Posted on 06/26/2010 4:23:59 AM PDT by davidosborne
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's press for considering international law as "the context" for interpreting U.S. law has incited worries her appointment could pave the way for world treaties that threaten both parental rights and homeschooling in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Has anyone here (other than I) read this these papers that WND cites out of context? If so, why no comments on the actual statements and writings of Elena Kagan?
For example, why are people not commenting how, in the "motive-hunting" line, Professor Kagan was writing about how the SCOTUS had acted since United States v. O'Brien 391 US367, 383 (1968), not saying how she thought they should have acted.
If nothing else, World Nut Daily is amusing. It occasionally pulls the blind squirrel trick, but along with that, it acts with either disregard for the truth or flat-out willful misrepresentation.
We can sort out the charges later....
Say, in the year 2525 ;-)
Kagan: Some Speech Can Be 'Disappeared'
Kagan college thesis support Socialism
Obama nominee Kagan has embraced expanded executive authority
Read post #11. The 41st goal as presented by Cleon Skousen to Congress of the Communists’ upcoming plot is to raise/incodtrinate children away from the “Negative” influence of parents...
I agree.
It would seem that we are nearly at a tipping point with this hope and change garbage. If the current “Regime” were to blatantly take away homeschooler’s rights I’m afraid this ideological war would soon become physical.
Too many frogs are out of the pot.
Gondring,
Thanks for taking the time to post on this thread. Your post seems to suggest that you SUPPORT the nomination of Ms. Kagan to the SCOTUS. However, if you oppose Ms. Kagan and your intent was to ONLY ensure that everyone including WND writers make sure that they quote everything IN CONTEXT that I can understand that... there is so much concern over Ms. Kagan’s positions on so many issues that I can’t support her nomination to the SCOTUS.... in the intrest of “full disclosure” I would probably not be happy with ANY nominee that is not an ideological clone of Justice Scalia :)
Enterprise,
Thanks for your post and links contributing to this thread !
Now drop and give me 10 :) I CAN’T HEAAAR YOOOOU !!! j/k
David
Our Constitution reigns supreme here in the U.S. What kills me is that the left hates it and want the UN to rule over us. P!ss on them all!
BTW Gondring,
If Paul Revere was a FReeper in good standing we would listen to him :)
David
Scalia has it right when he says that he does not even read/consier “international law” when deciding SCOTUS cases because it has ZERO relevence to his thought process and ultimately his decision the only thing that is relevent is the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and its application to the matter to be decided... other justices such as Breyer and Kennedy are out of line IMHO whenever they allow foreign laws to influence their thought process let alone their DECISION !!
My intent is similar to many of my posts here. If I said, "Me, too!" to the posts with which I agree, FR would get rather rather fast. But I do try to post where I think conservatives are hurting conservatism.
If we believe we have evidence on our side and our side is right, let's keep the moral high ground instead of going down the into the mud with the Left. (If the evidence doesn't favor us, perhaps we should reconsider where we stand or what evidence we have!)
WND can sometimes be a good early warning system, where the truth is a neighbor to what they publish, and sometimes they even get it right and complete; as such, however, they can't be taken as a reliable source. Why do this? They're trying to earn a buck, and I don't begrudge them that. But that's not necessarily in line with the goal of fighting Liberalism (e.g., note how they are excerpt-only, to force people to give them page hits).
As for this nominee, I think it's far too difficult a question to answer here without some understanding of what you're asking. She's far from what I'd like to see, but if not confirmed, who's to say the President won't simply ratchet things up. Would you rather have Cass Sunstein or Bernardine Dohrn as the nominee? Senators who deny a candidate that is seen as a "reasonable" pick may find themselves painted as "obstructionist." Although the Constitution is important, the Founding Fathers put the Electorate above it, and--albeit unwisely--they chose the man-child and could choose also to replace Senators they feel are not "working to help America."
Enterprise: giving me links that lead back to the same source (WND) are not "different sources"
Regardless, I'm looking at her actual writings (e.g., "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine" (PDF).
Not all are as wise as you.
Gondring,
I think I could live with being called an “obstructionist”... as long as it is LIBERALISM that I am being accused of obstructing :) it is my stated intent to obstruct liberalism :) -— Forcing the President to make a recess appointment will allow us to get a CONSERVATIVE replacement later.. IF we allow a vote to take place and she get the 51 votes she needs to win which she likely will.. than we are stuck with her for LIFE !!
So, having said that.. I am PROUD to wear the label LIBERAL OBSTRUCTIONIST :)
You forgot your /sarcasm tag my FRiend
David
...that was sarcasm wasn't it? ... my ego is big enough I really don't need any encouragement :)
But unless you control the POTUS and MSM, you don't get to choose how you're portrayed. You'd be an Anti-American Obstructionist, fighting to inhibit the SCOTUS and Justice.
Forcing the President to make a recess appointment will allow us to get a CONSERVATIVE replacement later..
Oh?
I don't think so. How long do you think you could hold off from confirming a SCOTUS appointee, and do you really think this POTUS would send up a cosnservative?! I also think that the Obama regime believes this nominee will be confirmed.
You sound a bit pessimistic my FRiend.. seriously though, ultimately I believe that God is in control, the only thing needed for EVIL to prevail is for good men to do/say nothing. Expressing our opinions to our elected leaders, good or bad, as individual AMERICANS, DOES have an effect on what happens in politics, never underestimate the power of a personal letter/opinion....but in the end we can only continue to fight for FREEDOM my FRiend..
honestly.. it will take a 60 vote COSERVATIVE majority in the U.S. Senate to fix all the issues.. which is very likely in 2010/2012 given the current state of the Union.
Until then ANYONE who allows this nommination to go forward should be VOTED OUT of office..period..
As to if I would prefer Kagan over Dohrn or Sunstein, the answer is none of the above. I want the Republicans to blue slip, or filibuster any more of Obama's nominations. I want the Republicans to stand in the breach for once and have Obama go into a frothing rage.
LOL - I can’t do 10 anymore. Pinched neck nerve among other things. I can still yell loud though. Instead of doing 10 I’ll settle for permanent KP.
lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.