Dear Pittsburgh Tea Partier,
The time is now to melt the phones and let all the senators know the American public disapproves of Kagan as a Supreme Court judge.
Tell Senators to VOTE NO on Kagan.
Why?
1. Kagan will rubber stamp all of Obama's policies and there hasn't been one yet that is consistent with tea party values. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062810/content/01125107.guest.html
2. Kagan obstructed the military by barring military recruiters from Harvard's campus recruitment office, in direct violation of federal law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5w-E55fZ1c&feature=player_embedded#!
3. Kagan actively supports Shariah Law which is against civil liberties, lacks rights for women and non-muslims and requires violent jihad. http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/07/19/elena-kagans-work-to-make-constitutions-more-shariah-compliant/
4. Kagan does not respect the second amendment as evidenced by her recommendation as a law clerk to the Supreme Court that they not hear a claim that the District of Columbia's complete ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/john-lott-elena-kagan/2010/06/26/id/363170
5. Kagan does not value human life as she was a force behind keeping partial birth abortion legal. This gruesome procedure allows full term babies to be aborted up until the moment they are born. Essentially, Kagan overrode scientific findings to impose her agenda. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' position initially was they "could identify no circumstances under which (the partial-birth abortion a.k.a D&X) procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." Fearing this opinion would end women's rights to partial-birth abortions, Kagan proposed the ACOG change their language to "An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." While inconsistent with the ACOG's original position, this recommendation was accepted by the ACOG and submitted to the Supreme Court and later used as the foundation for overturning Nebraska's state ban on partial birth abortion. C. Everett Koop calls this "unethical" and "disgraceful" and is urging all Senators to block Kagan. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/07/everett-koop-urges-senators-to-block-kagan/1 Information provided in part by the American Family Association.
6. Kagan will use the courts to bring about radical social changes.
PLEASE CALL OUR SENATORS TODAY!! If you have the time, call them at multiple offices. MELT THE PHONE LINES!!
Senator Bob Casey: call or e-mail
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-6324
Harrisburg (717) 231-7540
Philadelphia (215) 405-9660
Pittsburgh(412) 803-7370
Northeastern PA(570) 941-0930
Erie (814) 874-5080
Central PA (814) 357-0314
Lehigh Valley (610) 782-9470
Senator Arlen Specter: call or e-mail
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-4254
Philadelphia (215) 597-7200
Pittsburgh (412) 644-3400
Harrisburg (717) 782-3951
Scranton (570) 346-2006
Allentown (610) 434-1444
Erie (814) 453-3010
Wilkes Barre (570) 826 6265
If you have the time, call all the democrat senators. http://democrats.senate.gov/members/
Our volunteer attorney, Bobbie Gick, provided the following summary:
WHO IS OBAMA'S SUPREME COURT NOMINEE?
There is never a moment's rest for conservatives with this administration moving with the speed of light from one liberal agenda to another. It is a long way to November, and with the announcement last week of the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, it makes November seem even further away. Not a lot is known about this woman since her paper trail is almost identical to the president who appointed her. She has never been a judge at any level; she has less legal experience than any judical nominee in the last 30 years; her claim to fame is being a Dean of the law school at Harvard for a short time, which is an administrative position in academia. She did spend a short time on the advisory committee for Goldman Sachs during the financial meltdown of 2007, and she was confirmed by the Senate for a very brief government position of Solicitor General.
While she has been called by the President in announcing her nomination one of our "nation's foremost legal minds," and a "superb solicitor general," what little record there is about her presents a contrary view. Her tenure at Harvard was marked by kicking the military recruiters off campus during the height of the Iraq War on grounds of opposing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which she abhors as a "profound wrong--a moral injustice of the first order." Fortunately, her decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 vote, showing how far her thinking is from the mainstream of judicial minds.
In 1991 the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan upheld the right of the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion. This decision was publicly criticized by Ms.Kagan. In addition, she has expressed her belief that crisis pregnancy centers should be barred from guiding teens in decisions about their pregnancy. Since President Obama is the most pro-abortion President to date, it is not a stretch to say that part of his decision to nominate Elena Kagan is because she is like-minded in the belief that the right to an abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution.
In 1995 Ms. Kagan authored an article on judicial confirmations for the University of Chicago Law Review where she wrote:
The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. ... [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness-the legitimacy and the desirability-of exploring a Supreme Court nominee's set of constitutional views and commitments.
While this sounds appropriate to us lovers of the Constitution, will she be willing and able to defend her liberal legal views when questioned by the Senate within the framework of her above views, or will she present "a vapid and hollow charade" full of platitudes and little legal substance. I believe it will be the latter, as she once expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the "despised and disadvantaged." Because there are no prior opinions from which to determine Ms. Kagan's leanings, we must rely upon what we do know about her, that she is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. Will she decide cases as required by the Constitution as written or will her rulings be based upon her own policy preferences? In order to determine which way she will decide, we must contact our Senators and ask them to conduct in depth questioning. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed despite the fact that the Senators knew (or should have known) the majority of her lower court decisions were overturned by the appeals court. Please don't let this happen again. The Supreme Court's job is to determine the constitutionality of laws and we must confirm only those who believe that the Constitution was written once for all times and is not a fluid document that changes with the culture.
This information was gleaned from articles written by the Susan B. Anthony List, Family Research Council, The Heritage Foundation, and American Family Association.
|
