E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The White House has just released advanced excerpts of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's opening remarks at her confirmation hearing.
On the importance of the rule of law:
Mr. Chairman, the law school I had the good fortune to lead has a kind of motto, spoken each year at graduation. We tell the new graduates that they are ready to enter a profession devoted to "those wise restraints that make us free." That phrase has always captured for me the way law, and the rule of law, matters. What the rule of law does is nothing less than to secure for each of us what our Constitution calls "the blessings of liberty" – those rights and freedoms, that promise of equality, that have defined this nation since its founding. And what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint.
On the importance of "a fair shake for every American":
The idea is engraved on the very face of the Supreme Court building: Equal Justice Under Law. It means that everyone who comes before the Court – regardless of wealth or power or station – receives the same process and the same protections. What this commands of judges is even-handedness and impartiality. What it promises is nothing less than a fair shake for every American.
And on recognizing the Supreme Court's limits:
[T]he Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one – properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives. What I most took away from those experiences was simple admiration for the democratic process. That process is often messy and frustrating, but the people of this country have great wisdom, and their representatives work hard to protect their interests. The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.
Leave a Comment:
"The idea is engraved on the very face of the Supreme Court building: Equal Justice Under Law. It means that everyone who comes before the Court – regardless of wealth or power or station – receives the same process and the same protections. What this commands of judges is even-handedness and impartiality. What it promises is nothing less than a fair shake for every American."
I wonder if any of the Judges in the Gulf region can agree with this sentiment. How nice would it be if we had anyone in government that actually put the interests of the people ahead of their own drunken lust for power and perpetuity? I can dream can't I?
I also get a charge out of the way the GOBP will inevitably be in the position of having to attack this eminently qualified candidate simply because the demands of the base. The GOBP is so beholden to their base and their corporate masters that they will cast aspersions at someone that is otherwise supremely qualified to sit on the Court.
I truly hope that, following the last few examples of Republican hypocrisy, the American electorate will wake up and refuse to provide the Republicans with any access to the levers of government. Those same levers that the GOBP are intent on destroying. We cannot afford to grant them access again. At least until the foibles of the last go round are remedied.
Disgusted,
Judges are not elected representatives of the people. Their responsibility is to interpret law. Nevertheless, in this case, the case you reference, the interest of 73% of the people of Louisiana was served. Who's drunken lust for power was usurped, the judge's, or Obama's?
With regard to your attempt to brand BP to the GOP, (GOBP, GOBP, GOBP), please consider:
BP Amoco re-branded in 2000 becoming BP with the company slogan "Beyond Petroleum", BP adopted a company logo, green and yellow sunflower, that resembled the emblem of the Green Party of Canada. ON 11 February 2007, BP announced they would spend 8 Billion over the next 10 years to to research and develop alternative energy. Lord Browne, Tony Hayward's predecessor, is one of the world's most prominent supporters of cap and trade - Obama's center piece legislation next to HCR.
BP funded a 500 Million grant to the University of California, Berkeley. The man primarily credited with securing the grant is a scientist, environmentalist, member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, and currently/concurrently, Obama's Secretary of Energy and Obama's "Nobel" expert leading the committee overseeing BP's efforts regarding the disaster in the Gulf, Steven Chu.
It's interesting to note that the #1 contributor (PAC) to Obama in the last election cycle was the University of California, Berkeley at 1.5 million, substantially ahead of even #2 Goldman Sach's 1 million. (Funny side note: the previous directoress and present director of the former MMS are Harvard attorneys with no executive experience. Harvard was #3 donator to Obama behind Goldman Sachs.)
The #1 recipient of BP money in the last 20 years is Obama.
GOBP? - really?
Foot note: Beginning January 1, 2009 (what happened about that time?) BP has spent over 20 Million on lobbyist in support of energy legislation, energy jobs legislation, and derivatives legislation.
"Equal Justice Under Law." Words from a bygone era.
I would like to question Ms. Kagan and ask her how she got to be a leacturer when she did so little publishing and how she came to teach at a university when she has so little credentials. I would like her to produce opinions of her view of the Constitution and I would like to ask the Un-Credentialed just why he put restrictions on asking questions of and to her family and family members. I would like to hear her views on this recent ruling of the 2nd amendment and how she would have voted.
