As Dean of Harvard University, Kagan supported kicking military recruiters off campus. She sent an email to the entire Harvard law school community stating, "I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." Kagan and other Harvard law school officials sued to overturn the Solomon amendment, adopted by Congress to ensure that law schools could not use homosexual rights rules to deny U.S. Armed Forces recruiters access to law school campuses. Kagan wanted the military barred from on-campus recruiting because the military supposedly discriminates against homosexuals. The position was so extreme that that the Supreme Court rejected her position by a 9-0 vote.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Kagan has worked in elite legal and policy jobs but has never served as a judge, which an administration official confirmed Sunday. Prior to her nomination last year for Solicitator General had never argued a case to the Supreme Court and apparently had never tried any cases.
Kagan's left-wing extremism has surfaced several times during her career. She advocated continued federal funding for abortion clinics and while clerking for the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said that religious organizations that provide care for teen pregnancies shouldn't get federal funds because of a strict line separating church and state." Evidently she understood the former Soviet Union constitution better that the US Constitution.
The Senate reconvened and resumed consideration of S. 3217, the Dodd financial regulation bill. No votes are scheduled today. Tomorrow, votes on amendments to the bill are expected to continue. Among those that could come up are amendments from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to audit the Federal Reserve and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to scrutinize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The regulation bill doesn’t even address Fannie and Freddie which are the “Two Companies at the Heart of the Housing Mania and Panic,”and which have asked for another $19 Billion in Taxpayer Bailouts this month. A separate post addresses this situation.
In the wake of the recent attempted bombing of Times Square, Attorney General Eric Holder made the rounds of Sunday shows yesterday but far from providing reassurance, his appearances once again raised questions about the Obama administration’s approach to the war on terror.
Indeed, the administration seems to have trouble deciding just what sort of conflict the war on terror is. Last year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano famously referred to terrorism as “man-caused disasters.” In the course of discussing Miranda warnings for terrorism suspects yesterday, Holder said, “We're now dealing with international terrorism. And if we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception.” Was Holder really saying he considers international terrorism a “new threat”? Is it only new since last week? Since the attempted attack in December? What sort of threats does he consider the United States has been fighting the last eight and a half years?
The Times Square attempt seems to have shifted Holder’s thinking on Miranda warnings for terror suspects. After the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner by a Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Holder defended the decision to read the man his Miranda rights early on in his interrogation. In a February letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Holder wrote, “Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him, however. On the contrary, history shows that the federal justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering intelligence.” Holder also said, “I am equally confident that the decision to address Mr. Abdulmutallab's actions through our criminal justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks.” But yesterday, Holder told NBC’s David Gregory, “And then you make the determination whether or not it is appropriate, whether you think that giving Miranda warnings to that person is going to stop the flow of information or whether the flow of information will continue, and you make the determination. In this particular case, is it more important for us to get intelligence from this person, or is it more important for us to build the case?” So which is it? Is it possible “giving Miranda warnings to that person is going to stop the flow of information” or is it that “[n]either advising [a suspect] of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him”?
The real problem here is that the administration seems to be taking a trial and error approach to terrorists targeting the United States, given its varying responses to the attack at Ft. Hood, the Christmas Day bombing attempt, and the recent Times Square attempt. A more coherent approach to combating terrorism focused on the security of the American people is required.
Tags: Barack Obama, Elena Kagan, Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, Dodd Bill, financial regulation, Eric Holder, terrorist trials To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment