Documents Show Elena Kagan’s Conflict of Interest on ObamaCare

Documents Show Elena Kagan’s Conflict of Interest on
ObamaCare

May 18th, 2011

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Documents uncovered by a legal watchdog group prove Supreme Court Justice
Elena Kagan was involved in the Obama administration’s legal defense of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “ObamaCare.”

Judicial Watch has released
a number of administration communiqués that show Kagan, who was then Solicitor
General, presided over the president’s response to lawsuits asserting the
government health care bill is unconstitutional.

On January 8, 2010, Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General
Thomas Perrelli, wrote to Kagan’s deputy, Neal Katyal, asking for the office’s
assistance in “how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health
care proposals that are pending.” Three minutes later, Katyal replied,
“Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak with Elena and designate
someone.” After Katyal volunteered, Kagan responded, “You
should do it.”
[1]

A few hours later, Katyal updated Hauck, writing, “Brian, Elena would
definitely like OSG [the Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set
of issues.” Katyal added,”I will handle this myself, along with an Assistant
from my office, (Name RedactedBJ), and we
will bring Elena in as needed
.”(Emphasis added.)

The Justice Department continues to withhold a series of e-mails that would
disclose Kagan’s exact role in the negotiations. However, it has turned over the
Vaughn
index
, which describes the items being stonewalled in general terms. These
include….

Read
more
.

Will Obama Summon the Solicitor General?

Will Obama Summon the Solicitor General?

Peter Landesman

In her confirmation hearing Tuesday, Elena Kagan said words that actually mean that President Obama was incorrect when he stated during his State of the Union speech:
“The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.”
Elena Kagan, watch out. President Obama does not approve of people who criticize him.
She could have avoided commenting on the speech. But, as a great teacher, she had to be truthful.
Peter Landesman (mathmaze@yahoo.com) is the author of the 3D-maze book Spacemazes, with which children can have fun while learning mathematics.

SCOTUS theater: Kagan kabuki

Lead Story

SCOTUS theater: Kagan kabuki

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 28, 2010 04:12 AM

Places, places everyone.

Today, the curtain officially opens on the Senate “battle” over Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. “Battle” gets ghost quotes because all the poohbahs on Capitol Hill are already treating her confirmation as a “foregone conclusion.”

Beltway Republicans will put up just enough of a fight to placate grass-roots conservative activists on Kagan’s radical social views, while the nutroots will pout (but not too loudly) that Kagan isn’t enough of a liberal activist for them. And GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham, after several minutes of obligatory grandstanding mixed with obsequious suck-uppage, will cast his vote with Kagan and Obama — as he did with Sonia Sotomayor (whom he praised as “bold” and edgy”).

Here’s one MSM list of the “5 things to watch out for” during Kagan Kabuki.

I would add:

Will Kagan impersonate Goodwin Liu? Confronted with his radical writings and speeches, Obama’s far Left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee cut and ran from his long-held political beliefs on everything from the welfare state to racial quotas to the role of the judiciary.

Will Kagan impersonate Joe Biden? Kagan’s hostility to the 2nd amendment is certain to be raised by Republicans. When faced with criticism from gun-owners regarding his boss’s views, Biden turned into a gun-slinging cowboy — and attempted to assuage self-defense activists by bragging about his own shotguns and Berretta.

(Speaking of guns, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling today in the gun rights McDonald v. Chicago case.

How many times will we hear the Kagan=”everyday people/compelling personal story” meme before the hearings are through? Hey, it worked for Sonia Sotomayor

– How quickly will left-wing WaPo fashion writer Robin Givhan (who bashed Bush-nominated Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ children’s clothes) crank out a piece praising Kagan’s sensible, down-to-earth, common people style?

– How many times will we hear Democrat Senators vouch for Kagan’s commitment to social-engineering “diversity” at Harvard?

How many Senators have actually read through the 44,000-plus pages of Kagan-authored legal memos, analysis and other documents during the Clinton era just released less than two weeks ago. Answer: ZERO.

