Smital Mind: June 2010

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Giant Killer Takes On Arkansas Lottery Director for Refusing To Conduct Audit

Dr. Bill Smith (Ozark Guru): With the pending change in Lt Governor in Arkansas, the present Lottery Director has a vested interest. It was the current and outgoing Lt. Governor Bill Halter who rose to power in Arkansas after being funded by out-of-state gambling and pornography interests. Then as Lt. Governor, Halter submitted a proposed lottery bill to the Arkansas legislature which was rebuffed by even his fellow democrats.

Underwritten by gambling interests, Halter then opted to force the issue in a manner not done in the past. As an Arkansas constitutional officer, he introduced a Constitutional Amendment to establish a State run lottery using the deception that the lottery would fund scholarships. He never mentioned the cost of running the Lottery, the personal loss to many people, or the potential corruption experienced with lotteries in other states. The out-of-state sources funded Halter's efforts to collect signatures to get the amendment on the ballot and then to pay the advertising costs to promote the lottery amendment. In the long run, these backers were themselves gambling on Halter being around longer in Arkansas politics.

However, Halter, a liberal's liberal elitist wanted to be Governor of Arkansas. But he found himself rebuffed in the state and his chances declining to run for governor. He also noticed an announced challenge by an Republican conservative who was not afraid of his large war chest. So, Halter "rolled the dice" and decided to run for U.S. Senate against the incumbent Democratic senator whose star is falling. But even with enormous funding from Halter's previous dubious financial supporters and unions, Halter was defeated for his own party's nomination.

Reflecting back to the "announced challenger." Long before Halter's decision to run for US Senate, Halter appeared safe with no one opposing challenger to re-election as Lt. Governor. However, a lone conservative literally asked God to give him the strength of "David" as a "Giant killer" to bring down the most liberal incumbent in Little Rock. This "David" set his sights on Bill Halter when no one else would oppose Halter. This "David" who was willing to take on the Giants was Mark Darr a jovial Christian "Mad" pizza business owner. He had a trusting spirit, a TEA Party heart and the gumption to be bold. Mark Darr boldly announced that he would run against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in 2010. He then started traveling the state sharing his call for greater government transparency and accountability in government.

While leading members of his own party, questioned taking on Halter. As detailed previously, Halter opted not to run again as Lt. Governor. After Halter's decision, another Republican candidate did opt to run against Mark Darr for Lt. Governor instead of for one of the other unopposed seats. But by then enough people had noted this new Giant killer, and Mark Darr won the GOP primary. It has been very clear as Mark Darr has crossed the state that he is willing to stand boldly for good government and to work with the elected Governor on seeking to expand jobs in the private sector.

Now, Mark Darr has responded to the Arkansas State Lottery Director Ernie Passailaigue's refusal to conduct an audit to show that Arkansas revenue is being spent as it is supposed to be. Makes one wonder what Mr. Passailaigue is seeking to hide. By the way, Passailaigue's annual salary is $324,000. Passailaigue's is the third highest paid lottery director nationally. His two VPs, Ernestine Middleton Middleton and David Barden, each will earn $225,000 a year and worked for Passailaigue at the South Carolina lottery. The lottery security chief, Lance Huey gets $115,644 a year; IT gaming director Mike Smith at $150,000; Mary VanLeer as IT infrastructure director, Julie Baldridge as Exec. Assist., Bridgette Frazier as Staff attorney and Bishop Woosley Procurement Director each gets $105,000; and the sales director Robert Stebbins $92,518. Which totals $1,552,162 before benefits and or the cost of facilities, material costs, operational costs, advertising, office and communication costs, etc.

By comparison, the Arkansas Governor gets a $80,848 salary (yes he get to live in the mansion) which is less than 25% of what the Lottery Director makes and the Governor makes less than all of the key Lottery staff. And the Arkansas Lottery Director does not want an audit! Are you concerned with what Mr. Passailaigue is seeking to hide? Well Mark Darr is concerned!

Consider that Passailaigue's prime elected Little Rock supporter, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, is on the way out of office in six short months. Passailaigue's refusal directly contradicts the intent of the legislature, the conservative values of Arkansans and the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery website which clearly states "The Lottery will be operated with integrity and dignity in a manner that provides entertainment to the public, maximizes revenue and accounts to the public and General Assembly through regular reports and audits."

Mark Darr responded to the Lottery Directors unwillingness to provide transparency: "As Lieutenant Governor I will have a direct working relationship with the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery staff and I pledge to the citizens of Arkansas that I will fight passionately to ensure accountability and transparency. When I entered the Lieutenant Governor’s race I committed myself to fighting for these very values, which are desperately lacking in our state government. To this day I maintain that commitment because the future and prosperity of our great state is at stake."

Mark Darr could have stopped right there with that one statement. But because he places Arkansas first, he challenged his Democrat opponent for Lt Governor to join him "in fighting for the citizens of Arkansas as they deserve better than this." Arkansas voters would do very well to elect as Lt. Governor this "Giant killer" who will take on wasteful government spending and the lack of transparency and accountability. And with his experience, Mark Darr will be a natural at supporting job creation and defending small business in Arkansas.
-----------------
About Mark: Mark Darr is a lifelong resident of Arkansas and is a graduate of Mansfield High School in Mansfield and Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia. Mark is an experienced businessman er who knows what it means to creat jobs and sign the front of a paycheck. He is a licensed insurance agent and is the owner of MAD Pizza Company in Rogers. Mark and his wife Kim and two children live in Springdale Arkansas where they are active members of First Baptist Church of Springdale. For more information, visit Mark Darr For Lt. Governor, or call him at 501-291-DARR. Follow Mark Darr on FaceBook and Twitter

Tags: Bill Halter, Mark Darr, Lieutenant Governor, Lottery audit, transparency, accountability, Arkansas, Ernie Passailaigue, Lottery Director To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Today in Washington, D.C. - June 29, 2010 - Kagan's Contradictory Answers

The Senate today quickly considered and approved the nomination of General David Petraeus to command American forces in Afghanistan. They then resumed consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act.

