CHRISTINE FORD vs KAVANAUGH - 36 YRS AGO WHO REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS ACCURATELY?

CHRISTINE FORD vs BRETT KAVANAUGH - 36 YRS AGO WHO REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS ACCURATELY?

DIDN’T THIS INCIDENT OCCURR IN HIGH SCHOOL?

I’M NOT MOCKING CHRISTINE FORD NOR AM I TRYING TO SOUND HYPOCRITICAL BUT WHY IS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS FOR GOP SCOTUS COURT NOMINEES? WHY??

I WAS TRYING TO REMAIN SILENT BUT I HAD TO SPEAK UP.

THIS DRAMA IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING WOMEN, IT’S STRAIGHT POLITICAL THEATER.


Post Sources: BBC News, Fox News, NBC News, Washington Post, Youtube


***** Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh hearing: Key takeaways so far


With a seat on the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are appearing in front of senators to state their case and share their stories. Here are some of the key takeaways so far.

Everyone knew what Christine Blasey Ford was going to say before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday morning. Her formal opening statement was released to the public on Wednesday evening.

Reading what she was going to say and hearing her speak it, in a quiet, sometimes faltering voice, are two very different things, however.

The committee hearing began with statements by Republican chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, and the exchanging accusations of political obfuscation and procedural misconduct threatened to cover the proceedings in a political fog.

For a taut 20 minutes, however, Ms Ford cut through the fog with searing emotion. She spoke of traumatic memories and decades of shame; of a civic duty to come forward and recent months of hounding media and death threats.

The images of her speaking - the first glimpse the public at large has had of her besides a few grainy photos - will linger well beyond Thursday's hearing or even Brett Kavanaugh's ultimate professional fate.


Once Ms Ford concluded, the fog descended again. Thanks in large part to a disjointed format that featured five-minute segments alternating between veteran sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a surrogate questioner for the Republicans, and Democratic senators, there was little flow to proceedings.

It was as if viewers were flipping back and forth between a CourtTV criminal cross-examination and a public-access television congressional hearing.

Democrats succeeded in gleaning a few memorable moments from Ms Ford. She said she was 100% certain that Brett - referring to Mr Kavanaugh repeatedly by his first name - was the teenager who assaulted her.

She also, in reply to a question by Vermont Democrat Pat Leahy, recounted how the enduring recollection she has from the incident was Mr Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, laughing as they stumbled down the stairs after the alleged attack.


Ms Mitchell, in her interrogation, pulled at a number of threads in Ms Ford's story.

Who drove her to and from the house on the night of the party?

Why did she tell Senate investigators that she couldn't meet them in Washington because she was afraid of flying if she frequently travelled by air for pleasure?

Did she or did she not share her 2012 therapist records with a reporter from the Washington Post?

That final line of questioning is key, since it's those records that help corroborate that Ms Ford had spoken about the assault well before Mr Kavanaugh became a candidate for the Supreme Court.

The other questions seemed more geared toward undermining Ms Ford's credibility - the kind of strategy useful during depositions or trials to undermine a jury's trust in a witness or, perhaps, force them to crack under the accumulated pressure of the interrogation.

Every five minutes, however, Democrats threw Ms Ford a lifeline.


In the end, however, Ms Mitchell herself seemed slightly exasperated by the format she was working under. When it comes to trying to arrive at the accurate recollection of trauma, she said, "there's no study that shows that this setting, in five-minute increments, is the best way to do that.

As the first half of the hearing drew to a close, the senators began to argue about entering various outside statements into the record, only to be interrupted by one of Ms Ford's lawyers.

"Can we be excused?" he asked.

With the partisan fog thick again, it's a sentiment many Americans may have shared.

NEIL GORSUCH: DEMS STOP THE BULL & GIVE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE NOW

NEIL GORSUCH: DEMS STOP THE BULL & GIVE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE:

GORSUCH IS NOT ROBERT BORK.

GORSUCH IS BALANCED, QUALIFIED AND FIRMLY UPHOLDS US CONSTITUTION.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, The Hill, YouTube


***** McConnell Says "Give Gorsuch An Up-Or-Down Vote"


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling for Democrats to give President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, an up-or-down vote.

In a piece published Monday in Politico, McConnell called Gorsuch an "exceptional nominee." He said Gorsuch is recognized as "an accomplished, principled and fair jurist," adding that when he was nominated to his current seat on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, "no one cast a single negative vote against his nomination."

