Judiciary

Right Wing Reactions to Prop 8 Decision

I'll be updating this post as more statements are released reacting to the decision to oveturn Prop 8, but Focus on the Family is out with the first statement blasting the ruling (if you don't count Harry Jackson, who Tweeted a statement hours ago):

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

“During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008.

“Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word.

“We fully expect the judge’s decision to be overturned upon appeal. The redeeming feature of our judicial system is that one judge who ignores the law and the evidence must ultimately endure the review and reversal of his actions from the appellate courts.

“We do want Americans to understand the seriousness of this decision, however. If this judge’s decision is not overturned, it will most likely force all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. This would be a profound and fundamental change to the social and legal fabric of this country.

“Our Founders intended such radical changes to come from the people, not from activist judges. Alexander Hamilton, in advocating for the ratification of our Constitution in 1788, argued that the judiciary would be ‘the least dangerous’ branch of government. Today’s decision shows how far we have come from that original understanding.”

Randy Thomasson and Save California:

"Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn't in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states' rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority, and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect."

Concerned Women for America:

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:

“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.

“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

“Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.

“CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”

CWA of California State Director Phyllis Nemeth said:

“Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.

“While Judge Walker’s decision is disappointing it is not the end of this battle. Far from it. The broad coalition of support for Proposition 8 remains strong, and we will support the appeal by ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8.

“We are confident that Judge Walker’s decision will ultimately be reversed. No combination of judicial gymnastics can negate the basic truth that marriage unites the complementary physical and emotional characteristics of a man and a woman to create a oneness that forms the basis for the family unit allowing a child to be raised by his or her father and mother. Any other combination is a counterfeit that fails to provide the best environment for healthy child rearing and a secure foundation for the family. It is this foundation upon which society is – and must be – built for a healthy and sustained existence.”

Family Research Council:

FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.

"Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America's founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

"FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Liberty Counsel:

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”

Alliance Defense Fund:

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

...

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Pugno added. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”

Capitol Resource Institute:

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

American Family Association:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Traditional Values Coalition:

"It is an outrage that one arrogant and rogue federal judge can take it upon himself to overturn a centuries old definition of marriage and family," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). "On November 4, 2008, 7 million voters of California cemented into the state constitution a definition of marriage for one man and one woman only. Now with US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling today he has completely undermined the expressed will of voters at the ballot box. Direct Democracy has been blatantly attacked today."

"First it was the California Supreme Court's decision in 2008 to overturn Prop 22 and force the people of California to accept homosexual marriages. Well, the people adamantly rejected their ruling and homosexual marriages and they passed Prop 8, which was designed to forever tie the hands of judges from redefining marriage. Now one judge has yet again slapped the people in the face, even though the state constitution now clearly tells them what marriage means; we spelled it out for them in black and white," Sheldon added. "This is a blatant sign of judicial activism and lack of judicial restraint."

Sheldon added: "There is more at stake than just traditional marriage and the centuries long definition of the family. This ruling seriously undermines the expressed vote and will of the people on initiatives and proposed amendments they approve at the ballot box. This judge's ruling says that any vote of the people will have no weight, credence, sovereignty, value or worth at all. On appeal, the courts will either realize their limits and not undermine the constitutional power of the vote, or they will continue to demonstrate the most blatant arrogance and impose judicial tyranny by declaring that they alone, and not the people, have the ultimate final say on all matters of the state. Democracy, the constitution and the people would be beneath them."

TVC state lobbyist Benjamin Lopez, who was publicly credited by homosexual State Senator Mark Leno for the defeat of his proposed homosexual marriage bill in 2005, echoed Sheldon's statements:

"The issue at hand now is whether the will of 7 million voters outweighs that of either 7 Supreme Court justices or any one judge anywhere in the state. Homosexual marriage advocates may kick and scream the loudest demanding that Prop 8 be struck down, but they should be drowned out by the deafening voice of 7 million Californians who settled this issue not once, but twice already. We are hear because homosexual radicals continue to act like immature children who throw tantrums when they do not get their way."

"Same-sex marriage supporters repeatedly beat the drum of civil rights to equate their cause to the legitimate struggles of minority groups and say the public is on their side. Yet not even in 'liberal' California have they won over the people so they must resort to sympathetic, liberal black-robed activists who sit on the bench to force same-sex marriage on the people.

