No ‘Little-Bitty Matter:’ Sessions Says Kagan ‘Violated the Law’ on Military Recruiting

I hope Sessions’ claim gets fact checked.

Why punish the military for what the civilians made them do?

What law? Can somenone cite it? Maybe Sessions is violating the law by accusing her of violating the law.

actually according to the democrats, she lost her arm in iraq saving 20 of her men in a firefight, republican-”she has both her arms dude, she was never in the military either”…democrat.RACIST….YOU ARE SAYING KAGEN HAS BOTH ARMS and didnt serve in the military because you hatethe color of the presidents skin…-a typical democrat/republican conversation..and her position on abortion is she wants as many abortions to happen as hum..inhumanely possible..saw an article saying it was a mystery..no she loves abortion more than christmas..god bless america

What law? Can someone cite it? Maybe Sessions is violating the law by accusing her of violating the law.
Posted by: Brian
10 US Code Section 983 (commonly known as the Solomon Amendment). It provides that no federal funds may be provided by contract or grant (including a grant of funds for student aid) to
an institution of higher education (including any subelement of such
institution, e.g., a law school) if the
institution (or any subelement) has a policy or practice that either prohibits, or in effect prevents access by military recruiters for purposes of military recruiting. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court (Rumsfeld v. FAIR) ruled that the law was constitutional: “A military recruiter’s mere presence on campus does not violate a law school’s right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter’s message”.
By continuing to accept federal funds, Harvard, including its law school, was bound to provide access to military recruiters. If Harvard wanted to forbid military recruiting on campus, it could have eschewed federal funds. Of course, it did not. Not surprising — Harvard University receives nearly a half billion dollars per year in federal funding.

Ms. Kagen was working for the school at the time and she was paid to defend the school’s policies, which she did. Now that she is being paid by the government she will follow the polices of the government. This is really a very simple issue. You work for the people that are paying you and you follow their policies and procedures.
Posted by: Jeffrey1234
That’s what the Nuremberg defendants said, right?
By the way, a SCOTUS Justice does not always “follow the policies and procedures of the government.” They are supposed to follow the Constitution, and the law. Not always the same thing.

Why don’t we deal with Torture first, or Arizona becoming a Police State.
Torture is defined as a War Crime under US Code, Section 2441. Where does Sessions Stand on THIS Law?
Demanding ID from a Latino in Arizona just because he happens to BE Latino is an Unconstitutional Search and Seizure. Where does Sessions stand on THIS Law?
Conservative Christians ask “why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
– Matthew 7:3

This Woman is no more Qualified to be a Judge than OBama is to be President!
Can we toss them both out? Lord please let Nov get here very very fast,, Amen..

