Maine Voices: Many reasons to oppose Elena Kagan's nomination to Supreme Court
She favors foreign laws and jurists above our own and disagrees with the majority of Americans on social issues.
By CHARLA BANSLEY
ELLSWORTH - Many Mainers believe there is a real disconnect between Constitution Avenue and Main Street. The nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Obama is another example of that divide.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Charla Bansley (e-mail: director@maine.cwfa.org) of Ellsworth is an English teacher at Calvary Chapel Christian School and state director for Concerned Women for America of Maine.
The Supreme Court nominee wrote, "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 of socialism's greatness."
In her thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," Kagan wrote: "The (Socialist Party) story is a sad but also chastening one for those who still wish to change America."
The idea that socialism is "golden" and America's capitalism needs to "change" is what motivated me to jump in a car with a fellow English teacher, travel to Washington and meet with the staffs of Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins as well as senators on the Judiciary Committee.
National Sovereignty: As dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan removed the Constitutional Law course as a requirement for graduation and replaced it with a course in International Law.
It baffles the minds of Mainers and citizens across our nation that an institution such as Harvard does not require its lawyers to take constitutional law. To Elena Kagan, socialism is "great" while constitutional law is expendable.
Sanctity of Life: Elena Kagan's disconnect with most Americans can be seen in her support for taxpayer-funded abortions, partial-birth abortion, assisted suicide and human cloning.
Though recognizing that "a select panel convened by (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) could identify no circumstances under which (partial birth abortion) would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman," she advised President Bill Clinton to veto Congress' ban on this inhumane process.
As a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, Kagan wrote that a new federal law banning assisted suicide would be "a fairly terrible idea."
Kagan's radical views on the "un-sanctity" of life go all the way to supporting human cloning for research.
I have two sons with Type 1 diabetes. No one wants a cure more than me, but not at the expense and exploitation of another human life.
Homosexual Marriage: Every time Americans have voted on the issue of homosexual marriage, they have sounded a resounding "no." In fact, citizens in 30 states have now added amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Many Americans are concerned that Kagan will do on the Supreme Court what judges did in Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts, and make homosexual marriage the law of the land.
Judicial Activism: The concern that Elena Kagan is more an activist than a jurist is a legitimate one. She says her "judicial hero" is Aharon Barak of Israel. "He is the judge who has best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law and justice," she said.
Aharon Barak is an internationally famous judicial activist who wrote in his book "The Judge in a Democracy" that "The judge may give a statute new meaning, a dynamic meaning that seeks to bridge the gap between law and life's changing reality without changing the statute itself. The statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning that suits new social needs."
We need to sound the alarm over Kagan's potential approval in the Senate. Supreme Court nominations are lifetime appointments. America's history for the next several decades is at stake. Tell our senators that you do not support the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Then, ask God to once again "bless America, land that I love."
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
26 COMMENTS
ketchfish said...
Kagan's nomination is more glaring proof that our President and his cronies not so hidden agenda is to move us towards a world socialist government.
July 1, 2010 at 6:47 AM Report abuse
Hank said...
If she gets in, and she probably will, it will make future appointments all the more important so she can be isolated and nullified.
July 1, 2010 at 6:57 AM Report abuse
LEB said...
Ms. Bansley: Elena Kagan's undergraduate College senior thesis in 1981 discussed the rise and fall of socialism in New York City in the early 20th century, with a particular emphasis on why the movement collapsed - emphasis collapsed. At no point in the thesis did Kagan say she personally supported socialism. I watched her hearing. I didn't hear any Senators, Dem or Rep, ask about that. I imagine someone would have asked, no?
July 1, 2010 at 7:30 AM Report abuse
sapereaude1 said...
I don't think Obama has a hidden agenda, but I do think that it's time the WASPs, Protestant Black Americans, Native Americans and Sephardic Jews of America took a stand against the concentration of judicial power in the hands of third generation immigrants. No one on the Supreme Court can claim an ancestor who was here when the Constitution was ratified, or even when Lee surrendered in 1865. So just how would they have any instinctive understanding of how we got to be a country their ancestors wanted to join?
July 1, 2010 at 7:36 AM Report abuse
Musikian said...
Excellent article. The UA Supreme Court is no place for a Socialist.
July 1, 2010 at 8:31 AM Report abuse
jm said...
Seems that the writer overlooked the MOST important reason to oppose Kagan: her support for enhanced Presidential powers. We can't count on her to protect our individual liberties under the Constitution. As far as "Judicial Activism" goes, though, you can't top the Court's 2000 decision in Bush vs. Gore (a decision SO "activist" that the Court made it a point to say that it did NOT establish any precedent to govern future similar cases).
July 1, 2010 at 8:35 AM Report abuse
Musikian said...
ketchfish, I agree with you. Yet, she will probably be confirmed? WHY? If these confirmation hearings are just a dog and pony show, why have them? What is in it for these Senators to support this woman?
July 1, 2010 at 8:45 AM Report abuse
AFVET said...
The cries of 'socialism' are I assume intentionally misleading. We are hardly in danger of some evil called socialism. We have, in fact, become an oligarchy, in which a few wealthy and powerful individuals control the government and our tax money. Witness the cozy regulatory environments in which BP and Goldman Sachs functioned to the detriment of most of us. That system is NOT socialism. Someone is getting paid to cry wolf and thus point away from the real predator.
July 1, 2010 at 9:00 AM Report abuse
GURRY70 said...
Few if any hard hitting questions from the dog and pony show. Not that Kagan would have answered any of them. As Sotomayor just proved...you lie, say what you have to to be confirmed.
July 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM Report abuse
Scrib said...
