On ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line” today, Coburn ratcheted up his critique of Kagan, saying she hasn’t been as forthcoming about her views as she should be, and questioning her interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as well as her expressed willingness to follow court precedents.
“I think the thing that’s very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find that she’s ignorant of the Constitution’s limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us.
“And her reliance was that, ‘Well, here’s the precedent that’s been set, and we can’t go back to original intent,’ which comes back to another thing that she said earlier in the hearing — is that precedent trumps original intent. And I think most Americans would reject that. If that was the case, then we would have never had Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Plessy-Ferguson would still be the law. And to have a Supreme Court nominee that actually says precedent trumps original intent is worrisome, in my opinion.”
As far as what his concerns amount to, Coburn said he isn’t prepared to say that a GOP-led filibuster won’t be warranted.
“I wouldn’t rule out a filibuster,” he said. “Look, my two main concerns are …: We’re in trouble as a nation, and one of the reasons we’re in trouble is the expansion of the federal government into areas that our Founders never thought we should be in. And we have a nominee to the Supreme Court that is fully embracing that and with no limits in terms of the Commerce Clause. So to me, that’s very concerning. The second point I would make, again, is that she believes precedent trumps original intent. And she defended that. And so that — both those things are very concerning — should be very concerning to the American people.”
Charmaine Yoest testified yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of Americans United For Life:
“Based on our research, we believe that Ms. Kagan will be an agenda-driven justice on the Court, and that she will oppose even the most widely-accepted protections for unborn human life.”
Senators Sessions and Hatch questioned Dr. Yoest closely about their concerns that the abortion advocate had attempted to manipulate and politicize the medical opinions issued during the PBA debate and on other issues of abortion-related law.
“Thank you for you for your leadership on the abortion issue,” Sen. Sessions told Yoest, the leader of the nation’s oldest pro-life legal team and advocacy organization, during their several exchanges.
Yoest told the committee that far from alleviating concerns, the hearings have raised troubling questions about Kagan’s “ability to adopt an impartial judicial temperament.”
“These hearings have strengthened our opposition to Ms. Kagan’s appointment as the record shows she was willing to manipulate the facts to pursue her own personal political agenda while serving as an advisor to President Clinton. Indeed, she demonstrated a pattern of behavior of letting her passion for a particular policy – in this case partial-birth abortion – overwhelm her judgment.”
Because of Kagan’s political tendencies and testimony, “we believe that (she) would undermine any efforts by our elected representatives to pass or defend even the most widely-accepted commonsense regulations of abortion like bans on partial-birth abortion, parental notification and informed consent,” said Yoest.
AUL is calling for an investigation into the discrepancies in Kagan’s testimony. Video of Yoest’s testimony, here.
Keep digging – she’s probably a Mao fan, as well.
Washington Times EDITORIAL: Kagan’s partial-birth extremism:
Ms. Kagan’s career repeatedly has involved efforts to use the courts for political ends. Her work on partial-birth abortion is a perfect, and perfectly egregious, example. Her nomination should be terminated by the Senate.
The woman is the total opposite of what you’d want to see in a Supreme Court candidate.
Hotline On Call: Hatch Will Vote Against Kagan
A breathless nation waits for word from the RINO King…Lindsey Graham. Once again he was great in walking the nominee down the path into places where she could not explain herself or forced her to lie (the partial birth abortion memo, Harvard and military recruiting and activist philosophy) but he did similar things with Sotomayor and voted for her. I’d bet he’s a yes.
Also of interest with be our old buddy Arlen Specter. He voted against Kagan when she was nominated to be Solicitor General partially on the grounds she wasn’t forthcoming enough for him in her answers. She really didn’t give much in these hearings. Will old Arlen vote no out of spite for Obama not coming to help him on the last day of his primary campaign or is he holding out hope for an ambassador gig? Whatever he does, it will purely out to further his own self-interest.
As for Hatch, it would be easy to say that Hatch is only doing this to avoid getting the Bennett treatment but he voted against Sotomayor as well.