Kagan Should Not Be Confirmed
Being a graduate from an Ivy League school is not a negative. The negative is that the Supreme Court is losing Educational Diversity amongst its members. A very simple example could be vanilla ice cream. Everyone likes vanilla ice cream. The problem arises when you limit your diet exclusively to vanilla ice cream. You get lots of calcium, but you lose out on all of the other needed vitamins and minerals to live a healthy productive life. The same can be said about losing the diversity of knowledge and diverse perspectives that people from other institutions can provide. The majority of the Supreme Court Judges should not be Ivy League graduates.
I am of the opinion that Supreme Court decisions may be considered biased, due to their common Ivy League education, and they are engaging in discrimination, by limiting the Court to Ivy League Graduates.
The following applies to Kagan, just as it did to Sotomajor.
This editorial was created by 160 Associated Press readers under a Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution License 3.0 using MixedInk’s collaborative writing tool. For more about how it was created, see here. It can be republished only if accompanied by this note.
Obamas Appointment of Sotomayor Fails to Offer Educational Diversity to Court.
Sotomayor does not offer true diversity to our Supreme Court. The potential power of Sotomayor’s diversity as a Latina Woman, from a disadvantaged background, loses its strength because her Yale Law degree does not offer educational diversity to the current mix of sitting Judges. Once she walked through the Gates of Princeton and then Yale Law School she became educated by the same Professors that have educated the majority of our current Supreme Court Justices, and our Presidents.
Diversity in education is extremely important. We need to look for diversity in our ideas, and if our leaders are from the same educational background, they lose the original power of their ethnic and gender diversity. The ethnic and gender diversity many of our current leaders possess no longer brings a plethora of new ideas, only the same perspective they learned from their common Ivy League education. One example of the common education problem is that Yale has been heavily influenced by a former lecturer at Yale, Judge Frank, who developed the philosophy of Legal Realism. Frank argued that Judges should not only look at the original intent of the Constitution, but they should also bring in outside influences, including their own experiences in order to determine the law. This negative interpretation has influenced both Conservatives and Liberals graduating from Yale. It has been said that Legal Realism has infested Yale Law School and turned lawyers into political activists.
A generation of appointees with either a Harvard or Yale background, has the potential to distort the proper interpretation of our Constitution. America needs to decentralize the power structure away from the Ivy League educated individual and gain from the knowledgeable and diverse perspectives that people from other institutions can provide. We should appoint Supreme Court Justices educated from amongst a wider group of Americas Universities.
Harvard -
Chief Justice John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Harvard, Columbia)
Yale
Samuel Alito – Yale JD 1975
David Souter
Clarence Thomas – Yale JD 1974
Sonia Sotomayor – Yale JD 1979
Northwestern Law School.
Justice John Paul Stevens
The Presidents we have elected for the last twenty years, have themselves been Harvard or Yale educated. This has the potential to create an even more closed minded interpretation of our laws.
Yale – Bush Sr. – 4 years
Yale Law – Clinton – 8 years
Yale – Bush, Jr. – 8 Years
Harvard Law – Obama – 4 – 8 years
When we consider that our Nation has potentially twenty – eight years of Presidential influence from these two Universities, as Americans, we should look long and hard at the influence Yale and Harvard have exerted on our nation’s policies. Barack Obama promised America Change, but he has continued the same discriminatory policy by appointing a Yale graduate over many qualified candidates that graduated from other top Colleges and Universities in America.

OK, let’s be fair here.
Look at how this President has acted in his 15 months of office. Now did any reasonable person expect him to nominate a reasonable, reliable observer of US law and the US Constitution as a SCOTUS nominee?
Of course not. This is what America elected and this is what America gets for it.

I meant to post that she does NOT cut it.
Wake up, America! We are headed into Third World gangster government, The Squid of Chicago writ large on a national scale.
It took GWB 8 years to screw the pooch, Obama has done it in less than 2 years.

tierra:
here is some information you’re not likely familiar with:
“he that hath eyes, let him see”

Kermit–how can you say the economy has done nothing but get worse. I know, you believe everyone reading this board is either a Southern R-or A T-Partier-Illiterate. GDP has gone up three consecutive quarters. Retail sales while still low are up. And the retail sector is hiring again. 290 thousand jobs were created last month. That would be the third consecutive increase.
Who wasted the first trillion in TARP money? Have an answer? Bush/Paulson.
Your posting is so factually incorrect, you should erase it. SECREG_756

Well, cheney broke the law with his wiretapping and many other things….so what?

The economy has done nothing but get worse since obama took over.
_____________________________________
Not at all – the economy was in free-fall collapse after Bush when Obama took over.
Since then the collapse has been stopped, the stock market is way up, the GDP is up and April saw more jobs created than in any month over the past 4 years.
You’re going to need to acquaint yourself with facts and the truth.

Why is Sessions opposed to ‘don’t ask people if they’re gay’ when the military’s leaders are done with it? This obsession with some one else’s sexuality is unbecoming of America. What’s the penalty for the asking?
As for barring the recruiters from law school property, there might have been a perceived tension between a private propriator enforcing its ethics of inclusion over its contractual obligation to its federal funder. The law school might have decided that endorsing closeted jags is unbecoming to law and school as understood in american english.

Kagan will be an activist judge who will interpret the U.S. Constitution for us. For our own sake so we don’t have to concern ourselves.

mascmen7 writes–Can’t Obama find some Jews for Court who are not from NYC?
Jews are the superior race. Shouldn’t the Supreme court be comprised of 9 Jews?