Charla- Excellent piece. Kagan's duplicitous rewrite of the American College of OBGYN's unsupportive statement on partial birth abortion during the Clinton admin. is enough to reject her outright- it won't be of course. Then yesterday, her seeming inability to answer Sen. Coburn's question of whether the federal government could mandate that Americans eat veggies and fruit 3 times a day (under the Commerce Clause) should strike fear in every citizen. This in reference to Obama's mandate that we all have to buy health insurance under penalty of law. Maybe she can be filibusterd, but I'm afraid this will be another tragic result of electing this President. As they say, elections have consequences.
July 1, 2010 at 9:15 AM Report abuse
Scrib said...
filibustered
July 1, 2010 at 9:16 AM Report abuse
Chew said...
I have listened to her answers... I believe she is a fine lady with good intentions, however her views on the constitution are frightening. She is unqualified (in my opinion)in the most basic sense to serve on the highest court in our country.
July 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM Report abuse
Brian+Hubbel said...
Isn't Calvary Chapel Downeast the place that, on April 10, was collecting for destruction all books that mentioned evolution or suggested that the world is more than 4000 years old? http://fenceviewer.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31086
July 1, 2010 at 9:54 AM Report abuse
Musikian said...
AFVET, under socialism, the wealthy and powerful would STILL control our government AND the people. Socialism IS evil and anyone who embraces it has no place on the US Supreme Court.
July 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
She's just perfect for the job in the eyes of the Liberal Left Wing that wants to simply do what feels good at any given time.
July 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM Report abuse
AFVET said...
No, Muski. You have no grasp of how different systems operate. Socialism would involve government ownership of most means of production and control of wages/prices. It would produce a powerful cadre of managers and no doubt would induce a lot of corruption. Our current system much more resembles Mussolini's corporatism, in which, for example, Bush could get most of the communications companies to cooperate with his illegal wiretapping before and after 9/11. Or -- Hitler's National Socialism after he knocked the socialists off in June of 1934. Then, communism was used to make Germans afraid, just as the bugaboo of socialism is being used today. To create fears of socialism is to divert attention from what is really happening, as you do with your undefined rhetoric of fear.
July 1, 2010 at 11:02 AM Report abuse
Sue01 said...
This real-life incarnation of Dana Carvey's character, the "Church Lady,"... ... spent last year spewing propaganda that same sex marriage would be taught in public schools - despite signed statements from top policy managers in gov't and education to the contrary. (Truth: Marriage is not taught in PUBLIC schools.) Well she's BAAA-CK - and this time, she's taking on a Democratic Supreme Court nominee. Much like the comical (but scary) Church Lady, she is NOT RIGHTEOUS - merely indignant.
July 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM Report abuse
pphreader said...
JM...did you support Bush and Cheney?If so,then you support enhanced power of the executive branch.Cheney made no bones about it.
July 1, 2010 at 12:07 PM Report abuse
AndrewK said...
What a bunch of useless fear mongering. Kagan is far more conservative than John Paul Stevens. She'll represent a further move to the right for the court. The conservatives here should be thrilled Obama didn't pick an actual liberal judge. As for abortion - it's decided precedent. The only judges destroying decided precedent these days are the conservative justices.
July 1, 2010 at 2:37 PM Report abuse
GetSerious said...
Always fun to see the comments from right-wing nut jobs and tea baggers. If I hear the sky is falling one more time... ...we'll I'll be making one of their famous tin-foil hats myself. But the good news about Kagan is marriage equality. With the CA Prop 8 Case going to the SCOTUS, Kagan (a softball playing lezbo according to the nut bags) is certain to be the swing vote that will make same-sex marriage the law of the land! BWAAA HAA HAaa Haaa....
July 1, 2010 at 4:23 PM Report abuse
jm said...
pphreader: ??????? WHAT gave you the crazy idea that I supported Bush & Cheney? How could ANYONE support Bush & Cheney if they care about preserving our Bill of Rights???? MY objection to Kagan is that she SEEMS to support Bush's (and Obama's) theories of expanded Executive powers...to OUR detriment.
July 1, 2010 at 7:31 PM Report abuse
MainelyJack said...
Kagin is a disaster waiting to happen. Obama is a disaster. We will be generations undoing his deviousness.
July 2, 2010 at 5:06 AM Report abuse
CEMan said...
More mindless babbling for the moronic crowd. Why in the f*&k should I care what some church lady form downeast thinks? Socialism? You idiots have no freaking clue what it means. Your just mumbling something that some putz of tv told you to say. Not a real thought amongst the lot of you. To quote Thomas Brackett Reed, "They cannot open their mouths without decreasing the sum total of human knowledge". Or perhaps Samuel Clemens, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt". Your all a sad reflection of where our country is.
July 2, 2010 at 7:43 AM Report abuse
kilkee said...
Sapereaude1: Please tell me your comment is some sort of badly aimed attempt at satire? So the USSC is in the nefarious hands of "third generation immigrants" who lack an "instinctive understanding of how we got to be a country their ancestors wanted to join?" WHAAT?
July 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM Report abuse
RickD said...
Kagan was not nominated by BHO because he thinks she will follow the rule of law, and Sotomayor is the proof. During her confirmation hearings Sotomayor lied when she said the right to bear arms was guaranteed by the constitution. Sotomayor promptly voted against that right at her first opportunity. Kagan will do the same thing, lie to get confirmed, and will then let political and ideology direct her voting record on the court. For anyone to suggest BHO does not have a hidden agenda can't see the forest through the trees. This country is under assault by the current administration.
July 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
The court has always had a 'JEWISH' judge and picked by the ACLU. I guess it's gonna be Kagan; and then when Ginzberg leaves it could be an Asian-American? .......................................November can't come soon enough!
August 1, 2010 at 10:13 AM Report abuse