Young America's Foundation

Join Our Email List

  • New Guard Inner
  • Senate Expected to Vote on Kagan Nomination This Week

    8/4/2010 4:33:34 PM Posted by Cheri Cerame


    The Senate is expected to vote on Kagan's nomination this week!


    YOU need to call your Senators today at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to KEEP OUT KAGAN!

    Elena Kagan is too extreme for America:

    * Kagan has continuously trampled on student and individual rights, arguing that the government has the right to ban or censor certain publications.

    * Kagan enacted an apartheid system which prevented students from meeting with military recruiters at the Harvard Office of Career Services (OCS) while she served as dean of the law school.

    * Kagan signed an amicus brief encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Solomon Amendment, legislation designed to defend students' rights to meet with military recruiters on campuses across the country.

    * Kagan's Princeton thesis laments the decline of socialism in America.

    These points alone should automatically disqualify Kagan from being considered for the Supreme Court vacancy - and we need people like you to remind our Senators of that fact.

    So join us today by calling your Senators and telling your friends to do the same! Again, you can reach your Senators by calling the United States Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

    • Readers' Comments

    • 44bv29 Really enjoyed this blog.Much thanks again. Awesome.
      Posted by 7238 on 07/18/2014
    • #5As an example, Kagan anlayzes the Warren Court’s opinions on the exclusionary rule, which prohibits law enforcement officers from using evidence obtained illegally. She notes that many of the court’s opinions were shabbily crafted, lacking clear and strong legal foundations. These failings made the decisions easy pickings for future, more conservative incarnations of the court. Actually this seems pretty sensible. Like Obama, she seems to have an implicit respect for the other side' and feels decisions should be strong enough to withstand attack from Conservatives In other words she seems to share Obama's preference for bipartisanship over partisanship. She assumes that the right has a valid role to play in the argument as opposed to seeing them just as the enemy' hopelessly and forever wrong. Start from your conclusion and derive an argument? That's what happens about 99% of the time IMO. A judge will look at someone and say this guy's a scumbag or this guy's an angel and see if there's a valid argument that works against or for the guy. There are also cases where the two parties are equal to each other but certain reasoning leads to bad social outcomes and these should be avoided if possible.An example is fair use' in copyright. There was a strong argument mounted against search engines in that by making a copy of web sites and presenting reduced thumbnail images of those sites in the results listings, search engines were violating the copyrights of the web site owners. IMO it's not clear to me that this argument is 100% but it's also not clearly 100% right. It's reasonable to me for a judge to say requiring search engines to get formal permission for all sites they index is a very bad policy for society and legal decisions should avoid them unless there's simply no other resonable way to read the law. Since there is, that way is opted for.
      Posted by Yasin on 11/27/2015
    • Actually listening to the other side' came from<a href=""> cneresvativos</a> who've stated that they appreciated her efforts to bring right wing scholars to Harvard Law's faculty.But in terms of this blurb, her presumption is that conservative thinkers will be on the court in the future and any liberal decisions made today will have to survive scrutiny by them in the future. In other words her starting assumption is that<a href=""> cneresvativos</a> shouldn't be automatically dismised as moonbat crazies who are so irrational there's no point in even considering their possible objections. That's more than I suspect Scalia or Thomas give to liberals.
      Posted by Rosalita on 11/27/2015
    • Yes, and they do. However, most (maybe all) Supreme Court cases are matters of the Constitution, and how it sohlud be interpreted in a given circumstance. Not only are the Justices a product of their times, they take into consideration public sentiment and the generally accepted ideals of justice.Most laws are applied based on precedents, they become case law. Judges and lawyers look at how a law was interpreted in a prior case and aim for consistency. That is why the difference between a great judge and a poor one is how well they write their legal opinions. Because future judges will look to their ruling and try to find the specific details of a case that dictated his or her application of the law. Supreme Court Justices often have a dissenting opinion put on the books, too. The minority of Justices who disagreed with the ruling explain what their interpretation of the law is as it pertains to that case and what details of the case sohlud have been more or less significant. [url=]ixjdjhai[/url] [link=]ypdqcwhquhu[/link]
      Posted by Sudarat on 11/27/2015
    Leave a comment
Copyright 2015 Young America's Foundation | 11480 Commerce Park Dr., Suite 600, Reston, VA 20191-1556 | Ph. 1.800.USA.1776 | Fax 703.318.9122 | |