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed cloture yet again on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to HR 4213, the so-called “tax extenders bill.” Unfortunately, just like all the previous Democrat offerings, this version once again adds to the debt, to the tune of $35 billion. Republicans have repeatedly offered to extend expiring tax credits and unemployment benefits without deficit spending, but Democrats have objected or voted it down every time.

Also yesterday, the Senate voted 66-33 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the small business bill, H.R. 5297.

At 9 AM, the Senate Judiciary Committee resumed hearings on the nomination of Elena Kagan of Massachusetts to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Today’s session will complete the first round of questions from senators and will begin the second round. If senators don’t use all their time, those who want it could get a third round of questions today.

During the first round of questioning of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan yesterday, she seemed to contradict several things she’d previously said. In fact, whole approach to her hearing yesterday went counter to her prior criticisms of Supreme Court confirmation hearings. As The New York Times writes today, “Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might ‘provide some kind of hints’ about her views on matters of legal controversy.” In 1995, Kagan complained, “Subsequent [Supreme Court] 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.” But as the NYT noted, “Elena Kagan deflected questions about her own views on gun rights and abortion during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday, instead describing Supreme Court precedents.”

But more troubling are her contradictions about her record. When Kagan was asked about her time in the Clinton administration, she described her job as, “I worked for President Bill Clinton and we tried to implement his policy views and objectives.” Yet notes she made on a memo in 1996 show that she called Clinton’s opposition to elective partial-birth abortion “a problem,” and worked to change his position.

Kagan’s well-documented and controversial actions denying full access for military recruiters to Harvard Law School, despite a law requiring such access, during her time as dean also came up yesterday. Kagan said, “[T]he military at all times during my deanship had full and good access.” But the day after an appeals court declared the law unconstitutional, The New York Times said, “Ms. Kagan — and several other law school deans — barred military recruiters from their campuses.” Kagan only relented when the Pentagon threatened to withhold “all possible funds” from the school if the ban continued. Meanwhile, the Army told Pentagon leaders it was “stonewalled at Harvard,” and the Air Force’s JAG recruiting chief wrote at the time, “[D]enying access to the Career Services Office is tantamount to chaining and locking the front door of the law school – as it has the same impact on our recruiting efforts.”

Kagan also seemed to have trouble deciding how to describe her personal politics. When Ranking Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) asked Kagan if she agreed with former White House Counsel Greg Craig’s description of her as “largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself,” Kagan responded, “I’m not quite sure how I would characterize my politics.” But later in the day, when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked her, “Would you consider them -- your political views progressive?,” Kagan finally acknowledged, “My political views are generally progressive.” As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday, “[T]he question before us, though, is whether Ms. Kagan’s political views would be more or less constrained by the Constitution she swears to uphold once she reaches her goal.”

Elena Kagan needs to better explain some aspects of her record, including how she’ll set aside her years of political advocacy, and her troubling arguments in the Citizens United case.

Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan, General David Petraeus To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Obama Ignores Oil Spill & US Border Invasion While "Fiddling Around" & Pushing Climate Change Bill

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: It used to be many people but now it is "most people" who are wondering where the President Obama's head and heart is these days. It doesn't appear to the majority of Americans that he values "down to earth" good old America - our country. Yesterday, we note another example of Obama's lack of focus on what really matters:

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reported: In the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama today summoned a bipartisan group of over 20 senators to the White House to push for energy and climate change legislation.

But one thing the President did not want to talk about at the meeting was the BP disaster, a Republican source told ABC News. And that, the source said, led to a pointed exchange with GOP senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee.

"The priority should be fixing the oil spill," Alexander told the President, according to the source. “That's what any meeting about energy should be about.”

But when Alexander tried to interject the BP leak into the meeting, the source said, the President told the senator, "That's just your talking point." Retorted Alexander, "No, it's my opinion." . . . [Full Story]

Arrogance abounds in the White House. American is suffering while President Obama "Fiddles Around" in the White House, on the golf course, or jetting around the globe trying to impress global dignitaries, and constantly campaigning. Wonder when he will ever visit the US Border with Mexico! We are under armed attack. People are being murdered and raped by invaders on American soil. I never thought I would find my self saying anything good about disgraced former president Jimmy Carter. But here goes: At least Carter showed some good old Southern grace while screwing over America.

Tags: President Obama, Obama, arrogance, America, oil spill, climate change agenda, White House, US border, oil spill To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

11 Reasons to Vote for Democrats in November

Lesterville2k2 - The members of the Democrat party have given us a lot to consider before voting in November 2010. This video presents just 11 reasons to consider voting for the Democrats. Are you motivated yet?

Video produced by Duane Lester. This is a great video for Tea Party members and others to share.

Tags: Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Harry Reid, Bob Etheridge, Hank Johnson, Democrats, 2010 election, video To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

For Self Defense

William Warren:

Tags: 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Gun Bans, Political Cartoons, SCOTUS, William Warren To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

SCOTUS Nominee Kagan On Guns & Free Speech

KAGAN FOLLOWS SOTOMAYOR ON GUNS
Nominee Continues SCOTUS Hearing Tradition She Previously Called A “Hollow Charade”
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-VT): “Is There Any Doubt After The Court's Decisions In Heller And McDonald That The Second Amendment To The Constitution, Secures A Fundamental Right For An Individual To Own A Firearm, Use It For Self Defense In Their Home?” ELENA KAGAN: “There Is No Doubt, Senator Leahy, That Is Binding Precedent Entitled To All The Respect Of Binding Precedent In Any Case. So That Is Settled Law.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

FLASHBACK: Judge Sotomayor Claimed To Agree That “The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right”
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-VT): “Is It Safe To Say That You Accept The Supreme Court's Decision As Establishing That The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right? Is That Correct?” JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “Yes, Sir.” LEAHY: “Thank you. And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?” SOTOMAYOR: “It is.” LEAHY: “And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney?” SOTOMAYOR: “Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged, answered the -- a different question.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 7/14/09)