***
Americans United for Life has a Kagan backgrounder and questions for the nominee here.FoxNews.com has a rundown of today’s events:

Lee Ross at

Monday’s kickoff will be the most scripted day of the confirmation hearing that is expected to last all week. The day is dedicated to opening statements from the 19 Senate Judiciary Committee members (12 Democrats and seven Republicans) and the nominee. Kagan will be presented to the committee by Massachusetts Senators John Kerry (D) and Scott Brown (R). In between her work in the Clinton and Obama Administrations, Kagan was a professor at Harvard Law School outside Boston. It is customary for nominees to be presented to the committee by their home state senators, though Kagan was born and raised in New York City and once taught at the University of Chicago Law School.

Kagan’s statement to the committee will not come until late in the afternoon and will end the hearing’s first day. It will mark the first substantive remarks from her since the May 10 nomination announcement at the White House. In the weeks since, Kagan has met with 62 senators and more recently has spent several hours each day preparing her answers to questions she expects to hear.

Here’s a brief summation of conservative concerns about Kagan from Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch. I know. I know. It’s Senator Open Borders Hatch. But at least he’s right about this:

“Judges who bend the Constitution to their own values and who use the Constitution to pursue their own vision for society take this right away from the people and undermine liberty itself.”

Jewish Clergy Group: Elena Kagan Isn’t ‘Kosher’ to Serve on Supreme Court

Jewish Clergy Group: Elena Kagan Isn’t ‘Kosher’ to Serve on Supreme Court
Friday, June 25, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor


Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America. (Photo courtesy of the Alliance)
(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is “not kosher” — meaning she is not fit to serve on the court — according to more than 850 Orthodox members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. That’s the term the rabbis used about Kagan in a press release issued Thursday, saying “Elena Kagan is not kosher. She is not fit to sit on this Court — or any court.”
 
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that “a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.” 
 
Levin said most people are happy when “one of their own” is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, “We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head – from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies have no right to be delivered.’”
 
In a statement issued Thursday, the rabbinical alliance called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to confirm Kagan to succeed the outgoing Justice John Paul Stevens.
 
“It is clear from Ms. Kagan’s record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, partial-birth-abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the “supremacy” of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society’s already steep decline into Sodom and Gomorrah,” the rabbis said in the statement.
 
Levin told CNSNews.com that his fellow rabbis – and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and traditional Jews – are puzzled at the president’s choice of Kagan.
 
“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone — or some group — is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”
 
Barring a rebuff from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Levin told CNSNews.com that the rabbis want someone in the Senate to launch a filibuster to stop Kagan’s nomination from coming to a vote.
 
‘We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators – whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) – we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.

Confirmation hearings for Kagan begin Monday at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Neither Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) nor  Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) — both members of the committee, known Kagan supporters and top Jewish members of the Senate — responded to calls for comment on this story

BREAKING NEWS: Kagan (Supreme Court Nominee) Advocates Radical Socialism – College Thesis Uncovered

Fellow Patriots,

We had originally been hesitant to involve the organization in the potential battle over Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS.

You see, up until this evening, Kagan’s History was largely unknown. This has changed, however, because RedState.com uncovered Kagan’s college thesis that essentially exposes her as an all out radical socialist.

Here is a quote to get you started:

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in
the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past
than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than pf socialism’s
greatness. conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has
overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for
explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party
never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in
particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to
the nation’s established parties?”

The thesis is very telling and quite profound. As
it turns out, according to Kagan’s thesis, she’s a part of a larger
movement to identify failures of socialist movements of the past, in
order to correct mistakes for future efforts
.

Liberty First PAC and the Patriot Caucus have launched a new petition
aimed at battling Kagan’s nomination and we thought we would send it to
you first.

Please follow these four steps:

1) Visit NoKagan.com and sign the petition (we have links to the thesis there as well)
2) Click here to Tweet the link and share it with your followers (This MUST go viral!)
3) Email your lists, friends and family and tell them to go to NoKagan.com and sign the petition!

Don’t let this administration install another radical in Government!

Next Up on Obama Chopping Block: Free Speech SCOTUS PICK CENSORSHIP ADVOCATE promoting an “illegitimate attempt to use ‘censorship to control thought.'”

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Next Up on Obama Chopping Block: Free Speech
SCOTUS PICK CENSORSHIP ADVOCATE promoting an “illegitimate attempt to use ‘censorship to control thought.'” Fascism in action. Watch him choke on his words. Fascinating to witness free countries fall under the spell of a would-be dictator. If your blood doesn’t run cold after viewing this video and reading this post, you’re already dead.
Obama at Hampton University – Hey don’t pay attention to the info on iphones and blogs.mov

This convergence of evil is no accident. Last week I reported: Obama Puts the Web Under Fed Control. A federal appeals court ruled last month that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. So last week the Obama Administration chose to “reclassify” the Internet so that it can regulate the Web anyway.