So the used car salesmen says to a T-Bagger. The Ford stalls out when you gas it at 65. The Chevy stalls out when you gas it at 65. The T-Bagger says, ” I’ll take the Chevy.”

secreg666- “secession is against the Constitution”
Wrong again. Have you not read the Constitution or the words of those who authored it? Try reading Thomas Jefferson’s “Kentucky Resolutions”. I will rest assured that the nominee and the Supremes have… at least the more conservative have.

cranky-all wired-we fought a war. No matter what you want to believe. No matter what rationale you come up with. it’s statutory, secession is against the law and UN Constitutional. Texas can seceede if it wants to. I wish it would. One month later Cornyn would be begging to allow Texas back into the Union.

breaking the law like CONgress, the pRESIDENT and the courts and most of corporate America?
I guess they dont like competition!

Kagen would be a key player in Obama’s post-America era if it weren’t for the fact that one day in the near future Obama will be frog-marched through the back door of the White House as an imposter.

“You’re going to need to acquaint yourself with facts and the truth.” – Whomever
Conservatives are immune to the truth, and spend their days living on the delusional planet of Conservadopia and it’s moon Libertaria.
I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.

Tierra,
I love your pseudo-pithy little comments, even though almost all of them are wrong. The economy was not in freefall until the 2006 De Congress started their plundering of the economy. However, even if you were remotely right, That does not give Obama rein to double or triple or quadruple debt, deficit or unemployment. YOU look it up.

Posted by: trajan2448 | May 16, 2010 6:48:03 PM
I don’t agree with most of your comments, but “ultra lib” is just insane.
Ask some “ultra libs”. Read Glenn Greenwald’s posts on the matter.
Yowza.

However, even if you were remotely right, That does not give Obama rein to double or triple or quadruple debt, deficit or unemployment. YOU look it up.
Posted by: rc | May 16, 2010 6:21:40 PM
______________________________________
The Republicans had a majority in the chambers of Congress for basically 12 straight years and the presidency for 8 straight years – all that time to build up a ‘strong’ economy using Republican policies and the result was the economy collapsed like a house of cards.
Regarding current deficits – you seem to have no idea of the effects of an almost complete free-fall collapse of the economy on local, state and federal budgets. Look into it sometime.

Anyone notice the comments from Liberals are totally intolerant and rude. Why is that when Liberals will be the first to tell you how tolerant they are and how intellectually superior they and their candidates are? Tolerant and open minded? Give me a break! Liberals are thought facists.
Frankly I am tired of the Liberal lack of logic and emotionalization of everything. Liberals are Socialists….they should quit hiding it and say it. It is very obvious!

As I always point out to my conservative friends, “You have the right to Rush Limbaugh’s opinion, but you can’t rely on Fox facts.”

It would be better to get her comfirmed. Then the people can hound her to death till she resigns. She could also be impeached. Yes this can be done.

It’s no surprise that Obama would nominate a person like Kagan. After all he is a a marxist. Of course most democrats are pro-marxism even if they can’t understand or admit to it. So what is the surprise with Kagan’s hate for America, our military, and in wanting government to control our lives?

Kagan is bad for this country. Obama is trying to stack the Court with ultra liberal socialists that will ultimately completely change America into a country much like the old Soviet Union(Kagan favors restricting the first and second amendments). Stand up America for our military and our family values and secure borders or the left wing radicals will alter our country beyond belief!

The Bottom line is that if all the current Supreme Courts justices are valid choices, then Kagan is not. She was against the entire panel the Supreme Court voted 8-0 against her position. That means she is not in step with justices that have actually ruled on law before.
She has no experience and has never served on the bench which makes her unworthy. Yes there have been others who never sat on the bench before, but not many, which makes that argument few and far between. Kagan is not the exception; she is one that proves the rule that you need experience on the bench to know how to judge.

