Funny, She doesn't look "Pro-Israel"..................
Posted on 06/30/2010 5:21:51 AM PDT by RobinMasters
A little embarrassing for The One, wouldn’t you say?
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said her admiration for a former Israeli chief justice was rooted in her Jewishness and admiration for Israel. …
“[Aharon Barak] is very often called the John Marshall of the State of Israel because he was central in creating an independent judiciary for Israel and in ensuring that Israel — a young nation, a nation threatened from its very beginning in existential ways and a nation without a written constitution — he was central in ensuring that Israel, with all those kinds of liabilities would become a very strong rule of law nation,” she said.
She also admired Barak for personal reasons.
“As you know, I don’t think it’s a secret I am Jewish,” she said. “The State of Israel has meant a lot to me and my family.”
This actually puts Zionist conservatives in a tough spot. On the one hand, we have a rare defense of Israel from someone in the Obama camp who is genuine, well-informed, and morally sensible.
On the other, we have an endorsement of an Israeli jurist whose exegetical views would elevate judges into a position not indistinguishable from the philosopher-kings of Plato’s Republic. Obviously, she should be voted down. But still.
All this really means is that instead of quoting European law in defense of her mis-rulings, she will quote either the Talmud or Israel court precedents - neither of which have validity in US law.
Ask Kagan what she thought about Rachael Corrie’s death-via-bulldozer in 2003 and whether the IDF was in the right or the wrong. There’s a question you won’t see asked.
I think Obama may be more focused on the lengths Kagan will go to for the support of abortion;
“A key event in the politics of partial-birth abortion was a report by a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ organization. That report included this statement, which the Supreme Court found highly persuasive in striking down Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion ban:
ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.
Here is the shocking part: the ACOG report, as originally drafted, said almost exactly the opposite. The initial draft said that the ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” That language horrified the rabidly pro-abortion Elena Kagan, then a deputy assistant to President Clinton for domestic policy. This is what Kagan wrote in a memo to her superiors in the Clinton White House:
Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: “[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” This, of course, would be disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public.
So Kagan took matters into her own hands: incredibly, she herself appears to have written the key language that eventually appeared in the ACOG report. Coffin writes:
So Kagan set about solving the problem. Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”
Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.)”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026643.php?format=print
I meant suicide-via-bulldozer.
I tell you, I have NEVER observed a leftist, marxist like Elena Kagan, who was pro-Israel. EVER.
It is antithetical. They always gravitate to Russian policy.
Funny, She doesn't look "Pro-Israel"..................
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026643.php
“Unless there is some other interpretation of these documents that does not occur to me, it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process. The ACOG report was certainly seen in that light by the federal courts. Federal Judge Richard Kopf was deeply impressed by the scientific integrity of the report; he wrote:
“Before and during the task force meeting,” he concluded, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed” in the ACOG statement.
This statement was obviously false. The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.
Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.”
As a Jew I agree with you. She should be putting her “American” best foot forward and while she may admire Israel, she is hoping to be a Chief Justice of the USA and not be so enamoured with Israeli Justice Barak who was a demagogue of the worst kind!
Great. But it's irrelevant. The fact remains she, like all "progressives" don't view the Constitution as the source from which laws are interpreted.
It’s about the fag vote and abortion...Nice American girl!!! Yeh, right!! Values??
don’t view = doesn’t view
The trouble with Kagan is that, with Republican complicitness, Obama will shove another SCOTUS radical leftist down America’s throat for decades to come.
IMO, SCOTUS justices should be appointed for a term of ten years with an option by the president to renew their appointment for another ten years. After that - GO HOME!!!
As I recall, Sotomayor claimed to agree with the Supreme Court decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Look how that turned out. These hearings are meaningless. The candidate says what people want them to say. That's all.
And Justice Sotomayer is pro 2nd Amendment...after all, she said so at her confirmation hearings..
But then Sotomayor voted AGAINST Chicagoans owning handguns....
You can’t believe a word a liberal says at the confirmation hearings. She could just as well wish Israel be turned to glass for all we know.
There is more than enough about her that should trigger a filibuster, but not nearly enough GOPers will have the stones to do so. I predict, in addition to all the dems, the following repubs will vote to confirm:
1. Graham
2. Brown
3. McCain
4. Hatch
5. Alexander
6. Snowe
7. Collins
8. Grassley
9. Lugar
Anyone else care to venture a guess?
Why should it matter? And an associate justice on the Supreme Court, Kagan has no say in foreign policy.
Since Reform Jews have largely abandoned Judaism, both theology and ritual, they struggle with the sense of identity. One of the "pillars" of that movement was support for Israel --- a collective Holocaust survivor. That's what Ms. Kagan has heard in her youth and repeats when cued.
Ask her not a blanker statement but whether she supports a particular action of the Israeli government, and you'll get a different answer. It's just like all Democrats: they claim to be patriotic but somehow no action in defense of this counry is justifiable. The same with the Reform "Jews" of of Kagan's generation: they all supposedly support Israel but somehow no Israeli self-defense is justifiable. All leftists are essentially the same and monotonous...
The poster on the Commentary blog tries to create a tempest in a teapot. Judging by some posts on this thread, he has partially succeeded.
I completely agree with you. This bothers me: I never sense that level of patriotism in Democrats.
"All this really means is that instead of quoting European law in defense of her mis-rulings, she will quote either the Talmud or Israel court precedents - neither of which have validity in US law."
Neither is a logical conclusion. You may admire Churchill, but that does not mean you will try introduce monarchy here, does it? Humankind admires Jesus Christ, but Christian Justices followed the Constitution; i.e., applied law rather than religion. Why do you assume that a Jewish judge would be different in this regard?
P.S. You also give her too much credit: only truly learned Jews know Talmud, and Kagan is at the opposite extreme: she is a Reform Jew, if any at all.
Then why is she working for Obama?
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.