Now this. Any Senator who votes to confirm this freak is an enemy of the people.

Chief Justice Roberts: Kagan Asked Court to ‘Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters’ (CNSNews.com) – Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
 
Justice Kennedy described the law Kagan had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”
 
“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
 
In March 2009, six months before Kagan told the court that the government could bar corporations from publishing political pamphlets, her deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, had gone further, telling the court the Constitution authorized Congress to prohibit corporations from publishing full-length books that included passages advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

May 12th, 2010

By JULIE MASON, Washington Examiner

 

conflicts of interest could block her from ruling on cases dealing with Obama

President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court assumes that she will have to step aside on numerous cases. But that concern that was trumped by what Obama called her “skill as a consensus builder.”

For Obama, installing Kagan on the high court would mean more than adding another like-minded constitutional scholar to the mix. Ideally, Kagan would bring outreach skills the more liberal members of the court have been lacking.

“She has a long record as a consensus builder and is the kind of person who can bridge the 5-4 splits that have become so routine on this court,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kagan’s skill set appeals to Obama, who wants to expand on his first-year Supreme Court nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
While Sotomayor is a reliable liberal vote on the court and the first Latina to serve, she functions primarily as a counterpoint to the court’s conservatives. Obama perceives Kagan as a justice with a broader role on the court.

Read More:

Kagan spit in the eye of America’s Armed Forces

Kagan spit in the eye of America’s Armed Forces

May 10th, 2010

Curt Levey, The Committee for Justice

Realizing that the retirement of Justice Stevens threatened to leave the Supreme Court without a military veteran, the Committee for Justice and others urged President Obama to replace Stevens with someone who has “the military experience necessary to understand and evaluate the government’s national security arguments.”  Most importantly, Justice Stevens himself talked recently about the importance of having “at least one person on the Court who had military experience.”  It was disappointing enough when the President showed no interest in this important concern.  But in selecting Elena Kagan, Obama has chosen to replace the Court’s last veteran with a nominee who essentially spit in the eye of America’s armed forces. Kagan banished military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during a time of war, after pronouncing our armed forces guilty of “a moral injustice of the first order” for carrying out the Clinton Administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Millions of Americans will be outraged when they learn that Obama has picked a Supreme Court nominee with a demonstrated hostility to the very armed forces that make our freedom and constitutional rights possible. But that’s just one reason why President Obama is in for a more difficult confirmation fight than he bargained for when he chose Kagan.

Kagan starts out with more than thirty votes against her confirmation to the High Court.  Only seven Republican senators voted to confirm her as Solicitor General 14 months ago.  Now she faces the less deferential standard applied to lifetime Supreme Court appointments, an emboldened Republican Party, nervous red state Democratic senators, and a public concerned about the nation’s leftward drift.

Added to that mix will be scrutiny of Kagan’s out-of-the-mainstream views on gay rights, which are sure to generate controversy and vigorous opposition. Kagan’s argument that “don’t ask, don’t tell” justifies kicking the military off campus was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006, placing her to the left of even the Court’s most liberal Justices on the issue of gay rights and the First Amendment.  Moreover, Kagan allowed her obviously strong feelings about gay rights to interfere with her duties as Solicitor General.  At least twice during the last year, in cases involving challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy,” Kagan failed to vigorously defend federal law despite her institutional obligation and promise to senators to do so.

At a time when the number one goal of the purveyors of judicial activism is the discovery of a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution, the American people should be worried about this nominee’s views on gay rights.  However, in light of speculation and White House denials concerning Kagan’s sexual orientation, let me be clear that it is Kagan’s constitutional orientation and not her sexual orientation that is a legitimate cause for concern.

 

President Obama’s selection of Kagan is particularly disappointing given that the potential nominees he considered included at least two highly respected judges with a proven track record of moderation – Merrick Garland and Leah Ward Sears.   Conservatives made it clear that they would have a hard time opposing either nominee. While no nominee would silence all the President’s critics, Garland or Sears would have been widely seen as a bipartisan, non-ideological choice and either would likely have been confirmed by an overwhelming margin in the Senate.  Instead, the President chose to pick a fight with Republicans.