Its interesting that all the Drudge readers are so pro-government on this issue
_________
Interesting is one way of putting it… but its certainly worth pointing out ;^)

Question for all of you liberals:How does believing in limited government make one a homophobe, racist bigot?
Posted by: Darren | May 16, 2010 8:47:43 PM
It doesn’t, but most American so-called “conservatives” claim to believe in limited government yet vote for people who never put those so-called beliefs into action. Reagan, Bush, and Bush all increased government and government deficit spending.
When you look at esults, and ignore the mouthed rhetoric that never gets put into action, conservatives simply stand for conserving the worst of the status quo, particularly in regards to power and wealth relations. Its how its always been in this country beginning with the conservatives loyal to the British crown and horrified at the idea of Revolution– or a Constitution that would grant suffrage to common people and non landowners.

the core of liberalism is clearly anti-American
———-
That’s an odd and twisted little lesson. The core of liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. In fact, our founding fathers used liberal ideals to justify revolution and throwing off tyranny. Our country was founded on liberal ideals.
The conservatives? They backed the British. They’ve been on the wrong side of American history in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, on issues such as women’s suffrage and the end of slavery, civil rights…. etc, etc.
The roots of conservatism are fear and greed.

Desm HATE the military anyway. What surprises anyone that this Obama worshipper would ban the Military until she faced losing federal funding? This woman doesn’t have any credentials to be a Supreme court Justice. Then againm neither did SotoMayer, but the Republicnas rolled over and went belly up on that one too. Lot of blusetr but when it comes to Balls, Republicans usually fall short x2. Vote Rick Perry/ Ron Paul Tea Party candidates for Pres/VP in 2012

“The roots of conservatism are fear and greed. ”
Our chief weapon is surprise. …Surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope….

“Love of violence and brutality is deeply ingrained in the conservative worldview” – Progressive thought leader Mathew Yglesias 5/16/10

“Love of violence and brutality is deeply ingrained in the conservative worldview” – Progressive thought leader Mathew Yglesias 5/16/10
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 16, 2010 11:45:48 PM
Personally, I’ll stick with fear and greed, mostly fear.
I like science– including social science– and the fear thing has been studied.
In regards to brutality and violence, the pro-torture stance appeared to be borne out of fear for many, imho. So, I think its a result, a side effect, and not true of conservatives, necessarily,like most libertarians, for example, but, perhaps, Republicans of a certain ilk.

would immediately find that you “new” liberals who bring this up are WILDLY out of step with the views of the Founders.
Posted by: Canof | May 16, 2010 11:59:27 PM
______
Only if they were right wing and more reactionary and tribal than intellectual.
The truth is that the founding fathers and those who supported the revolution were liberal. Conservatives over time have been on the wrong side of history. They act to conserve the status quo despite whatever rhetoric they mouth.
The past three Republican presidents have expanded government and increased the deficit. They said they were for small government but they were not. The proof is in the results and the data. The facts. (“Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.” –Thomas Jefferson)
Liberalism is about liberty and equality, the latter referring to equal rights and equal opportunity. Modern liberals think liberty and equality can work together, and prefer that they do. In fact, we tend to think they must to be authentic. We realize that pure laissez faire capitalism comes with gross inequities that can and should be limited and capped so that a safety net is provided to citizens. The point is to limit potential hardship and poverty not prosperity and success. We consider the conservative assertion that liberty and equality can’t work together or are mutually exclusive a rather silly red herring– a lameo excuse for those who currently hold the most wealth and power and wish to continue to exercise tyranny through coercive hierarchies, despite the fact that as power and wealth accumulate they tend to corrupt. We think its ridiculous that some would limit government while encouraging the tyranny of other coercive hierarchies such as unchecked business, as some propose. We also believe that in times of government hardship, there is a role for government in terms of intervention and investment.
What I find wholly out of step with the views of the founding fathers is a group of small-minded people pretending they own the rights to the founding fathers and the American spirit.
Get real. The country was founded on liberal ideals. And liberals and progressives push the country to live up to them.

progressive mama… I agree with a lot of what you say about liberals; this country was founded on liberal ideals, for the time. Freedom to own property, to write a line of text without someone in the political class chastising, or worse imprisoning, you for your thoughts and ideas. Freedom was a very liberal idea, at the time.
Freedom, it’s not such a new concept these days, but it seems the “progressive” ideals are not in line with property ownership (New London, CT), freedom of speech (they don’t like, “fighting words”), you know, those ideals that the liberal founding fathers fought to secure. It seems the “progress” we can expect is in the direction of Chavez.
Pardon me if I try to “conserve” the rare freedoms I still have, before my benevolent ruling class tells me which promise (health insurance policy) I’m required to buy from their most prominent political donor (after all, they’ll be able to decide what a “qualified” plan is).