"Now, Schumer says he has such 'serious concerns' about Gorsuch that he’s threatening to filibuster his nomination and leave open the seat indefinitely," McConnell said.

"What changed?"

Gorsuch hasn't changed, McConnell said.

"So why would Democrats contemplate doing something so radical and out of the mainstream now — against a superbly qualified judge Democrats didn’t raise objections to before, a man Democrats have praised many times since?" he asked.

"Turns out, much of the opposition we’re seeing from far left groups and Democratic senators isn’t really about Judge Gorsuch at all. It’s about President Donald Trump."

McConnell went on to blast the Democrats for vowing to fight whomever the president tapped for the Supreme Court before Trump even named his nominee.

The Senate majority leader acknowledged the Democrats are having a "rough time coming to grips with the election results."

"I realize that Leader Schumer in particular is under immense pressure from the radical fringes of our politics," he wrote.

"But he and his party can’t allow themselves to be led around by the far left."

McConnell said he's been consistent in his belief that the next president should select the next Supreme Court justice.

He said he maintained that opinion — even when many believed former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would be elected.

"But now the election season is over, and we have a new president who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat," he said.

"Democrats now have a choice. They can tear our country apart further, or they can stand up and lead. I invite Leader Schumer and his party, who repeatedly declared how necessary it was to have nine justices on the court, to now follow through on their refrain of 'we need nine' by giving this tremendously well-qualified nominee fair consideration and an up-or-down vote."

MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

GARLAND WAS APPOINTED AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE IN 1997 BY BILL CLINTON.

Sources: CNN, Washington Times, Youtube

February 12, 2016 Conservative SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia was Murdered.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Pres Obama nominated  Scalia's replacement, Appellate Court Judge Merrick Brian Garland, a LIBERAL appointed by former president BILL CLINTON in 1997.

Due to this being a presidential election year, the GOP-controlled Senate has already refused to confirm Garland.

Scalia's open seat places the 2016 presidential election in a dangerous predicament.

If Garland is not confirmed, in the event of a Bush v Gore-style election battle the SCOTUS will remain deadlocked.

A deadlocked SCOTUS court in an election results battle presents two possible scenarios:

1).  A long drawn out, expensive litigation until a decision is made.

2) Obama is legally allowed to remain President until a decision is made.

Thus Obama may get the 3rd term he has been hoping for.

***** Jeffrey Toobin: Sure, Merrick Garland is qualified, but this is politics

Story highlights

• Jeffrey Toobin: Supreme Court nominee is unlikely to survive political maelstrom 
• Toobin says Republicans will likely not bend and allow hearing or vote on Merrick Garland 
• Cost of allowing Obama pick who could tip court is too great for GOP, he says.
• Should Merrick Garland's friends be offering him congratulations -- or condolences? After a distinguished career in public service, Garland has been tapped for the legal profession's highest honor -- to be a Supreme Court justice. But President Barack Obama's nomination thrusts Garland into a political maelstrom he is unlikely to survive -- at least as a judge on the nation's highest court.

Garland, who is 63, has had a storybook career. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School (like the justice he would be replacing, Antonin Scalia), was clerk for a pair of legendary judges (Henry Friendly and William Brennan), and a partner at a prominent law firm -- which he gave up to work as a line prosecutor in the District of Columbia.

He was a Justice Department official and then judge for the last 18 years on the second most important court in the nation. 

The issue of Garland's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court is beyond question.

But Republicans have said that because Obama is in the last year of his term, the seat on the court should be determined by the voters -- who will be choosing the next president. They have vowed, in very explicit terms, to refuse to give Garland a hearing or a vote. 

Most Republican senators will refuse even to meet with him. And while Republican senators have so far avoided attacking Garland's qualifications, conservative interest groups are already pledging to run television advertisements portraying the judge as a mindless liberal and Obama stooge.

It's all very ... political. But the Supreme Court has always been as much a political body as a legal one. Supporters of the President, and of Garland, are seeking to impose the maximum amount of political pain on their opponents in the Senate.

Democrats have already started calling out their Republican counterparts as do-nothing obstructionists. This is how the process will play out, and the outcome will depend on the politics. Do Republicans stick with their base and refuse a vote? Or do they cave under criticism and allow Garland to proceed through the process?

The odds strongly favor continuing Republican solidarity. The seat is the tipping point to a Democratic majority on the court, and the GOP will put up with a lot of heat to prevent the loss of the court for a generation. 