Perhaps picking a fight is part of the President’s reported strategy of using the confirmation debate to portray Democrats and the judges they chose as protectors of the “little guy.”  If so, Elena Kagan is a strange choice because her background is far more elitist than humble.  In addition to heading Harvard Law School, one of the most elite schools in the world, and serving as a Clinton Administration politico, Kagan was a paid member of a Goldman Sachs board during the height of Wall Street’s excesses.

 

It’s not clear how the White House can portray Elena Kagan as a woman of the people, but it is apparent that the Administration plans to portray Kagan as a moderate by calling the press’s attention to the concerns of some on the Left that she is not a genuine liberal.  It is hard to know if concerns expressed on the Left are borne of disingenuousness or just a propensity to worry.  However, the bottom line is that it’s downright silly to imagine that a fervent supporter of gay rights who thrived on the Harvard Law School faculty and in the Clinton Administration and embraces Justice Thurgood Marshall’s approach to judging will turn out to be a closet conservative once on the High Court.

Specifically, Kagan described Justice Marshall’s view of the judiciary – that its primary mission is to “show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged” and “to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion” (Kagan’s words) – as “a thing of glory.”  The Kagan / Marshall judicial philosophy sounds an awful lot like President Obama’s promise to appoint judges with “the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom [or] poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old,” a view of judging that even the very liberal Sonia Sotomayor rejected last summer.

Particularly because the American people are concerned like never before about unrestrained federal power, Elena Kagan’s view of a judge’s role is a real threat to her confirmation, as Judiciary Committee Ranking member Jeff Sessions has noted.  After all, a Supreme Court that is free to ignore the law in order to “show a special solicitude” for the interests of certain groups or to discover new rights in the Constitution – such as a right to gay marriage – is an insitution whose power is essentially limitless.

For example, when the constitutionality of ObamaCare comes before the Supreme Court, as is inevitable, will a Justice Kagan decide that “special solicitude” for the disadvantaged is served by okaying Obama’s federalization of health care or, instead, by protecting the rights of those who do not want to be coerced into purchasing health insurance? In other words, it is hard to see how the Kagan / Marshall standard puts any limits on a Justice’s indulgence of their personal policy preferences.

Kagan’s troubling statements about judicial philosophy will take on added significance given her thin record, which includes a puzzling dearth of academic scholarship after more than a decade in academia.  Her thin record also makes it vital that the White House release, in a timely manner, the documents Kagan produced while serving as President Clinton’s associate counsel and domestic policy advisor.

Finally, given her thin record, Kagan owes it to the American people to engage in an open and honest debate with senators about her judicial philosophy and other controversial views.  One hopes that Kagan agrees, given her assertion that “when the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce.”

Elena Kagan Resume (the cartoon)

Kagan on Obama circa 2005

Kagan on Obama circa 2005

Greg Halvorson

By now, anyone with a working knowledge of narcissism recognizes the pathological condition of the president.  Even liberals concede that the man who sends thrills up Chris Mathews’ leg is self-absorbed. 

It therefore makes sense that Elena Kagan, his Solicitor General, is the SCOTUS nominee.  In 2005, at a Harvard luncheon, Ms. Kagan waxed eloquent on Obama.  She’d had the “privilege” of attending the DNC National Convention the year before and had experienced rapture:

He opened his mouth, said a few words, and the place was mesmerized.  You could hear a pin drop.  In part, that is because of all the rock star qualities he has: the eloquence, the magnetism, the great looks, the brilliance.  When he opens his mouth, you know what you’re getting. 

Kagan went on to call Obama a “hero,” concluding that he is “truly one of the great public servants of our time,” and gives many “hope” in the future of our country. 

Wow.  To label a man who voted “present” in the Illinois assembly and was a do-nothing Senator “great” is remarkable.  If Obama is “great,” may I ask, What is bad?  True, when he opens his mouth, we know what we’re getting, but based on the above, we know what we’re getting when Kagan opens hers.  A kool aid progressive who defines “hero” oddly, who believes rock stars “eloquent,” and who’s dipped her toe in the pool of Narcissus to admire Obama admiring himself. 

 

Greg Halvorson is the founder of Soldiers Without Boots, and hosts The Soldier One Radio Hour on Blog Talk Radio.