Senator Coburn, I -- I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, and that was the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I'll meet you another. I'll re- read the Federalist Papers.—Elena KaganWhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
Yeah re-read the Federalist papers because you clearly don’t understand the basis of U.S. jurisprudence Ms. Kagan. You may also consider some of our other fine Founding Documents Ms. Kagan.
It is the birth certificate of our Nation, The Declaration of Independence. In it are the reasons, beliefs and justifications, which guided the men who gave birth to the idea that became the United States of America.
By It’s principles the Founding Fathers wrote the United States Constitution. They wrote the constitution in hopes that Americans never be subjugated to Oligarchies, Depots or Tyrants ever again. That, I think, is a very important thing to know if you are vying to be a part of the leadership of this country.
One would think that someone who is interviewing for a position on the United States Supreme Court would know the tenants of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. One would also think that a Supreme court nominee would be knowledgeable about the body of work that made both the Declaration and Constitution possible.
Equally, one would think that a Dean of a Law school would have a better understanding of the fundamental principles that gave raise to both of these sentinels of American law. So it was surprising to see Elena Kagan demonstrate ignorance of the historical record of our country’s jurisprudence.
If Ms. Kagan doesn’t have a view of what natural rights are and if she isn’t readily familiar with the Federalist papers she has closed herself off from the vision of what American jurisprudence is meant to be. That is what Sen. Tom Coburn was able to demonstrate with his line of questioning. (see 1:56mins video)
Ms. Kagan’s indicated to Sen. Coburn that her view of judging is an inbred insular approach from which she has no appreciation for original intent. Instead she seems comfortable relying on current decisions which could or could not be in keeping with the Founders view of constitutional law depending on whether judges believe that their own interpretations are more current and therefore superior to original intent. Here is an example of that in an exchange between Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan:
COBURN:As you can see Ms. Kagan’s, “can’t see the forest for the trees” approach to judging would allow for changing the original intent of the constitution by basing her decisions on judicial decisions without an understanding of what the overall effect of her decisions would make on the country. We all know that there are activist judges.
I -- I would want you to always act on the basis of a belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.
I -- I think you should want me to act on the basis of law, and -- and that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be concerned -- to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of haw, which is the Constitutions and the statutes of the United States.
Going back to the Second Amendment, what we know with the two most recent cases is that they didn't necessarily take away the precedent in the Miller, does it?
They don't necessarily take away the precedent of Miller.
As -- as I've not read McDonald yet, because of these hearings, but if I understand Heller correctly, Heller -- Heller did not find it necessary to reverse Miller.
Heller distinguished Miller, involving a different kind of weapon. (see source)
And if law begins to change because a judge feels it’s time for a sea change in society and another judge, such as Kagan, cites that judgment as precedence to support a newer decision one can see how Ms. Kagan’s method of judging would begin taking law down a slippery slope away from the constitution. This approach is judging based on current popular opinion of the law rather than judging based upon what the intent of the law really is. That is why Kagan should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
For instance Massachusetts Federal Judge Joseph Tauro just legislated from the bench by striking down federal law, DOMA. Homosexuals are already calling for California Judge Vaughn Walker to use this ruling as a means to change the California Constitution in a case that is pending his ruling. California’s Constitution was amendment to defines marriage as it has always been define in California and throughout the annuals of human history and human law.
If the Judge rules against the people of California he wouldn’t be able to do it on precedence. He’ll have to use fiat rulings like to one in Massachusetts impose a similar oligarchical decision on the people of California.
That is why Sen. Coburn was questioning Ms. Kagan along these lines of natural law. If a person like Kagan is confirmed she would undoubtedly, as supported by her testimony before the judicial committee, be in favor of this type judicial legislating from the bench.
Knowing this why would any Republican vote to confirm Kagan? Well we know that so far, nine republicans won’t vote to confirm her, and they are; Mike Johanns(Neb), Johnny Isakson (Ga), John McCain (Az), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jim DeMint (S.C.), James M. Inhofe (Okla).
So what of the other 32 Republican Senators which of them will vote for Kagan? (see graph)
Whoever that Republican is we will know that that person has no understanding of the Progressive agenda. If that person understood the Progressive agenda but voted to confirm Kagan anyway that person hates the constitution as much as president Soetoro and Ms. Kagan does.
Below is 20 minutes plus of Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan exchange. (see 20:51min video)
Ms. Kagan made it evident that her knowledge of the foundations of American jurisprudence is quite limited which spurred the request from Sen. Coburn for Ms. Kagan to re-read the Federalist papers.
Which lead to Ms. Kagan to break a self imposed pledge of only making a single pledge for the hearings. Ms. Kagan amended her pledge to included that she would re-read the Federalist papers. Good for her! I hope she includes the Declaration and the Constitution as well.
Republicans should let Democrats confirm their partisan nominee. And equally let’s hope Ms. Kagan learns something about the law and judging according to the Constitution.