True, a President Hillary Clinton might pick someone even more liberal, but better to risk a fight later than lose one now. When it comes to the Supreme Court, political calculation is nothing new. There were no good old days.

SCALIA'S DEATH & HIS POLITICALLY CORRECT REPLACEMENT (KAMALA HARRIS)

SCALIA'S DEATH & HIS POLITICALLY CORRECT REPLACEMENT (KAMALA HARRIS)

Saturday afternoon, February 13, 2016, SCOTUS Senior Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in Texas.

Almost immediately after Scalia's death the Mainstream Media was reporting he died of "Natural Causes".

Although no Autopsy had been conducted yet, it was announced he died via "Natural Causes".

By Saturday evening of the same day,  Pres Obama announced via he would nominate a replacement during his term to replace Justice Scalia.

In 2015 a BLACK woman from Chicago (SANDRA BLAND) was found dead in a Texas jail cell.

In 2016 an Italian-American (WHITE) U.S. Supreme Court Justice (SCALIA) was found dead also in Texas.

Both human beings died due to mysterious circumstances of which we may never know.

Senior Justice Antonin Scalia was loved by many and known to write his opinions from a Conservative perspective.

In fact Scalia appeared to be the only true Conservative voice on the SCOTUS bench because Chief Justice John Roberts often delivers opinions in line with his more Liberal colleagues.

Following Pres OBAMA's announcement of nominating an immediate replacement for Scalia, the name floating on everyone's SCOTUS short list is KAMALA HARRIS.

Kamala Harris is a BLACK Woman age 51, from Oakland, California and an alumni of Howard University.

Ms Harris is the highly respected current State Attorney General of California and she is a Liberal who supports Pres Obama's agenda.

Just as Justice Scalia was very Conservative, Kamala Harris is very Liberal in her political ideology.

Sources:   CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, Wikipedia, Youtube

**** Who Could Replace Scalia? Here Are 10 Names

 Who could replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia if Republicans don't block all of President Obama's nominees, as appears likely? Here are 10 possibilities:

~ Sri Srinivasan: The 48-year-old federal appeals court judge was confirmed unanimously in 2013 for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — a traditional steppingstone to the Supreme Court. He would be the court's first Indian-American justice.

~ Patricia Millett: Srinivasan's 52-year-old colleague on the D.C. Circuit is popular in both parties and is frequently mentioned as a possible candidate. She argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court as an advocate.

~ Merrick Garland: At 63, Garland is older than most nominees, since presidents want their choices to stick around for decades on the bench. He is a moderate who serves as chief judge on the D.C. Circuit court and could be a compromise choice.

~KAMALA Harris: California's attorney general, 51, could be another leading candidate. She has the added luster of holding political office, a life experience that is sorely lacking on the Supreme Court. She's currently running for the U.S. Senate seat of retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer.

~ Deval Patrick: The former governor of Massachusetts, 59, is a close friend of the president who served in the Justice Department during President Bill Clinton's administration.

~ Amy Klobuchar: If the Senate would be less inclined to block one of its own, the senior senator from Minnesota, 55, might be someone Obama would consider.

~ Sheldon Whitehouse: See "Senate" above. Whitehouse, 60, the junior senator from Rhode Island, is a former attorney general of Rhode Island and U.S. attorney with strong credentials.

~ Goodwin Liu: He was Obama's choice for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010, but Republicans blocked his nomination, making him a less likely choice now. At 45, he sits on the California Supreme Court.

~ Paul Watford: A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Watford, 48, is another Obama nominee with a potentially stellar future.

~ Jane Kelly: She is a 51-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit who was a career public defender. From Iowa, she has enjoyed the prior support of Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.

OBAMA WELCOMES BATTLE TO REPLACE SCALIA DURING HIS 2nd TERM: (LEGACY)

OBAMA WELCOMES BATTLE TO REPLACE SCALIA DURING HIS 2nd TERM:  (LEGACY)

ANNOUNCES HE WILL NOMINATE SCALIA'S REPLACEMENT.

APPOINTMENT OF SCALIA'S REPLACEMENT WILL FULFILL OBAMA'S LEGACY.

**** Obama Says He’ll Nominate A Replacement For Scalia

President Obama declared Saturday that he intends to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a move aimed at deepening his imprint on the nation’s highest court.

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” Obama said, adding that there’s “plenty of time” for the Senate “to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. 

These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. 

They’re bigger than any one party — they’re about a democracy.”

