agenda and that is all well and good. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes.
But let us not take this editorial as some authority on the Constitution.
The writer went after Republicans for their supposed lack of understanding of the Constitution but the writer demonstrates limited knowledge as well.
Not to mention the NYT seems to ignore the Democrats and their leader and the way they trample the Constitution on a daily basis.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: commerce clause, elena kagan, health care, lies, new york times
Round Up Of The Liberal’s Madness
Jul 18, 2010 Political
The elites want you to bathe in the oil while they eat lobster in Maine
Michelle Obama told people that there were plenty of clean beaches in the Gulf and that people should vacation there. She told them to take their kids with them, you know to enjoy the place.
But that did not apply to Michelle and her husband. Perhaps you have heard of him. He is the Socialist who is currently in charge of the country and who spends most of his time playing one sport or another or being on vacation. But his vacation is not in the Gulf, no, no, no. The Obamas are in Maine, the place Bill Clinton liked to vacation. They are hobnobbing, interrupting the real Americans who are trying to enjoy a vacation, and ignoring the Gulf, the very place Michelle told people to visit.
The Gulf, where one could potentially be contaminated, is for the peons among us and not the elitists who spend their time in places like Martha’s Vineyard.
I bet if it was called the GOLF Coast he would vacation there…
ABC News Jake Tapper
Elena Kagan is another Socialist who hates the military
She hates the military. There is no other way to look at her ban of recruiters on the Harvard Campus because of the policy against open homosexuality. One might think that she took a principled stance but she allowed the Saudi recruiters on campus to discuss and promote Sharia Law. Sharia Law calls for murdering homosexuals. Kagan is not so much in favor of homosexual rights as she is against the military. Here is the transcript from this video:
As Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan banned military recruiters from campus because US law said they couldn’t enlist homosexuals. Well, she invited the Saudi’s “recruiters” to promote their legal code — Shariah — which calls for homosexuals to be murdered and women to be treated like animals. If Kagan tolerates promoting the injustice of Shariah law on the campus of Harvard, what kind of injustice will she tolerate in America during a lifetime on the Supreme Court?
Big Dog Salute to American Power
How is that universal health care in Massachusetts working out?
The Unites States contains 50 pitri dishes that allow for things to take place and be worked out. The states can try things and if they are good the country can adopt them and if they are bad the country can reject them. This is good in theory but the federal government and the individual states, by and large, continue doing the things that cause problems.
In any event, Massachusetts enacted a health care law much like the one the federal government imposed on the rest of us earlier this year. Despite the failings of the MA health care plan, the federal government pushed forward (against a majority of people in the country) and forced their plan on us. Opponents of the law warned that it will lead to rationing, it will lead to bureaucrats making medical decisions, will force businesses to drop their employees (dump them on the taxpayer), and will cost a lot more than government predictions. The model was there in MA but it was ignored because the law is not about health and it is not about care.
It is about control.
Here is what is now taking place in Massachusetts.
The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget. boston.com
The Massachusetts law was supposed to reduce costs. It was supposed to make health care more affordable. It was supposed to allow people to keep their current insurance. It was designed to make it affordable for employers so they could cover their employees.
Sounds just like what the liberals told us about Obamacare.
And it too will cost more than they said, will lead to rationing, will lead to death panels (denied care that leads to death is a death panel), and will force businesses to drop employees and dump them on the government plan. Just ask Massachusetts how it all worked out…
Everyone on the government plan is what the progressives have wanted all along but this is not what we were told.
Looks like it is November or never.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: death panels, elena kagan, golf vacation, gulf vacation, health care, homosexuals, lies, maine, Massachusetts, Obama, obamacare, Sharia Law
Is Specter Selling Kagan Vote For Job In Obama Regime?
Jul 15, 2010 Political
Arlen Specter is an opportunist. He was a Democrat (1951-1965) and then changed to Republican and then when it looked like he was going to lose in the 2010 election, he changed parties again and became a Democrat. In fact, Specter ran as a Republican in 1965 after losing the bid in the Democrat primary. He ran as a registered Democrat and then changed parties when he won. Who says you can’t go home?
Ironically, Specter lost the Democrat primary to Joe Sestak so now he is looking for a new job.
In steps the Obama regime. Specter told the White House he would like to continue his public service. Before I go on, he never did public service. He did Specter service as demonstrated by his switching parties in order to keep his job though it didn’t quite work out that way. Specter will be 81 when he leaves office. He has been sucking up a government paycheck for decades and it is time for him to hang it up.
Now, back to Specter and his desire to continue screwing the public. Looks like Obama might be interested in having Specter work on Syrian/Israeli relations and possibly broker some kind of peace agreement. And what would it cost to get such a job? Hmmm, how about voting yes on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court?
Specter, who opposed Kagan for Solicitor General and who was none too happy with her during the Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, has now stated that he supports her for the Court.
Could this be another quid pro quo from the Obama regime? They tried to bribe Sestak to leave the race so Specter could win and now it looks like they might be bribing Specter for his vote.
Whether Specter personally opposes the nomination is of no matter here because Specter only does things to benefit him and if voting yes on Kagan will land him another government paycheck then he will say yes in a New York City second.
Perhaps that was Specter’s campaign slogan:
Putting Arlen First…
Source:
ABC News – Jake Tapper
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arlen specter, elena kagan, jake tapper, quid pro quo, supreme court