it seems the “progressive” ideals are not in line with property ownership (New London, CT), freedom of speech (they don’t like, “fighting words”), you know, those ideals that the liberal founding fathers fought to secure. It seems the “progress” we can expect is in the direction of Chavez.
__________
In regards to property, my husband and I own several properties,including one in partnership with a yellow dog Democrat, and two others in partnership with a couple of progressives and a libertarian, so I have no idea what you’re talking about, really. I’m not familiar with New London, Connecticut. All of this sounds like part of the myth the right is building up about the left– the Anti-American or real American myth– which has been going on for awhile, but got fanned a bit during the campaign, and caught fire in reaction to a Democrat winning the election. Most the progressives i know own property, build properties, decorate properties.. and so on.
In regards to freedom of speech, I have to say its the right who seems to get ruffled by fighting words. I’ll use complaints about my posts on this comment board as an example. People say horrible things about liberals, progressives, the President, me, and then are shocked, offended, horrified, that I use fighting words right back. They get horrified when anyone criticizes their fighting words– and whine about free speech, not realizing that nobody is telling them to stop, but, hey, btw, the criticism is free speech, too.
Health care, imho, is part of public health and safety, and hence national security, prosperity and the social sfety net. While I’m not familiar with your positions on various issues, I find a lot of inconsistencies in the arguments against health care but for other things. Examples abound if you read through blog posts and comments related to that topic.
I personally think those of us who banned together to fight back against what we considered unconscionable business practices by the insurance industry had every right to do so and to push those we were able to vote into office to pass legislation reforming health insurance and enacting pilot programs which will work toward bending the cost curve. As I said, any coercive hierarchy ought to be questioned and prevented from exerting tyranny. The difference between the left and the right in America is that the right tends to only complain about government when Dems are in power, ignoring government when Republicans are in power and the abuses and corruption of corporations.
They act in common cause with special interests and the unholy alliance between government and big biz.
Being liberal is about promoting maximum individual freedom while also promoting maximum individual equal rights and opportunity– in tandem. But also being liberal is about being less risk averse and fearful of change– or startled by change– than those who are more cautious and prefer to move very slowly. Its about being willing to explore and implement new and different ideas even those that may seem very odd and unacceptable to the majority, who may not be looking forward, but rather wondering why any change is necessary.
Funny thing is the one thing we can’t change is that everything changes– and the world will change. If we wish to remain competitive and to continue to live up to our ideals under new and altering circumstances, we have to innovate and keep moving forward.

Elitist=smart
The guy is a Republican from Alabama…nuff said…
Deep thinker like Inhofe.

…..i believe it went “no taxation without representation”.
_______________________________________
That’s where it STARTED. Believe it or not, the founding fathers put a little more than that in the constitution, bill of rights, declaration of independence etc.

The problem with Kagan is she defended the banning of books (her opinion re. Citizens United vs. F.E.C.).
We don’t need a book-banner to reinforce the new totalitarian, intrusive, “1984″ anti-human-rights coalition headed up by that deceiver Obama.

Mr. Tapper there are no white house correspondents. There are only white house website blog readers. There are no other website readers except the other folk who call themselves white house reporters.
Why don’t you all just call yourselves senior white house website blog reporters?
Isn’t this the first stages of the state run media take over by the Regime”s Greed for Power and Control?

Obama is showing his true nature. He has no regard for what this country is about. And he purposefully knows this laughingstock Kagan is another nail driven into the heart of this country.

Banning recruiting on campus is neither UnAmerican nor unpatriotic. It was not a protest or statement against the military in general or the wars, but a protest against the discrimanatory policies of the US military. All the military had to do to get on campus was change a stupid and outdated policy. Non-violent protest is about as American and patriotic as it gets. Just because you are on the opposite side of the protesters doesn’t change that. ms. kagan was perfectly within the law and her rights in banning the recruiters from campus. I am not a fan of Ms. Kagan for the USSC, but she is the President’s choice, and the issue debated here is not sufficient reason to deny her a seat.