But the president faces a fierce and protracted battle with Republicans who have already signaled that they have no intention of allowing Obama to choose a nominee to succeed Scalia.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Scalia should not be replaced until the next president has taken office. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) rejected that position. “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” he said in a statement. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Obama has nominated two justices to the court in the past, and he has expressed the desire for jurists with empathy. 

He did not discuss his thinking about that on Saturday night. Instead, he used the moment to pay tribute to Scalia, whom he described as an “extraordinary judicial thinker.”

In selecting Supreme Court nominees, Obama has relied heavily on the advice of Vice President Biden, a former Senate Judiciary chairman. 

Biden has demonstrated again and again a strong working relationship with McConnell, having previously negotiated several tax and budget deals. 

The court nomination may hinge on Biden’s ability to reach a deal with McConnell again.

But the fate of the nomination would clearly be in Republican hands. While Democrats were able to change the rules in 2013 to make it easier to approve lower court judges with a simple majority, Supreme Court nominations still require 60 votes to advance past an opposition filibuster. 

To derail or delay the nomination, McConnell could simply not schedule a vote, but even if he allows Senate consideration of the nomination, Democrats do not have the numbers to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Although the Republican-controlled Congress could easily thwart an Obama nominee, such a decision could reverberate across the presidential campaign and into in the November elections, in which several GOP senators face tough, competitive races.

The most immediate outcome of the Scalia vacancy is that it offers Obama the chance to draw sharper battle lines with Republicans during an increasingly acrimonious presidential election.

The administration now faces a chaotic political and legal environment in which the president must prepare for a bitter confirmation fight or embrace the prospect of a deadlocked Supreme Court divided evenly between liberals and conservatives.

Scalia’s death also throws into doubt the outcome of some of the most controversial issues facing the nation in cases before the court this term: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation.

A deadlocked court could leave appellate decisions in place without setting a precedent.

 That would please the administration on a case involving union membership, for instance, but would keep Obama’s executive action on deportation from being implemented.

White House officials would not comment Saturday evening on their deliberations about a potential nominee, but the administration has an extensive list of possible candidates to choose from, including some who would change the face of the court by virtue of their race or sexual orientation.

“Blocking a strong person of color, a woman or an historic LGBT candidate for the Supreme Court might cause conservatives more trouble than they think they’re preventing,” said Robert Raben, a Democratic consultant and lobbyist who served as a senior Justice Department official under President Clinton. “The perception of unfairness or bias at the height of a national election could seriously backfire.”

One former senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the president was likely to look to someone young enough to make a mark on the court over several decades. Obama has appointed several such jurists to U.S. appellate courts, the person noted, providing him with a relatively deep bench to from which to choose.

Among the leading candidates would be Sri Srinivasan, a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who was confirmed to seat in a 97-to-0 Senate vote in May 2013. Srinivasan would be the first South Asian American on the court. 

He worked in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office under both Obama and President George W. Bush, and clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Other contenders from that same court include its chief judge, Merrick Garland, who is well liked by conservatives and was a finalist for such a nomination when Obama selected Justice Elena Kagan in 2010. 

Patricia Ann Millett, who won confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in December 2013, may also be considered.

Obama could also look to current or former administration officials, said those familiar with the president’s thinking, or even to the Senate. 

Among those officials are Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Eric Holder, the former attorney general.

Other potential choices could include Deval Patrick (D), the former governor of Massachusetts, or Paul Smith, who chairs the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Jenner & Block and, if confirmed, would be the first openly gay justice.

Beyond the D.C. Circuit, there are many other appellate judges the president could look to in selecting a nominee. Those include Paul Watford and Mary H. Murguia of the 9th Circuit; Albert Diaz of the 4th Circuit and Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson of the 1st Circuit.

Regardless of whom Obama selects, the combination of the timing of the opening, the stark division on the court and deeply partisan passion being evoked in both presidential primaries would make this confirmation battle unlike any of the past 40 years.

The last confirmation in the eighth year of a presidency was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose 97-to-0 vote in February 1988 came after two failed nomination efforts by President Reagan in the face of a Democratic-controlled Senate in late 1987. 

Kennedy is seen as a traitor among conservative activists, who view his rulings on abortion and gay rights with the liberal bloc as an example of GOP leaders choosing political expediency over ideological rigidity.

The only other attempt to fill a vacancy during a presidential election year came in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas to be chief justice. 

The Senate blocked Fortas. 

Subsequently, the other nomination to fill Fortas’s spot as associate justice was withdrawn during the final months of Johnson’s presidency.