LEAHY (D-VT): “I Do Not See How Any Fair Observer Could Regard [Judge Sotomayor’s] Testimony As Hostile To The Second Amendment Personal Right To Bear Arms, A Right She Has Embraced And Recognizes.” “Recognizing that she would be unable to say how she would rule, I asked Judge Sotomayor whether she would approach these matters with an open mind and she assured us that she would. I do not see how any fair observer could regard her testimony as hostile to the Second Amendment personal right to bear arms, a right she has embraced and recognizes.” (Sen. Leahy, Congressional Record, S.8907, 8/6/09)
THEN DISSENT JOINED BY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text … To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes”
DISSENT JOINED BY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.” (“Otis McDonald, Et Al., Petitioners V. City Of Chicago, Illinois, Et Al.” Justice Breyer Dissent Joined By Justices Ginsburg & Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court, P.180-1, 6/28/10)

KAGAN PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT SCOTUS HEARINGS ARE A “HOLLOW CHARADE”
KAGAN: “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.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.941)

Elena Kagan & Pamphlet Banning
As Solicitor, Elena Kagan’s Office Argued The U.S. Government Could Ban Books Before She Personally Revised The Position To Argue The Ban Would Only Apply To Pamphlets

SG Elena Kagan’s Office: “[The U.S. Government] Could Prohibit The Publication Of The Book”
JUSTICE ALITO: “You Think That If -- If A Book Was Published, A Campaign Biography That Was The Functional Equivalent Of Express Advocacy, That Could Be Banned?” … MALCOLM L. STEWART, Deputy Solicitor General: “If The Book Contained The Functional Equivalent Of Express Advocacy.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Oral Argument, 3/24/09)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “If It's A 500-Page Book, And At The End It Says, And So Vote For X, The Government Could Ban That?” … MALCOLM L. STEWART, Deputy Solicitor General: “We Could Prohibit The Publication Of The Book.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Oral Argument, 3/24/09)

JUSTICE SOUTER: “To Point Out How Far Your Argument Would Go, What If A Labor Union Paid An Author To Write A Book Advocating The Election Of A Or The Defeat Of B? And After The Manuscript Was Prepared, They Then Went To A Commercial Publisher, And They Go To Random House. Random House Says, Yes, We Will Publish That. . . . We’re Talking About How Far The Constitutional Ban Could Go, and We’re Talking About Books.” … MALCOLM L. STEWART, Deputy Solicitor General: “The Labor Union's Conduct Would Be Prohibited. . . .And I Think It Would Be Constitutional To Forbid The Labor Union To Do That.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Oral Argument, 3/24/09)
SG Elena Kagan Revises Her Office’s Position: “The FEC Has Never Applied This Statute To A Book” But “A Pamphlet Would Be Different.”
JUSTICE GINSBURG: “May I Ask You One Question That Was Highlighted In The Prior Argument, And That Was If Congress Could Say No TV And Radio Ads, Could It Also Say No Newspaper Ads, No Campaign Biographies? Last Time The Answer Was, Yes, Congress Could, But It Didn't. Is That -- Is That Still The Government's Answer?” ELENA KAGAN, Solicitor General: “The Government's Answer Has Changed, Justice Ginsburg. . . .The government’s view is that although 441b does cover full-length books . . . the FEC has never applied 441b in that context.” … CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “We Don't Put Our First Amendment Rights In The Hands Of FEC Bureaucrats; And If You Say That You Are Not Going To Apply It To A Book, What About A Pamphlet?” GENERAL KAGAN: “I think a -- a pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that 441 b only applies to video and not to print.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Oral Argument, 9/9/09)

U.S. Supreme Court: “This Troubling Assertion Of Brooding Governmental Power Cannot Be Reconciled With The Confidence And Stability In Civic Discourse That The First Amendment Must Secure.”
OPINION OF THE COURT: “This Troubling Assertion Of Brooding Governmental Power Cannot Be Reconciled With The Confidence And Stability In Civic Discourse That The First Amendment Must Secure.” “The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. … If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The government responds ‘that the FEC has never applied this statute to a book,’ and if it did, ‘there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge.’ … This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, United States Supreme Court, Decided 1/21/10)

CONCURRING OPINION (Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Alito): “The Government Urges Us In This Case To Uphold A Direct Prohibition On Political Speech. It Asks Us To Embrace A Theory Of The First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only Of Television And Radio Broadcasts, But Of Pamphlets, Posters, The Internet, And Virtually Any Other Medium That Corporations And Unions Might Find Useful In Expressing Their Views On Matters Of Public Concern. Its Theory, If Accepted, Would Empower The Government To Prohibit Newspapers From Running Editorials Or Opinion Pieces Supporting Or Opposing Candidates For Office, So Long As The Newspapers Were Owned By Corporations—As The Major Ones Are. First Amendment Rights Could Be Confined To Individuals, Subverting The Vibrant Public Discourse That Is At The Foundation Of Our Democracy. The Court Properly Rejects That Theory, And I Join Its Opinion In Full. The First Amendment Protects More Than Just The Individual On A Soapbox And The Lonely Pamphleteer.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, United States Supreme Court, Decided 1/21/10)

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Scalia): “The Notion … That Modern Newspapers, Since They Are Incorporated, Have Free-Speech Rights Only At The Sufferance Of Congress, Boggles The Mind.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, United States Supreme Court, Decided 1/21/10)

Notable Pamphlets

The Famous Pamphlet Common Sense
“In January 1776, little more than a year after emigrating from England, Thomas Paine penned his famous radical pamphlet Common Sense, in which he urged the American Colonies to declare independence and immediately severe all ties with the British monarchy. Published just as colonists learned of George III's speech proclaiming the American Colonies in rebellion against the Crown, Common Sense became an instant best seller with several thousand copies sold within days.” (“American Treasures Of The Library Of Congress,” U.S. Library Of Congress, Accessed 5/14/10)

“On November 10, 1787, George Washington thanked Alexander Hamilton for sending him a copy of the pamphlet written by ‘Publius.’”