Don Waggoner – you are profoundly wrong. Kagan is completely unqualified and she clearly hates the Military, that keeps her Ideologue butt safe. The Military that Liberals so loathe is the greatest force for good known to mankind, besides God himself. The force that has conquered the world, to free it. She hates it but is wrong in her views, which are un-American. Homosexuality is a behavior, like nose picking, its a choice. Go ahead an pick your nose, go ahead and flick, but we non-pick/flickers do not have to accept it and do not have to respect it. America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the Bible clearly states what is right and wrong. FYI: no other “animal” in all creation behaves in this manner either. So we’re so advanced that we prefer the same sex? Its abnormal, and if you think about the act, disgusting. In through the out door? Repulsive. So, her argument is her opinion, and her opinion is wrong. And what is the basis of her opinion? Something someone though was good idea? Some “thinker” who thought this up? Insane.

progressive mama – Jim Webb was Sec of the Navy under President Reagan, the last great Lion of the 20th Century. Everyone is entitled to one mistake. Jim Webb is a joke and I love how the media covered up his “pranks” during the Senate election. Riding around in a car acting as if he had a gun, while riding through Black neighborhoods. Yea, that’s Klassy, but if he was a Republican… whoa, he’s a racist. But Dem’s get a pass. You know why, because Dem’s like Barry the Pious, Leahy, the Clinton’s, Barney Frank, I could go on with the list of Miserables, they stand for nothing and have no principles. If a Rep did what a Dem did, you’ll never hear the end of it, because Dems have no principles. If Reagan, or either Bush did what Clinton did, that would have been the end, plus they would have had “Shame” whereas Blow hard Bubba won’t ever go away. He’s still sticking his stinky finger out there telling everyone else what to do. What a pathetic excuse for a man, and a marriage. Webb is bum as is Barry, Bubba, Barney and on and on and on….

Reading that the SC needs the elite and those with high IQ’s I can only recall Bill Buckley’s insightful comment – he’d rather take the first 500 names in the phone book and have them represent us then the current crop of politicians.

“Being liberal is about promoting maximum individual freedom while also promoting maximum individual equal rights and opportunity– in tandem. ”
What a joke this comment is! Liberals don’t promote freedom for individuals, they outline what freedoms they want for everyone by taking freedoms and possessions from others. Individual freedom is not being constrained by anyone….
———–
You’re confusing liberals with Republicans and neocons, and at the same time admitting that your individual freedom is not being constrained, though you wish you didn’t feel guilty about bad eating habits.
lol.
forehead slap!!

“At this point, the right seems to have settled on their favorite argument to target Elena Kagan. The judicial experience line isn’t going anywhere, and the “defective Constitution” line ends up looking vaguely pro-slavery. What they’re left with is the story about Harvard Law School and military recruiters…
The problem, of course, is that the criticism is factually wrong, a detail her detractors either don’t realize or choose to ignore. Robert Clark, Kagan’s predecessor as the Harvard Law School’s dean, had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today setting the record straight.” (Steve Benen)
“Since 1979, the law school has had a policy requiring all employers who wish to use the assistance of the School’s Office of Career Services (OCS) to schedule interviews and recruit students to sign a statement that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on.
For years, the U.S. military, because of its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, was not able to sign such a statement and so did not use OCS…. ” (Robert Clark, WSJ)

Progreessive MAMA,
Suggest you and the Yale Adminstration and Kagan (who discriminated against the Military) volunteer for the front lines. Perhaps you and they do not want the military to defend you, but you should not have it both ways.
Your comment shows even more her lack of judgement, it also brings into question yours and the Yale Admin, if that is your point, we get that.
But you re-inforce the opinion that she is disqualified.
Finally, if you think we need to treat the military like we Coca Cola, change your name from Progressive MAMA, to Ignorant MAMA.
We can not continue to politicize the military, that is the ruination of us all. You may think Progressive is wearing a Burkha, but you would not be allowed to drive, or get any education if the enemy gets there way.
Based upon your comments your education …? Are you a good driver?

