Robert Merrill – a veteran Marine officer who spent three years at Harvard Law – leaps to Elena Kagan’s defense, at least in re
If Elena Kagan is “anti-military,” she certainly didn’t show it. She treated the veterans at Harvard like VIPs, and she was a fervent advocate of our veterans association. She was decidedly against “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but that never affected her treatment of those who had served. I am confident she is looking forward to the upcoming confirmation hearings as an opportunity to engage in some intellectual sparring with members of Congress over her Supreme Court nomination. I would respectfully warn them to do their homework, as she has a reputation for annihilating the unprepared.
In my opinion, Kagan’s positions never affected the services’ ability to recruit at Harvard. Behind the scenes, the dean ensured that our tiny HLS Veterans Association never lacked for funds or access to facilities. Recruiters simply could not use the school’s Office of Career Services. Does this demonstrate an “activist” streak, as some have proclaimed? I don’t think so. The school’s policy against discrimination was akin to black-letter law. If anything, Kagan was an activist in ensuring that military recruiters had viable access to students and facilities despite the official ban. A Boston-area recruiter later told me that the biggest hurdle he faced recruiting at Harvard Law was trying to answer the students’ strangely intellectual questions.
There may be a lot of reasons to keep Elena Kagan off the Supreme Court – she’s a preening elitist on a court already so full of Ivy Leaguers, she’s a not-so-closeted authoritarian, whatever. Maybe hatred of the military isn’t one of them…
No, HATRED of the MILITARY is not one of them, unlike the false assertions made by Sessions of AL in the hearings.
Talk about ‘chanting points’ without merit…….
Dog Gone, would you please comment on the Sotomayor lie?
(Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 7/14/09)
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-VT): “Is It Safe To Say That You Accept The Supreme Court’s Decision As Establishing That The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right? Is That Correct?”
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “Yes, Sir.”
So how did Justice Sotomayor vote in the McDonald case? Say what!!!
And is there any reason not to believe Kagan is lying as well?
(Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-VT): “Is There Any Doubt After The Court’s Decisions In Heller And McDonald That The Second Amendment To The Constitution, Secures A Fundamental Right For An Individual To Own A Firearm, Use It For Self Defense In Their Home?”
ELENA KAGAN: “There Is No Doubt, Senator Leahy, That Is Binding Precedent Entitled To All The Respect Of Binding Precedent In Any Case. So That Is Settled Law.”
DG, how can you support such liars?
I haven’t read an opinon on this case from Sotoymayor. Toe forwarded me the documents, some 200 + pages.
Before I call Sotomayor a liar, given the valid objections to the way the vote went that ignores previous settled law. I think that it appears that the judges who voted against this may have been more consistent with that settled law and precedent that the judges who were in the very narrow majority. And consistent with the statements above as well.
But I won’t have an opinion on that until I get around to reading it. In the meantime, Joel, Pen and ToE have had a pretty interesting exchange, while I focused on writing on other topics.
Sessions however was a simple, straightforward clear cut example of a lie. It didn’t require an understanding of the preceding decisions or reading over 200 pages.
Dog, you are using two rulers again.
Dred Scot merely affirmed previous law. Good decision or bad?
Roe V Wade overturned previous law. Good decision or bad?
The heart of the matter is: does the court make law or judge particular cases? You can’t say that it sometimes should do one and sometimes do the other. If they are making law where do they get this authority?
How can the justices that voted against McDonald be consistent with Heller?
How could Sotomayor vote against the 2nd Amendment right?
You must be taking your time and winding that spring real tight in order to spin this one.
K-Rod, you may be interested in this. Over at the palace of Mad King Charles, Johnson has decided that it is improper to ask Kagan about her views on the natural law that is the foundation of both our nation and our constitution: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36664_Video-_GOP_Sen._Coburn_Tries_to_Get_Elena_Kagan_to_Say_Rights_Come_from_God/comments/#ctop
Indeed, Charles seems to think that asking Kagan questions about this topic indicates some kind of religious fascism.
It’s amusing to watch the “yes-sir-Mr. Charles!” commenters he has not yet banned struggle with their own ignorance while they attempt to agree with him.
*facepalm*
.
.
.
Government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away.