Under normal circumstances, the nomination of a justice takes about 75 to 90 days, the first 60 or so involving a thorough vetting process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Typically, the panel does not consider judicial nominees after mid-May, under a tradition established by the late Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). While chairing the Judiciary Committee, Thurmond declared that he would not take up new judicial nominations within a few months of a presidential election.

Filling the post of Scalia, however, will be anything but normal. 

He was the outspoken champion for the court’s conservative wing and had many admirers in the Senate, including McConnell. Obama’s first two appointments to the court were relatively easy because Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan were replacing liberal-leaning justices.

Senate conservatives, already predisposed to not approve of Obama’s choice, might be loath to allow him to replace their judicial hero with a liberal jurist who would tip the court in a left-leaning direction. 

As of now, Sotomayor and Kagan often sided with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in the most ideologically driven cases, with Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. providing the tie-breaking votes.

If Republicans leave the Scalia seat vacant for any lengthy time, that sets up the chance of a series of 4-to-4 votes in which the ruling of the lower federal court would stand as the law of that particular region of the country.

That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. 

In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.

Sources: CNN, Washington Post, Youtube

Kagan Grilled On Blocking Military Recruiters & DADT

Republican Senators Bring Up Kagan's Record On Blocking Military Recruiters


Senate Republicans and Solicitor General Elena Kagan are facing off over whether her objection to the military's ban on openly gay soldiers and her decision to restrict recruiters at Harvard Law School disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

Just minutes into Kagan's confirmation hearing Monday, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions charged she had "kicked the military out of the recruiting office" at Harvard, "in violation of federal law."

"Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas," Sessions said. "I can't take this issue lightly."

The recruitment matter is one of the few points on her resume that Republicans have been able to use against her. Her policies and writings on the issue call up broader themes of patriotism and equal rights, both emotional topics at a time when the nation is at war and both parties are gearing up for the midterm elections. In some measure, the November balloting will be a referendum on her patron, President Barack Obama.

At the very heart of Kagan's decision at Harvard is an even more sensitive topic — her opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on openly gay soldiers.

Republicans contend that Harvard was the wrong venue for Kagan's "personal political grievance" and that briefly restricting the recruiters on campus broke the law. They conclude with questions about whether Kagan is anti-military and unfit to make impartial decisions on the high court.

Republicans have a tough case to make.


Sources: CNN, Yahoo News, Youtube, Google Maps

Kagan Pledges Fairness, Modesty & Neutrality If Confirmed

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kagan Pledges Open Mind, Impartiality If Confirmed To U.S. Supreme Court


U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that justices on the nation's highest court should be even-handed and impartial in order to promise "nothing less than a fair shake for every American."

In her opening statement to her confirmation hearing, Kagan sought to address Republican concerns that her background as an academic and policy specialist in the Clinton administration would bring a liberal bias in her court rulings.

The role of the Supreme Court is "to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint," Kagan said.

"I will make no pledges this week other than this one -- that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons," she said after describing her experiences as a Supreme Court clerk, law school professor and U.S. solicitor general. "I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law."

If confirmed by the 19-member committee and then the full Senate, Kagan would be the 112th Supreme Court justice and the fourth woman to sit on the nation's highest court.

While her confirmation is considered likely, Republican senators on the panel questioned Monday whether Kagan can be an impartial justice, displaying a partisan divide over President Barack Obama's second Supreme Court nomination since he took office in January 2009. The Senate confirmed Obama's first candidate, Sonia Sotomayor, last year.

The committee's seven Republicans used their opening statements to challenge Kagan's judicial experience and her ability to put aside personal politics, and the 12 Democratic members praised Kagan's qualifications and welcomed her possible presence on a court they criticized for what they called conservative activism.

Kagan sat impassively in the packed room, sometimes taking a sip of water, as the senators outlined the questioning she will face in coming days.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said Kagan would be an independent Supreme Court justice, and that he advised her to be open in expressing her judicial philosophy at her confirmation hearing.

Citing her record as the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman solicitor general of the United States, Leahy said America is "a better country for the fact that the path of excellence Elena Kagan has taken in her career is one now open to both men and women."

However, the ranking Republican on the panel, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said Kagan lacks judicial experience and has a record of supporting liberal political causes.

"While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute, I think, for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases," Sessions said.

Other Republicans said Kagan's experience as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall indicated she would seek to push society toward desired ideological or political ends, rather than apply existing law.

"Will the Constitution control her, or will she try to control the Constitution?" asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Does she believe that judges may control the Constitution by changing its meaning?"