I have as many questions to ask her as I have to ask of the Un-Credentialed and the problem is we of the great unwashed will never be able to ask those questions and I fear that our so-called representatives would dare even make the inquiry of such a favored personage.
"fair shake for every American"?? What is she, some kind of socialist???
What we should be asking Kagan:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11920
Why doesn't msnbc trust its viewers to view the hearings with our own ears instead of having their commentators
talk on and on over the image of the hearings? Interpretation should come AFTER we've heard for ourselves what
the questions and responses are.
Here responses are vapid and full of "fluff". She will attempt to obfuscate her views..and tell the senators what she thinks they want to hear. If she really wanted to be a Judge..She would be honest, forthright and upfront about who she is and what she belives.
In Ms. Kagan's world the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, and changes the constitution to how they see fit.
Judicial Activism is her credo.
End of story.
Next!
JJ,
I am sure that Alito and Roberts would echo your outrage over the obfuscation of their opinions during THEIR confirmation hearings right? Like the way Roberts expressed his allegiance and to-the-death respect for precedence and all that other hogwash HE sold to the Senate right?
Reality time: Elections have consequences. When Dubya occupied the WH, it was his choice to make and he served his base well by appointing activist judges that would push the right's agenda. Here's hoping that Obama gets to make another appointment or two to the high court so we might someday reverse the terrible rulings emanating from the chamber in recent months.
There is no experience of law if you never practice before. So, she is in right place to serve this great nation for all.
I think she will go to work with people in the Supper Court because specialize in law review cases, like what I did in school as a Dean of Student. I appreciate the value of working in such a capacity that will promote a higher level of accomplishment and better quality of life.
"A fair shake for every American" - yeah right!
You mean like supporting hiring quotas that exclude whites? Or college entrance rules that exclude whites? Or small business loan programs for "minority" only (excluding whites) Or state and federal contracts that EXPLICITLY state: "No white males" like the Seattle Washington city contract bidding process that is using federal stimulus money?
We see how these leftists feel about America, its heritage and culture: they dispise it! They want to insult and dismantle our constitution to create a socialist state for the sake of THEIR idea of "social justice". If you have any doubt about what that means, consider the first paragraph. That's a hint about the left's idea of a just and "colorblind" society.
Hmmm...funny how you "poor and excluded" whites never can recall the fact that your so-called glorious and bigoted American history is what caused the need for affirmative action and minority programs in the first place...remember slavery, excluding people the right to vote, get a job, go to certain schools and all kinds of other nonsense based on nothing more than the color of their skin? Of course you don't. I imagine you were the kid that tried to bully everybody in school but when someone fought back you were the first one to lay out the rules as to what could NOT be done to you, after you started the whole thing in the first place. Such a tired ass argument...I guess next thing you'll be running around saying is that some illegal Mexican stole your paid-under-the-table construction job; but you wouldn't have the guts to approach the white folk that fired you to hire the illegal alien for half the pay in the first place.
Why is Obama's choice someone who has had no experience as a judge?? This is nothing more than "Illinois" nepotism and a continuation of his socialistic dream for America. She should be denied this position.
This is such crap! She has no intention of moderating her stance on the Constituion. She will do what she wants, what she feels (ooh such feeeliings) is right for a gay female. Give the public a break you sycophantic @$$es in Congress. Your heads are so far up the party line of idiots cavities you can't see what this is doing to the American culture. You democrats are going to be looking for jobs soon.
I'm one of those who would celebrate having a Justice who had not served as a judge prior to appointment. The law is wider than that perceived by judges. I'm glad there are justices on the Supreme Court who bring that credential, but a diversity of experience would be welcome.
Wow, a woman who has never really practiced her trade, never sat on the bench at any level and we are supposed to believe that she is a credible candidate to be a Supreme Court Justice? Who are the sycophantic idiots who made this happen? Whomever you are "you are fired", take your carpet bagging anti-constitution wielding @$$es to another country that will take you. Obviously the American culture will survive though this gives Gays another way to say they just normal folks wanting what everyone else wants, when in reality they want power over the rest of America to promote their sub-culture. time to call it like it is folks. This is Obama's litmus test for the future and for the future of government service. I guess if GEN McChrystal were to say he was gay, he could have kept his job......I am not joking. this nomination is a farce....
Wow. Reading through these comments I am sad that we seem to have become such a mean people. No one here actually knows this person, yet you would publicly say the nasty things I see here. Good things are never the result of such hatred.