Tags: SCOTUS, nominee, Elena Kagan, US Senate, confirmation conversions, SCOTUS Hearings, Guns, Free Speech To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

More Kagan's Confirmation Conversions -

Conversion #3 - KAGAN ON SCOTUS HEARINGS -- Kagan Previously Denounced Senators For “Limits On Inquiry” During SCOTUS Hearings But Now She Contends Even Discussing “Past Cases” “Wouldn’t Be Appropriate”
ELENA KAGAN: “It Wouldn’t Be Appropriate For Me To Talk About What I Think About Past Cases, You Know, To Grade Cases Because Those Cases Themselves Might Again Come Before The Court.” (Elena Kagan, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/29/10)

FLASHBACKELENA KAGAN: “The Problem Is Not That Senators Engage In Substantive Discussion With Supreme Court Nominees; The Problem Is That They Do Not. Senators Effectively Have Accepted The Limits On Inquiry. … The Challenge Now Is To Over-Throw Them.” “The problem is not that the Bork hearings have set a pattern for all others; the problem is that they have not. And the problem is not that senators engage in substantive discussion with Supreme Court nominees; the problem is that they do not. Senators effectively have accepted the limits on inquiry Carter proposes; the challenge now is to over-throw them.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.942)

KAGAN: “I Suspect That Both [Ginsburg And Breyer] Appreciated That, For Them (As For Most), The Safest And Surest Route To The Prize Lay In Alternating Platitudinous Statement And Judicious Silence. Who Would Have Done Anything Different, In The Absence Of Pressure From Members Of Congress? And Of Such Pressure, There Was Little Evidence.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.928)

ELENA KAGAN: “The Recent Hearings On Supreme Court Nominees” Have Taken “On An Air Of Vacuity And Farce.” “The recent hearings on Supreme Court nominees, though, suggest another question: might we now have a distinct and more troubling confirmation mess? If recent hearings lacked acrimony, they also lacked seriousness and substance. … When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.920)

KAGAN: “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.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.941)

Conversion #4 - “Good Legal Advice” -- Today Elena Kagan Dismisses Her Views During The Clinton Administration As Providing “Good Legal Advice” But Previously She Said Her Primary Role Was A “Policy Adviser”

ELENA KAGAN: “I Tried My Hardest When I Was In The - When I Worked In The Clinton Administration, Including As A Lawyer, To Provide Good Legal Advice To The President.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

“Most Of The Time I Spent In The WH, I Did Not Serve As An Attorney”ELENA KAGAN: “During Most Of The Time I Spent In The White House, I Did Not Serve As An Attorney; I Was Instead A Policy Adviser....It Was Part Of My Job Not To Give Legal Advice, But To Choose When And How To Ask For It.” (Elena Kagan, Remarks At West Point, 10/17/07)

Kagan’s Advice Included Noting What Policy Would Advantage Dems In ElectionsOn Campaign Finance Proposals: “Soft $ Ban – Affects Repubs, Not Dems!” (Elena Kagan, Notes, DPC – Box 006 – Folder 006, KCL – 0003690, Clinton Presidential Library, 2/3/97)

Conversion #5 - CONFIRMATION CONVERSION:KAGAN ON BARAK
Previously She Said Barak Was A “Great, Great Judge” But Now She Says She Admires Him Personally, “Not For His Particular Judicial Philosophy”
ELENA KAGAN: “[Aharon Barak Is] A Great, Great Judge.” (CSPAN, 11/11/02)
TODAY: “I Admire Justice Barack, Not For His Particular Judicial Philosophy, Not For Any Of His Particular Decisions”
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Will You Look To Judge Barak's Judicial Method As A Model For Deciding Cases?” ELENA KAGAN: “I Will Not, Senator Grassley. I do admire Justice Barak, who is, of course -- was for many years the chief justice of the state of Israel. I do admire him. He is very often called the John Marshall of the state of Israel because he was central in creating an independent judiciary for Israel and in ensuring that Israel, a young nation, a nation threatened from its very beginning in existential ways and a nation without a written constitution, he was central in ensuring that Israel, with all those kinds of liabilities, would become a very strong rule of law nation.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/29/10)

ELENA KAGAN:“And That's Why I Admire Justice Barak, Not For His Particular Judicial Philosophy, Not For Any Of His Particular Decisions.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/29/10)
Tags: SCOTUS, nominee, Elena Kagan, US Senate, confirmation conversions, SCOTUS Hearings, Good Legal Advice, Aharon Barak To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 12:35 PM No comments:

Share

Today in Washington, D.C. - June 29, 2010 - While Democrat Operative Kagan Gets Senate Attention; The Dems’ ‘Scheme & Deem’ Budget Ploy Has House on Edge

In the House, Republicans are riled up over a Democrat's Scheme & Deem’ Budget Ploy Which Will Also be the Taxpayer's "Worst Nightmare" Big Spending with no accountability. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called out House Democrats for trying to circumvent their cancellation of this year’s budget by ‘deeming’ a non-existent budget as having passed – without actually writing a real one – so they can continue spending money we don’t have on failing ‘stimulus’ policies. Boehner, who has run a small business, also addressed Vice President Biden’s recent encounter with a small business owner who asked about having his taxes lowered. Biden called a small business owner a "smartass."

I guess Biden has been in his imperial leader's shadow long enough that he is showing his real feeling for Americans business owners. While the comment could of been"deemed" good natured fun in Congress, Biden display of anger in front of other witnesses indicates that Biden later half-heartedly apology was just an actto cover his tracks. And as for the deemed budget, maybe the American taxpayers should notify Congress that they "deem their taxes paid" next year for the for the non-existent 2011 budget. Better yet, it is time to vote these elitist arrogant democrats out of office!

Today, the Senate is expected to vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act (It was postponed yesterday). Yesterday, the Senate voted 80-0 to confirm Gary Scott Feinerman to be District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Senate Judiciary Committee resumed hearings on the nomination of Elena Kagan of Massachusetts to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Today’s session features the first round of questioning from senators and may continue into the second round. A key issue senators are looking for insight from her on is how they should get an idea of what kind of justice she might be. Speaking on the floor yesterday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “Since Ms. Kagan hasn’t had the judicial or private practice experience common to most modern-day nominees, it’s all the more important that we look more closely at the kind of experience she has had. A review of that experience reveals a woman who has spent much of her adult life not steeped in the practice of the law but in the art of politics. To be more specific, when we look at Elena Kagan’s resume, what we find is a woman who has spent much of her adult life working to advance the goals of the Democratic Party.”

Kagan actually agreed with Sen. McConnell’s point at her hearing this morning. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) told Kagan yesterday, “We have less evidence about what sort of judge you will be than on any nominee in recent memory. Your judicial philosophy is almost invisible to us.” So today, Sen. Kohl followed up by asking Kagan how exactly senators should understand what kind of justice she might be. Kagan responded, “I think you can look to my whole life for indications of what kind of a judge or justice I would be.”

So what has Kagan done for most of her life? She’s had a long career as a political operative. Sen. McConnell summarized her record: “As a young woman in college, she spent one summer working 14-hours a day for a liberal Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate. And when her candidate lost, Ms. Kagan wrote that she believed the ‘world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead.’ . . . . What else do we find in Ms. Kagan’s resume? Well, she volunteered for the Dukakis presidential campaign, working as an opposition researcher to defend the then governor of Massachusetts from attacks, and to look for ways to attack the Republican opposition. And as an aide to President Clinton, Ms. Kagan did not serve mostly as an attorney, as she put it, but as a policy advocate, frequently looking for ways to advantage Democrats over Republicans.”

Throughout her career, Kagan advocated for liberals and Democrats. Watching the defeat of the candidate she worked for in 1980, noted liberal Elizabeth Holtzman, Kagan hoped a “more leftist left will once again come to the fore.” Later, working for the Dukakis campaign, she was, “a self-described flunky,” according to the Los Angeles Times. While she worked in the Clinton White House, the AP writes “she suggested transforming what was supposed to be a routine literacy event at a Maryland school into a chance to score points against the Republican Congress.”

And because Kagan has not been a judge, we have not yet seen whether she has the ability to set aside her personal proclivities and views and decide cases based on the law. The Democrat Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy once said, “No one should vote for somebody that’s going to be a political apparatchik for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.” Indeed, and as Sen. McConnell said yesterday, “If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that politics should end at the courtroom door.”
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan, deeming, House budget, no budget, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 11:49 AM No comments:

Share

Kagan's Confirmation Conversions - Should We Believe Kagan?

Conversion #1 - KAGAN MAKES NO PLEDGES:
Kagan Says She’ll “Make No Pledges” But She Previously Criticized “The Recent Hearings On Supreme Court Nominees” For Taking “On An Air Of Vacuity And Farce,” Saying “Senators Effectively Have Accepted The Limits On Inquiry”

ELENA KAGAN:“I Will Make No Pledges This Week…”
(Elena Kagan, Opening Statement, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/28/10)
FLASHBACK
ELENA KAGAN: “The Problem Is Not That Senators Engage In Substantive Discussion With Supreme Court Nominees; The Problem Is That They Do Not. Senators Effectively Have Accepted The Limits On Inquiry. … The Challenge Now Is To Over-Throw Them.” “The problem is not that the Bork hearings have set a pattern for all others; the problem is that they have not. And the problem is not that senators engage in substantive discussion with Supreme Court nominees; the problem is that they do not. Senators effectively have accepted the limits on inquiry Carter proposes; the challenge now is to over-throw them.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.942)

KAGAN: “I Suspect That Both [Ginsburg And Breyer] Appreciated That, For Them (As For Most), The Safest And Surest Route To The Prize Lay In Alternating Platitudinous Statement And Judicious Silence. Who Would Have Done Anything Different, In The Absence Of Pressure From Members Of Congress? And Of Such Pressure, There Was Little Evidence.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.928)

ELENA KAGAN: “The Recent Hearings On Supreme Court Nominees” Have Taken “On An Air Of Vacuity And Farce.” “The recent hearings on Supreme Court nominees, though, suggest another question: might we now have a distinct and more troubling confirmation mess? If recent hearings lacked acrimony, they also lacked seriousness and substance. … When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.920)

KAGAN: “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.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.941)

Conversion #2 - KAGAN ON RULE OF LAW"
Today She Wants To “Safeguard The Rule Of Law” But Previously Praised The Judicial Philosophy Where “You Do What You Think Is Right And Let The Law Catch Up” And “Bridge The Gap Between Law And Society.”

ELENA KAGAN: “And What The Supreme Court Does Is To Safeguard The Rule Of Law, Through A Commitment To Even-Handedness, Principle, And Restraint.” (Elena Kagan, Opening Statement, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/28/10)
KAGAN: Judicial Philosophy That “You Do What You Think Is Right And Let The Law Catch Up” “A Thing Of Glory”
JUSTICE MARSHALL Describing His Judicial Philosophy: “You Do What You Think Is Right And Let The Law Catch Up.” “At Justice Marshall’s lunch, a clerk asked him to describe his judicial philosophy. From most Justices, it was the sort of question that prompted vacuous homilies, stale leftovers from the judicial confirmation process. Justice Marshall, who had little patience for such platitudes, actually answered the question. ‘You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.’” (Deborah Rhode, “Letting The Law Catch Up,” Standford Law Review, Vol. 44, P.1259, Summer, 1992)

ELENA KAGAN: Justice Marshall’s Judicial Philosophy “A Thing Of Glory.” “For in Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government-to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission. … however much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.” (Elena Kagan, “For Justice Marshall,” 71 Texas Law Review 1125, 1993)
Kagan Praised Judge Who Says The Role Of A Judge “Is To Bridge The Gap Between Law And Society”
AHARON BARAK, FORMER PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL’S SUPREME COURT: Judge’s Role “Is Not Restricted To Adjudicating Disputes In Which Parties Claim That Their Personal Rights Have Been Violated.” (Aharon Barak, The Judge In A Democracy, 2006, pg. 193)

BARAK: Judge’s Role “Is To Bridge The Gap Between Law And Society.” (Aharon Barak, The Judge In A Democracy, 2006, pg. 132)

ELENA KAGAN: “[Barak Is] A Great, Great Judge.” (CSPAN, 11/11/02)
Tags: SCOTUS, nominee, Elena Kagan, US Senate, confirmation conversions, rule of law, no pledges To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 7:07 AM No comments:

Share

Monday, June 28, 2010

It Does Matter: First Obama SCOTUS Nominee Changes Position & Opposes Gun Rights

IT DOES MATTER! RINOs NEED TO STOP SAYING THE NOMINEE IS JUST REPLACING A LIBERAL ON THE COURT. SOMEDAY, IT WILL BE A LIBERAL REPLACING A CONSERVATIVE!