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused Republicans of casting a "drift net" for any disqualifying fact in Kagan's record, saying the GOP effort failed.

"I believe you are eminently confirmable," Feinstein said, turning the tables on Republican concerns about Kagan's lack of judicial experience by saying: "Frankly, I find this refreshing."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Other Democrats harshly criticized the current Supreme Court for what they characterized as rulings based on conservative activism. They cited the Citizens United ruling in January, in which the high court voted 5-4 to give big businesses, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, which they said threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, called the Supreme Court's shift to the right under Chief Justice John Roberts "palpable."

"In decision after decision, this court bends the law to suit" a conservative political ideology, Schumer said, calling Kagan "a terrific antidote to the lack of practical real-world understanding of the court."

However, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Kagan's record is full of "warning signs" that she may be what he called a "results-oriented" justice -- which is conservative code language for liberal activism.

Citing her record as clerk for Marshall, Kyl said many of her memos then "appeared to be based largely on her own liberal political views."

"This kind of naked political judgment appears frequently throughout Kagan's work as a Supreme Court clerk," Kyl said.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois responded that America is a better nation due to Marshall's personal empathy in ruling on influential civil rights cases.

"Our Supreme Court is badly in need of a person of your skill and knowledge and background," Durbin said.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post

NAACP Announces Its Endorsement Of Elena Kagan SCOTUS Nominee

NAACP Endorses Obama Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan


The NAACP, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization, unanimously endorsed Elena Kagan, President Barak Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, today at their quarterly board meeting.

“After a careful and thorough review of Elena Kagan’s record, we have unanimously voted to endorse her nomination,” stated president and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Elena Kagan has demonstrated a commitment to civil rights and equal justice under the law throughout her career.

Kagan drew her inspiration from NAACP former counsel and Supreme court Justice Thurgood Marshall who she considers a hero and mentor. During her tenure at the White House, Kagan worked on issues such as strengthening hate crimes legislation and civil rights enforcement.

As a law school Dean, she worked to ensure a diverse student body and faculty. And as Solicitor General, Kagan has vigorously defended the nation’s equal opportunity and civil rights laws. We look forward to actively supporting her nomination,” Jealous said.

“Elena Kagan has a track record of bringing people together. She is skilled at forging legal consensus on contentious issues,” stated NAACP Chairman Roslyn Brock. "Civil rights is a Bi-Partisan issue". It is central to the core of our American values.

"We believe Elena Kagan has the ability to use her fine legal mind, her commitment to diversity and her ability to build bridges to effectively advocate in the Court for the civil rights and democracy enshrined in our constitution".

The organization reviewed Kagan’s available record on civil rights including her recent authorization for the Department of Justice and the Department of Civil Rights to file an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the University of Texas’ affirmative action program in Fisher v. University of Texas and her brief in support of African American firefighters who challenged a hiring test used by the City of Chicago under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Lewis v. City of Chicago).

“Kagan has a keen understanding of the importance of diversity to the strength and advancement of our nation,” added NAACP President and CEO Jealous. “It is no accident that during her tenure as dean of the Harvard Law School, the percentage of African American students rose from 9.3 percent to 11.6 percent.

The percentage of Hispanics in the entering class was 6.4 percent, while it had been 4.6 percent prior to her becoming dean.

The number of African American students admitted, particularly Black men –given the national decline in African American males in colleges and universities– is impressive Her record demonstrates a legal scholar who clearly values the precept of equal opportunity as a right that is protected by our constitution.” Jealous said.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization.

Its more than half million members and supporters, throughout the United States and the world, are the premier advocates for civil and human rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and advocating for equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.


Sources: Milwaukee Courier Online, NAACP

NRA Vets Elena Kagan, Has Huge Influence In Politics

Scoring Elena: NRA Sizes Up Candidate’s Record On Guns


Roughly 70,000 gun owners are currently gathering at the National Rifle Association meeting in Charlotte, N.C., a city that’s already got a place in gun-rights history.

Charlotte’s where, ten years ago, then-NRA President Charlton Heston raised a replica of a Revolutionary War musket over his head, thundering, “From my cold, dead hands!”

One thing gun owners won’t hear this weekend is whether the NRA is for or against adding Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

An NRA spokesman tells us it hasn’t completed its vetting of Kagan yet.

Kagan lacks a written judicial record on the right to bear arms. But the NRA likely is unhappy with her role in the Clinton administration’s gun-control efforts. This record at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., shows that Kagan helped draft a presidential directive Clinton signed that suspended imports of semiautomatic assault weapons for 120 days.