On another note, has anyone seen the latest in CRAZY 101– the Texas textbook proposal?
lol.

Kagan’s office argued before the Supreme Court that the government had the power to ban books. Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution against the latest Obama assault, but who knows what might happen with a dangerous extremist radical like Kagan in power.

This woman is as much a commie hack as anyone Obama picks. You can always be sure it will be someone who loathes the United States and its values, you can rest assured he’ll pick a degenerate or a reprobate or a thug or a marxist type. We need to get rid of this disaster of a president, 2012 come quickly!

AnotherVoter-
You have an ipad until Obama decides to ban them too. You’ll recall last week he told us that these devices provide us with information that is a “distraction”. Obama also claimed he doesn’t know how to work an ipod, despite disclosing the contents of his own ipod last year, and despite ridiculing McCain in 2008 for the war injuries that prevent him from using e-mail.

Kagan may not be neccessarly anti-military. Being a lasbian, she does abject to policies with Congress’s Dont Ask, Don’t Tell rule. Rather than attacking the congress, she went after the military. This is more of a personal level decision. If on the Supreme Court, can she put personnal feeling aside and rule purely on the Constitution? She has demonstrated so far that she cannot, even if it violates the law. She should not be seated…period!

Ah, finally. The water carriers for Mitch McConnell and Fox News sign in.
See Media Matters: “On Fox, Bossie falsely suggests Kagan supports book banning.” Bottom line: “Kagan actually argued that federal campaign finance law likely could not ban books.<<
Let's see…get facts from Fox News or Media Matters?? Hmmm..tough choice. Get news from a network that lets all sides speak or from a website funded by George Soros that on a daily basis puts things on their websites that weren't actually said.
FYI…Media Matters is WRONG!! Ms. Kagan DID argue before the Supreme Court that the Fed. Govt. DOES have the power to ban books. Of course, if you weren't such an ill informed lefty who has no power to look things up for yourself because you like being told what to think, it doesn't surprise me that you are wrong.

Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2010 12:15:17 PM
If you don’t like Media Matters, try reading the post on the subject at The Hill.
Personally, I think both Fox News and MTP need to team up with fact check sites as Jake Tapper has.
Anyway…
The water will get heavier to carry, but like I said, I enjoy the range of silly arguments from the Right rather than the parroting of the same debunked message over and over. Its at least a litte less robotic and demented than usual. And you’re doing a great job. It’ll strengthen your biceps!

Why is it when the Dems are caught with their pants down they always try to shoo it off like it was nothing? Hello!!

What is obama like then kagan is going to be the same,

I think we all live with the consequences of actions we did when we were younger.
Only a fool would think that you aren’t judged by them.
She is a mediocre candidate. She made one big egregious decision with the military on Harvard’s campus. Why should we entrust her with our country?

Obama mama: One good litmus test for determining a Socialist is that person’s advovacy of “redistribution”.
Barry is all over “economic justice” and redistribution of wealth.

The continuing reference to communism & socialism etc. really is out of date and seems to me in using these terms lets the real damaging targets fly under the radar
….. try reading some “Post-Modern” political philosophy originating in toxic post Marx/Euro political philosophy that we imported to this country decades ago (think about Duke, Cal Berkley, Yale, etc., etc. where it was cultivated by the intelligensia and lives an active life) and read even, say, Hayek and his “Road to Serfdom” (now 65 years +/- old) that integrates and illustrates the danger discussed ….. if there is name calling at least use something more appropriate and representative like “statism”
PS: …. for all the corporate & MBA types types that regard themselves as “free private enterprizers”, “entrepreneurs”, and “risk takers”, don’t kid yourself and take too seriously most of that crap & attitudes they fed you in B-school ….. for the most past you’re just part of the statist food chain looking for the comfortable life …… maybe you should think about putting your butt on the line and starting your own biz rather than just peddling your sheepskin to the highest bidder