Justice Sotomayor Testified At Her Confirmation Hearing That She Recognized The “Individual Right” Of The Second Amendment But Today She “Can Find Nothing” “Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’”

DISSENT JOINED BY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text … To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes”
DISSENT JOINED BY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.” (“Otis McDonald, Et Al., Petitioners V. City Of Chicago, Illinois, Et Al.” Justice Breyer Dissent Joined By Justices Ginsburg & Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court, P.180-1, 6/28/10)

FLASHBACK: Judge Sotomayor Claimed To Agree That “The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right”
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-VT): “Is It Safe To Say That You Accept The Supreme Court's Decision As Establishing That The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right? Is That Correct?” JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “Yes, Sir.” (Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing, 7/14/09)

LEAHY (D-VT): “I Do Not See How Any Fair Observer Could Regard [Judge Sotomayor’s] Testimony As Hostile To The Second Amendment Personal Right To Bear Arms, A Right She Has Embraced And Recognizes.” “Recognizing that she would be unable to say how she would rule, I asked Judge Sotomayor whether she would approach these matters with an open mind and she assured us that she would. I do not see how any fair observer could regard her testimony as hostile to the Second Amendment personal right to bear arms, a right she has embraced and recognizes.” (Sen. Leahy, Congressional Record, S.8907, 8/6/09)
Tags: SCOTUS nominee, Barack Obama, Supreme Court,Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, 2nd Amendment, gun rights To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 2:10 PM No comments:

Share

SCOTUS Rules All Americans Have Fundamental Right To Bear Arms

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled for the first that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms. A prior ruling was not needed because this was clearly understood by our forefathers. The ruling is a victory for gun rights advocates who have objected to the federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership. SCOTUS ruled 5 to 4 which although favorable, means the liberal's still do not see the Bill of rights as absolute rights granted all American citizens.

What precipitated this ruling was a restrictive handgun law in Chicago that was similar to the District of Columbia law which was overturned previously in 2008. Chicago argued that the prior 2008 case dealt with Federal land and not State, City or Communities. The SCOTUS ruling made it clear, that people have a right to own guns which cannot be abridged and made a crime.

Unfortuantely, the SCOTUS decision does not address all the other gun control measures that are in place, but the decision provides a legal basis for challenges across the country where gun owners think that government has been too restrictive. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservatives on the court: "Tt is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a Democrat, says he's disappointed by Monday's Supreme Court decision and that he realize Chicago's gun law would be struck down. Just what we have come to expect froma liberal elitists. While Democrat Senators Representatives have avoid comment and are busy pushing the SCOTUS nomination of another liberal elitist, Elena Kan, below are some comments by two Republicans:

Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), in a press release, praised the Supreme Court's ruling today that the Second Amendment applies equally to Federal, State, and local governments. "Today the Court maintained what Americans already know; our right to keep and bear arms is absolute. As the founders understood, the individual's right to self protection is endowed by the creator, not by the government," Blackburn said.

"I regret that the ruling on so obvious an issue was a narrow one. This 5-4 ruling highlights how important the confirmation hearings underway in the Senate are. Elena Kagan will do the nation a disservice if she is less than explicit in her views of 2nd Amendment rights. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to examine her position on this issue closely."

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) paraphrased the SCOTUS ruling in his opening statements today and said: "Sometimes judicial activists create new rights - and sometimes they actively undermine the rights in our Constitution. For example, we can see the different approaches to constitutional interpretation in this morning's landmark 5-4 decision on gun rights, McDonald v. City of Chicago. The five Justices who voted to apply the Second Amendment to the Chicago gun ordinance relied on history and precedent. On the other hand, the four Justices who voted not to apply the Second Amendment instead relied heavily on public policy arguments." It's imperative to know, Cornyn said, "Will the nominee enforce the written Constitution and not invent new rights?"
Tags: SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel A. Alito Jr., ruling, gun rights, 2nd Amendment, US Constitution, right to own guns, liberal elitists, John Cornyn, Marsha Blackburn, Elena Kagan, Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 1:35 PM No comments:

Share

Breaking News -- American Voters Betrayed -- Democrat Budget Cancelled!

BREAKING NEWS: We have confirmed that the federal budget planned for fiscal year 2011 has been canceled. The cause: Washington Democrats' out-of-control spending spree. The Democrats in Congress chose not to create a budget and Americans aren’t happy about it. Do the Democrats owe the public an apology for the betrayal of hard working American taxpayers? And will they submit such an apology? Doubtful. [video]

Tags: democrats, budget, canceled, cancelled, increased spending, Congress, broken promises, US House, Nancy Pelois, Steny Hoyer, Barack Obama, Obama administration, Republican, video To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 1:23 PM No comments:

Share

Democrats Flip-Flop on On Need For Experience for SCOTUS Justices

Judiciary Committee Democrat Said Three Weeks Ago That To Have A “Strong Judiciary” Judges Needed To Be “In The Arena” Or “Been Judges Before” But Today She Does Not Express The Same Concern For Kagan’s Lack Of Experience
TODAYSEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): “Now, Even With The Variety Of Legal Experiences That You Have Had, Questions Have Been Raised As To Whether It Is Appropriate To Nominate Someone To The Supreme Court Who Has Never Been A Judge Before.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/28/10)

THREE WEEKS AGOSEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): “[I]f We Just Put Judges On The Court That Have Handled No Difficult Cases, That Haven’t Been In The Arena, Or People Who Have Never Been Judges Before And So They Didn’t Have Those Difficult Decisions, I Don’t Think We’d Have A Strong Judiciary.” (Judiciary Committee, Executive Business Meeting, 6/10/10)