Yet, some gun owners are encouraged that, in her written answers to questions by senators during her confirmation as Solicitor General, she didn’t criticize Heller v. D.C., the 2008 Supreme Court decision striking down DC’s gun laws.

To wit:


* When asked her personal opinion of the rights afforded by the Second Amendment, she said: “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

* When asked if she will “commit to protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm,” she said she would commit to “show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court.

* When asked whether Heller was “rightly decided,” she said the case was “now settled law” and “entitled to my respect.”

* When asked whether she would “give weight to other nations’ restrictions on gun rights when interpreting the Second Amendment,” she said that the “grounded historical approach” adopted in Heller grants “no relevance to arguments from comparative law.”

Kagan would be replacing Justice Stevens, who dissented in the Heller opinion, as one pro-gun blogger noted yesterday. Thus “Kagan’s appointment may be one more vote on the Court in favor of the right to bear arms,” he concluded.

In July 2009, the NRA for the first time weighed in against a Supreme Court nominee, urging senators to vote “no” on Sonia Sotomayor. Its opposition was based on the answers she gave during hearings, as well as her rulings as an appellate judge, including one to uphold a New York law that barred a man from carrying a martial-arts weapon.

The NRA “scored” the vote on Sotomayor’s confirmation — meaning it told lawmakers that how they voted would count toward the NRA’s famous letter grades, ranging from A+ to F. But 8 of the 36 senators who won endorsement from the NRA defected by voting to confirm her anyway.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps

Kagan & Sotomayor Are The New "Black" SCOTUS Justices

Yesterday when Pres. Obama nominated Elena Kagan for his next SCOTUS pick many Leaders within America's Black community were extremely riled.

They were angry and questioning why he chose a Hispanic and White woman versus an African-American woman?

Here's my take on why he took this path.

You don't have to agree but hopefully it will cause you to ponder.

I'm not really too enthusiastic about Obama's choice in Kagan especially considering her hiring record at Harvard Law school.

(For more info. check out this link from Duke Law Professor Guy-Uriel Charles (a Brother) over at "Colored Demos" Blog entitled: Why Elena Kagan's Hiring at Harvard matters".)
http://coloreddemos.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-elena-kagans-hiring-at-harvard.html


However....

I must say I'm glad Pres. Obama did NOT select another African-American.

Why?

Please tell me what the H_ll has Justice Clarence Thomas done for his race?

I mean really!

While I will admit Justice Thurgood Marshall was extremely effective during his tenure on the bench, this could be more attributed to a different time in American History.

A time when Black Leaders were ALIVE and ACTIVE.

A time when Black Leaders REALLY cared about helping to pull up their Brothers & Sisters, (education, jobs, etc.,) because there is STRENGTH in numbers.

A time when Black Leaders were NOT SELFISH, WILLIE LYNCH MINDED, SELL-OUTS!

In today's society....

When most pseudo Black "Leaders" rise up they totally forget about the Black Voters who put them where they arrived.

Afterwards they don't do a D_mn thing to help eliminate Racism in Education, Employment, Housing, Student Aid, Business Opportunities UNLESS.....

You run in their little circles (Fraternities, Sororities, etc.,).

Am I jealous or bitter?

No but I'm deeply concerned because I see our Youth struggling with NO one to help them find their way.

(Rev. Al Sharpton can't do it all by himself.)

Case in point I cannot tell you the number of Black College graduates (in North Carolina) I've come across who couldn't find jobs, much less a good job.

I'm speaking of graduates with high GPA's.

They had to either settle for low paying jobs in North Carolina Call Centers or relocate to a different state.

This is still going on today.

What are North Carolina's Black "Leaders" doing about it?

NOTHING!

Because they are SCARED and ONLY care about themselves or friends.

Thus I don't care if another Black Attorney (no offense) or Judge is EVER nominated to sit in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing.

Its better for a White, Hispanic or Asian Judge to rule effectively on my behalf, than a Black SCARED-A_ S Justice sitting on the bench for symbolic purposes.

America's Black Community needs to wake up!

In case they haven't noticed the struggle is far from over.

The day of appointing, electing and nominating Blacks for representative, symbolic purposes are over!

We don't need any more TOKEN Black Leaders!

We need REAL Black Leaders who are actually going to DO SOMETHING once they arrive.

Black Leaders who are NOT afraid of being labeled "Radical", although Radical isn't really a negative thing.