Their are many policies in the military people don’t agree with. That does not give them the right to take some action against the organization which is controlled by the president and Congress. Maybe you don’t approve of the fact that carrier planes dump excess fuel into the water before landing. Oh the envio. horror. Or is it the no fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel? Violation of free association under the first amendment. Take it up with the government NOT devise your own punishment and restrictions. Also she took federal funds while rebuking the military. She sure has a sense of self importance and know it allism that a SC appointment will surely feed. Maybe gays living in the military would be as disruptive as a male living in a female college dorm. Maybe yes maybe no but is it wise to experiment with the only army we have? Liberals ALWAYS seem to know better then everyone else. Living in a liberal echo chamber really is the first qualification for an appointment to the SC.

bubalu – A good question and I thank you for asking it without the snarkiness and sarcasm that’s coming from both sides of this issue.
As I understand it, though not exactly violating the law (in the form of the Soloman Amendment)they’re not exactly keeping within the spirit of it either as Harvard collects around $400 million federal dollars a year but won’t allow the federal government to recruit on it’s campus.
You’re right in that they don’t have to allow ROTC on their private campus. So the ball is in the federal government’s court to cut off grant funding if they don’t; an action which would probably force their hand to lift their ban against ROTC. Interesting to note that neither the previous Republican administration or the current Democratic one has taken that action. Seems that no one wants to pick that fight.
I’m no expert in this area so don’t take what I write as gospel truth.

Why are you people amazed Obama’s pick views things just like him??? Duh! Did you expect him to pick someone who views things like Bush? LOL Come on now! Obama basically “called out” the Supreme Court during the State of The Union Address so its obvious that they don’t scare him one little bit! Get over it! GAME-SET-MATCH = LEFT

this woman is dangerous to America. put her back on the softball field so she can absorb a few line drives.

Stand up people! Call and email your senators and tell them we don’t need another social activist on the bench. She is bad for our country!

Bush admin. War Crimes are no little-bitty matter either. Why isn’t Senator Sessions willing to investigate that.

The moral relativist lefties like Kagan, use the law only when it fits their agenda. More often than not, they simply IGNORE laws. Drug laws, the draft, and immigration laws are obvious examples of the left’s position to ignore the law in favor of their own prejudiced and self-centered positions. Kagan did the same with the recruiter issue at Harvard, which the SCOTUS struck down 8 to 0. On the other hand, they utilize the law when it constrains their opposition or solidifies their agenda. Kagan’s position on government censorship of books and pamphlets in the Citizens United case that she lost before the Supreme Court, hardly shows her objectivity when it comes to freedom of speech. This nominee is inexperienced, misguided, and a dangerous lefty ideologue who, if confirmed would swing the court further to the left for perhaps 30 years. Write your Republican Senators to Fight this nomination through filibuster.

Where was it Elena Kagan’s place to prohibit the military from being on campus at Harvard? Did she ever give thought that there might be some students who would like to talk to the various branches? She kept them off because of her elitist mentality that the members of the military are inferior to her socio economic class, therefore have no right to be on a college campus. I hope no Republican votes to confirm this woman.

bubalu,
The government did not tell Harvard to allow military recruiting. They said that if Harvard did not allow the recruiting, the government would with-hold money it gives to Harvard ($400 million) per year. Harvard wanted the money.

Kagan is of no small detail. She is an Obama friend close to his philosophy. A remanint of his administration which would be a thron in the American flesh for many years after his lwaving.

The comments on this site are a testimony to the ignorance of people who follow ABC news and, therefore, reflects on the quality of ABC news itself. Kagan did not kick the military off the campus. She continued an existing policy that due to state law prevents any organization that discriminates (Don’t ask, don’t tell) from using the Career center to recruit. The military was allowed to continue to actively recruit on campas from Harvard Law School Veterans Association. In fact recruitment on campus increased under Kagan’s tenure. When the Supreme Court overturned that law, she allowed recruitment in the Career center. She did not break the law and, in fact, abided by the decisions of the court.
It’s deplorable that this reporter is writing in such a way that emphasizes the propaganda of republicans who wish to prevent her nomination. It’s also deplorable that legislators are allowed to so blatantly misrepresent the facts to the American people.