KAGAN HAS FAR LESS EXPERIENCE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE THAN OTHER NOMINEES WITHOUT JUDICIAL EXPERIENCEJustices Without Judicial Experience Had An Average Of 20.5 Years In Private Practice.(Congressional Research Service, 6/15/10)
Justice Byron White Was In Private Practice For 14 Years.(Federal Judicial Center Website, Accessed 6/16/10)
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Was In Private Practice For 16 Years(Federal Judicial Center Website, Accessed 6/16/10)
Justice Robert Jackson Was In Private Practice For 21 Years.(Federal Judicial Center Website, Accessed 6/16/10)
Justice Louis Brandeis Was In Private Practice For 38 Years.(Federal Judicial Center Website, Accessed 6/16/10)
Justice Lewis Powell Was In Private Practice For 39 Years.(Federal Judicial Center Website, Accessed 6/16/10)
“[Kagan] Spent Two Years As A Litigator At Williams & Connolly LLP In Washington.” (“Elena Kagan Selected By Obama For U.S. Supreme Court,” Bloomberg, 5/10/10)
POLITIFACT: “It’s Fair To Say That Kagan Has Spent The Bulk Of Her Professional Career In Academia At The University Of Chicago And Harvard Law School, And At Various Positions Inside The Beltway. … [Sen. John] Cornyn's claim that Kagan ‘has spent her entire professional career in Harvard Square, Hyde Park and the D.C. Beltway’ is True.” (“Republicans Say Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Is A Product Of Harvard Square, Hyde Park And The D.C. Beltway,” PolitiFact, 5/10/10)
Tags: SCOTUS, nominee, Elena Kagan, US Senate, confirmation hearings, experience To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 1:12 PM No comments:

Share

ATR President Grover Norquist at the AR Defending the American Dream Summit

Grover Norquist spoke at the Arkansas Defending the American Dream Summit in Little Rock, Arkansas. [video]

-----------------
Grover Norquist is president of anti-tax advocacy Americans for Tax Reform which he founded in 1985 at President Ronald Reagan's request.. He serves on the board of directors for the of the National rifle Association and the American Conservative Union. Norquist is author of "Leave us Alone: Getting the Government's hands Offf Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives."
Tags: Grover Norquist, ATR, Americans for Tax Reform, Arkansas, AFP, Americans For Prosperity, video To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 1:00 PM No comments:

Share

Fact Check: Does Kagan Understand “Ordinary Americans"

Despite Democrats’ Claims That Kagan Has “Practical Experience” Understanding “Ordinary Americans,” Kagan Has Actually Spent Most Of Her Time “In Academia” Or “Inside The Beltway”
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): “Your Work On The Frontlines Tells Me That You Have Practical Experience Thinking About The Impact Of Laws And Policies On The Lives Of Ordinary Americans.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/28/10)

KAGAN “HAS SPENT THE BULK OF HER PROFESSIONAL CAREER IN ACADEMIA” AND “INSIDE THE BELTWAY”
·         “Obama Promised Judges With At Least A Passing Knowledge Of The ‘Real World,’ But Kagan’s Experience Draws From A World Whose Signposts Are Distant From Most Americans: Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School And The Upper Reaches Of The Democratic Legal Establishment.” (“Is Kagan From The 'Real World'?” Politico, 5/11/10)

·         POLITIFACT: “It’s Fair To Say That Kagan Has Spent The Bulk Of Her Professional Career In Academia At The University Of Chicago And Harvard Law School, And At Various Positions Inside The Beltway. … [Sen. John] Cornyn's claim that Kagan ‘has spent her entire professional career in Harvard Square, Hyde Park and the D.C. Beltway’ is True.” (“Republicans Say Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Is A Product Of Harvard Square, Hyde Park And The D.C. Beltway,” PolitiFact, 5/10/10)

·         “A Native Of New York, Kagan Has Worked Her Entire Life Along Pennsylvania Avenue Or Near Harvard Square And Hyde Park. Her Friendships Are, For The Most Part, Inseparable From Her Closest Professional Associations.” (“Kagan Has Many Achievements, But Her World Has Been Relatively Narrow,” The Washington Post, 6/10/10)

“Most Of The People In Kagan's Life Are Important People, Bound To Her In Tightly Drawn Concentric Circles. Her Friends Are Elite Lawyers Of A Certain Set Or Democratic Operatives With Staying Power.”(“Kagan Has Many Achievements, But Her World Has Been Relatively Narrow,” The Washington Post, 6/10/10)
Tags: SCOTUS, nominee, Elana Kagan, US Senate, confirmation hearings, fact check, ordinary Americans To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 12:58 PM No comments:

Share

Today in Washington, D.C. - June 28, 2010 - Richard Byrd Dead - Kagan SCOTUS Nomination Hearings Begin

The Senate will reconvene at 2 PM today. With the recent death of Senator Richard Byrd (D-WV), the Senate is expected to name Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) as President Pro Tempore (The senator who presides over the U.S. Senate in the absence of the Vice President). Richard Byrd, a democrat, was a former Ku Klux Klan member and West Virgina Senator. Although having been ill for some time, he achieved the goal of being the longest serving Senator in the history of the US Senate (1959 to 2010).

The Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act. At 5 PM, the Senate will take up the nomination of Gary Scott Feinerman to be District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois and then vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5297 and on the confirmation of the Feinerman nomination.

Today at 12:30 PM, the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan of Massachusetts to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The hearings will continue for the next 3 days and into Friday, if necessary. Today’s session begans with opening statements from Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (R-AL) followed by the other committee members. Then, Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown will introduce the nominee. Following that, Kagan will give her introductory remarks. Wonder if Sen. Brown is already "in the tank" to vote yes on Kagan?

As the hearings for Kagan begin today, some Senate Republicans have serious questions about her background as a political lawyer and operative and whether she’ll properly be able to set her political ideology aside to decide cases based on the law. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a Senate Judiciary Committee member, told POLITICO, “I think a recurrent theme will be: Here you have a person who has been deeply involved in policy-politics most of her life — without a judicial record to demonstrate that she can put that behind her on the bench. . . . And therefore she’s got a burden of proof to find other ways to assure us that she will decide cases just based on the facts — and not just based on the politics.”

Last week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell laid out a key question about Kagan: “We don’t know how Elena Kagan will apply the law because she has no judicial record, little experience as a private practitioner, and no significant writings for the last several years. So the question before the Senate is whether, given Ms. Kagan’s background as a political advisor and academic, [do] we believe she could impartially apply the law to groups with which she doesn’t agree and for which she and the Obama Administration might not empathize?”

And documents released by the Clinton Presidential Library last week revealed that during her tenure in the Clinton White House she had an agenda to provide Democrats with an election advantage. Reacting to a Supreme Court decision that overturned restrictions on independent expenditures on political ads advocating for or against candidates by political parties, Kagan’s notes indicate that she advocated for a legislative correction to the ruling that would hand Democrats a political advantage. As Sen. McConnell explained, “Ms. Kagan’s notes reveal that finding ways to help Democrats over Republicans was very much on her mind. . . . Ms. Kagan’s notes show that she thought banning [soft money] would hurt Republicans and help Democrats. She even seemed to delight in the prospect of finding ways to disadvantage Republicans. Here’s what she wrote in her notes: ‘Soft [money] ban – affects Repubs, not Dems!’”

But soft money wasn’t the only area where Kagan looked for a political advantage for Democrats. She also suggested “free TV,” as in free political advertisements on TV, as a way to counteract what Democrats saw as an advantage for Republicans. In fact, her notes show she considered this as a way to counterbalance GOP independent expenditures. She wrote, “Free TV as balance to indep expends?? Clearly on mind of Dems – need a way to ctrbalance this.”

Sen. McConnell addressed Kagan's notes last week, “[H]er advocacy and apparent glee at identifying some political harm to Republicans is, to my mind, another piece of her record that calls into question her ability to impartially apply the law to all who would come before her as a justice on our nation’s highest court. The more we learn about Ms. Kagan’s work as a political adviser and political operative, the more questions arise about her ability to make the necessary transition from politics to neutral arbiter.”

Constitutional loving Americans will be watching these Supreme Court confirmation hearings with interest. They want to know if Elena Kagan will fairly apply the law, follow the Constitution, and not legislate from the bench. Given her lack of judicial experience, these hearings may provide the public and senators a clue as to how she would approach being a justice on our nation’s highest court.
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan, Richard Byrd To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 11:45 AM No comments:

Share

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Herman Cain at the AR Defending the American Dream Summit

Herman Cain spoke at the Arkansas Defending the American Dream Summit in Little Rock, Arkansas. [video]
-----------------
Mr. Herman Cain is an American newspaper columnist, businessman, politician, noted speaker, and conservative radio talk-show host. He previously served as chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and previously worked as a mathematician for the Department of the Navy, a business analyst for the Coca-Cola Company, and for the Pillsbury Company, where he became Vice-President of Corporate Systems and Services. In 2004, Cain ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. He is a contributor to the ARRA News Service . You can follow him at HermanCain.org

Tags: Herman Cain, Arkansas, AFP, Americans For Prosperity, video To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 8:59 PM No comments:

Share

GOP House Leader Boehner Honored at Right to Life Convention

Yesterday, House Republican Leader Boehner (R-OH) addressed the 40th Annual National Right to Life Convention at the Hyatt Regency in Pittsburgh, PA. Delegates repeatedly stood and applauded Boehner. They also honored him with their Legislative Leadership award based on Boehner's career fighting to ban partial birth abortion, assisted suicide and federal funding for abortion. Darla St. Martin, co-executive director in hopes of seeing a change in 2010 in the House of representatives referred to Boehner as the House speaker in her introduction which brought thunderous applause from the convention attendees.

During the debate over ObamaCare, Boehner consistently battled against changing the decades-old prohibition against taxpayer-funded abortion. On the House floor, he challenged the three Democratic committee chairman handling the legislation to support the House-backed pro-life language in the final bill. He also raised the issue of taxpayer funding for abortion with the President directly, live on national television during the health care ‘summit’ at Blair House.

Since ObamaCare passed, Boehner has raised the issue of implementing the White House ‘executive order’ that was used to secure the support of Rep. Bart Stupak and other ostensibly ‘pro-life’ Democrats. Thus far, as many of us feared, it is clear that the White House has done nothing to protect the unborn under ObamaCare.

Boehner’s efforts were also recognized earlier this year when Americans United for Life honored him with an award named for one of his personal heroes, Rep. Henry Hyde.

Following are excerpts from Boehner’s speech:
ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE IN AMERICA
“The defense of life and the defense of freedom are necessarily linked. We know this to be true. And if we accept it, then the current political agenda in Washington is a threat to freedom.”

ON OBAMACARE & THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON ABORTION
“The American people – and a bipartisan majority in the House – supported the Stupak amendment, which would have prohibited taxpayer funding of abortion through the health care bill. [But] instead of heeding the will of the people and a bipartisan majority, [President Obama and Democratic leaders] crafted a disingenuous, last-minute Executive Order that they claimed eliminated the need for pro-life protections.”

“Pro-life America. . .doubted the administration's sincerity – and with good reason. We're three months into implementation of the new health care law – and as far as anyone can tell, the administration hasn't lifted a finger to enforce the president's Executive Order on abortion.”

ON NEXT STEPS FOR PRO-LIFE AMERICA
“One of the many ideas being discussed right now on America Speaking Out is the idea of codifying the Hyde Amendment so that it applies to all federal funding, whether those funds are appropriated by Congress or authorized by Congress.

“I believe this must be the next objective for pro-life America. It’s clear from the health care debate that the American people don’t want their tax dollars paying for abortion, and a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives agrees. It’s the will of the people, and it ought to be the law of the land – right now.

“I'm pleased to announce today that Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey will be introducing legislation to accomplish this goal. I intend to be an original cosponsor of the bill. And once it is introduced, I will call on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to bring it to an immediate vote. It’s time for Washington to stop defying the will of the American people on this critical, common-sense issue.”
Read Rep. Boehner's complete address at the 40th Annual Right To life convention.
Tags: Right to Life, convention, 2010, John Boehner, award, speech, pro-life, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Unknown at 3:24 PM No comments:

Share

‹

›

Home

View web version