In fact Radical isn't equivalent to Militant but it most certainly isn't equivalent to LAME SITTING DUCK either.

So.....

Whether African-Americans are willing to accept it or not...

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor represent the new "Black" U.S. Supreme Justice.

I hope Ms. Kagan is confirmed quickly and without unnecessary delay.




View Larger Map


Sources: Colored Demos, CNN, Duke Law School, McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC, The Root, Yahoo News, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Elena Kagan's Harvard Law School Hiring Record Revealed

Watch this at Boston.com

Why Elena Kagan's Hiring at Harvard Matters


In a post on the widely-read SCOTUS blog, under the topic of "issues that will be mentioned in the Kagan nomination but won't get traction," Tom Goldstein writes,

Race in Harvard’s faculty hiring under Kagan.

Some law professors complain that the faculty hires at Harvard during Kagan’s tenure were mostly white. However unfair it is that this issue could get traction, the truth of the matter is that the suggestion that a progressive woman who served as a dean of Harvard Law School harbored some racial bias will not go anywhere.

Conservative opponents will also hesitate to legitimize arguments like that.

I like Tom Goldstein, and his move here is a familiar one, but it is wrong. To see how silly this move is, it is tantamount to saying that we called Kagan a misogynist because of the paucity of women hires under her deanship at Harvard. Since I was among the "complain[ants]", I'll take a very quick stab at explaining why Kagan's hiring record matters and why our complaint has nothing to do with intentional racial bias.

Our argument about Elena Kagan was fairly clear:

She hired 32 tenured and tenure-track faculty but only one of whom was non-white.

Of the 32, only seven were Women.

We also provided an explanation for the almost all-white and predominantly male hiring: hiring a diverse faculty along gender and racial lines was not a priority.

We did not say (or imply) that Kagan was a Racist; in fact, we said, quite explicitly, that racial (and gender) diversity was not a pressing agenda.

Again, this says nothing about Bias.

As a point of comparison, our inquiry about Kagan is no different from the questions on law clerk diversity that Supreme Court Justices routinely face at the Supreme Court's budget hearings. When Congressman Jose Serrano pressed Justices Breyer and Thomas on the lack of racial diversity in law clerk hiring, was he calling them racists?

Notwithstanding my respect for Tom Goldstein, he did not fairly characterize our claims. An easy way to dismiss racial concerns, particularly when they are raised by people of color, is to characterize the concerns as crying racism (or complaining about racism). Because we all know what racism is and what racists look like -- something resembling the Ku Klux Klan -- the complaint (and complainant) seems silly.

No serious person can accuse the progressive woman Dean at Harvard Law School of racism.

The focus is turned from Kagan's hiring to the silliness of the complainants. Consequently, there is no need to focus on the substance of the complaints. As Goldstein says, it is "unfair . . . that this issue could get traction."

Because Kagan does not have a record and because her tenure as Dean is offered as one of her qualifications for the Supreme Court, it is more than fair (especially if you're a person of color or you care deeply about racial inclusion) to ask where racial inclusion figures in her judicial philosophy.

Kagan's hiring at Harvard is one of the few data points that we have on how she might think about racial inclusion. That's the basis of our complaint.

The indication that we get from that data point is that at the very least she has NOT been a leader in supporting Racial Inclusion.

For us, it is not enough that she is not a conservative. Many of us know more than a few liberals who are squeamish about racial inclusion. These are liberals whose positions on race are not very different from those of conservatives or Republicans. Compare for example Kagan's hiring record with that of the progressive stalwart Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean at UC Irvine. You only need to examine his hiring practices to know that this is a person for whom racial inclusion is an important priority. Thus, this "issue" should matter for people who care deeply about racial inclusion.

Let us know put this in the context of constitutional doctrine by taking one case as an example. In the next year or two, it is likely that the Supreme Court will hear at least one case on whether statutes that disenfranchise felons are compatible with the Voting Rights Act. If you are a racial progressive there is doubt about your views: these laws are incompatible with the Act.

If you are a racial moderate, you are likely to conclude that racial inequality is not inconsistent with the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution as long as there does not exist intentional discrimination. The problem is that we can only guess where Kagan is on these issues. The data points that we have, however, are not encouraging. These are legitimate questions to raise about someone nominated from our side for a lifetime appointment.


View Larger Map


Sources: Boston Globe, Colored Demos, Duke Law School, Harvard Law, School, SCOTUS Blog, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps