If Kagen Doesn't Believe in Inherent Rights, How is She Qualified to Serve On the Supreme Court?

Last week we witnessed a disturbing though certainly not a surprising event in our nation's capital when President Obama’s nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Elena Kagen refused to answer directly the question posed to her by Senator Tom Coburn during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings about whether or not she believed in rights that are inherent to us. Though falling short of an emphatic denial, this evasive maneuver might better be described by saying she conspicuously declined to affirm such a belief. In any event it left me feeling that Republicans must demand a filibuster so they can take the time to educate the American people as to who this woman is by allowing the Congressional staffs to thoroughly investigate the significant paper trail she has accumulated. We know they would do this if her nomination was from a Republican president. Remember Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts.

Because of her extensive academic background......just look at the merry band of idots stuck on stupid in this lamearse, idiot-ridden Jack Squat administration.....virtually all of them are ACADEMICS with no real world experience other than giving lectures, teaching classes, acting as retard Dean’s, etc.

Just goes to prove that whether they have PhD.’s are not, you live the running of the world to a bunch of ACADEMICS, we are all fraked! =.=

RE :”Though falling short of an emphatic denial, this evasive maneuver might better be described by saying she conspicuously declined to affirm such a belief. In any event it left me feeling that Republicans must demand a filibuster so they can take the time to educate the American people as to who this woman is by allowing the Congressional staffs to thoroughly investigate the significant paper trail she has accumulated”

Obama picked Elena Kegan so she could play the Aunt B act (from Mayberry, not our borders AuntB) on TV with the cutesy smiles and jokes to form public opinion without any relevant background info to make a decision on. But now is probably the best time to take a stand against a SCOTUS pick, with Obama’s public opinion and trust at all time low.

She refused to answer the question : "Does the federal government has a right to tell us what to eat?" Using the current government model (both parties) the federal government can certainly tax you for eating the wrong foods, and give you tax credits for eating the right foods, to the degree that they can enforce it. We pay energy taxes on gasoline but get ethanol subsidized(I hate ethanol). It would be nice if the tax code could NOT be used to control us. But this is the legal model for the Obama mandate. Will Republicans take a stand on this?

Another issue should be relevant to this vote. The recent overturning of Defense of Marriage Act in MA by a federal judge forcing the federal government to give benefits to same sex married couples. RINos like Mccain promised us this could not happen. (I bet he got this from his clueless daughter Megan LOL.) How can the federal government tell AZ it cannot pass an immigration enforcement law over supremacy, yet MA can tell the federal government (through this federal judge) exactly who they must give federal benefits to (homosexuals) over-ruling federal law??? Yet the SCOTUS created a federal constitutional right to same sex sodomy over-ruling state laws .

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.