"If folks think that the Tea Party movement is a force to be reckoned with now, wait until the silent majority of pro-family voters flex their political muscle once again. Judges beware, you will go the way of Rose Bird, stripped of their robes and kicked off the bench," Lopez added.

The battle of same-sex marriage began in March 2000 when California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. It stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Homosexual marriage advocates challenged Prop 22 in court and in March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer struck it down ruling it in violation of the equal protection clause. Kramer's ruling was then challenged all the way to the California Supreme Court. In early 2008 the high court upheld Kramer's ruling allowing homosexual marriages to take place. Voters passed Prop 8 in November 2008 cementing Prop 22's language into the state constitution. After challenges to Prop 8 reached the state supreme court, the justices upheld Prop 8 and allowed for some 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand. The current ruling by Judge Walker was the result of a challenge to the California Supreme Court's ruling.

Richard Land:

 “This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed. The people of our most populous state—a state broadly indicative of the nation at large demographically—voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thus excluding same-sex and polygamous relationships from being defined as marriage. 

“Now, an unelected federal judge has chosen to override the will of the people of California and to redefine an institution the federal government did not create and that predates the founding of America. Indeed, ‘marriage’ goes back to the Garden of Eden, where God defined His institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“This case will clearly make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, where unfortunately, the outcome is far from certain. There are clearly four votes who will disagree with this judge—Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. The supreme question is: Will there be a fifth? Having surveyed Justice Kennedy’s record on this issue, I have no confidence that he will uphold the will of the people of California.

“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges. Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It’s called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California—if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat—then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.

“Despite egregious court rulings like this one, there is nonetheless an unprecedented effort going on across the nation of Christians uniting for sustained prayer, for revival, awakening and deliverance. I encourage everyone to join me in this effort and go to 4040prayer.com for more information.” 

National Organization for Marriage:

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman."

"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple - there isn't!" added Brown.

"The 'trial' in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people's right to vote for marriage," stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

"Gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and Equality California will, no doubt, be congratulating themselves over this "victory" today in San Francisco. However, even they know that Judge Walker's decision is only temporary. For the past 20 years, gay marriage groups have fought to avoid cases filed in federal court for one good reason - they will eventually lose. But these groups do not have control of the Schwarzenegger v. Perry case, which is being litigated by two egomaniacal lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies). So while they congratulate themselves over their victory before their home-town judge today, let's not lose sight of the fact that this case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed--and if the Supreme Court fails, Congress has the final say. The rights of millions of voters in states from Wisconsin to Florida, from Maine to California, are at stake in this ruling; NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman," noted Gallagher.

Robert George - American Principles Project:

“Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. “In striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance—the definition and meaning of marriage itself—that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.”

“As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.”

Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to invalidate California Proposition 8, which by vote of the people of California restored the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife after California courts had re-defined marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

“The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,” George said. “It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children—and society as a whole—by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.

“We are talking about the right to define what marriage is, not about who can or cannot take part. Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges.”

“Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,” concluded Dr. George.

Newt Gingrich:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

The Right Loses It As Kagan's Confirmation Nears

It seems that the closer Elena Kagan gets to being confirmed to the Supreme Court, the weaker the Right's case for opposing her becomes and, as such, the more desperate their campaign becomes.

While Phyllis Schlafly is warning that Kagan is part of President Obama's plan to "break free from our Constitution" and "fundamentally transform America," others, like Robert Knight, are going completely off the rails:

As we watch in disbelief, the United States Senate is about to take the Fifth on a Supreme Court nominee who has no business being near a courtroom except as a defendant.

The word from Capitol Hill is that the GOP won’t even bother with a filibuster despite evidence from Elena Kagan’s Judiciary Committee hearing that she falsified evidence used in a Supreme Court case and committed what might be perjury before that committee.

One wonders what it would take for the Senate to deny this nomination? A daytime bank robbery, guns drawn? No, that could be chalked up to youthful exuberance or perhaps research in pursuit of insight into the criminal mind. When the Gang of 14 Democrats and Republicans agreed to clear the path for some Bush Administration nominees, that arrogant group’s presumption was that a president is entitled to his pick unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”

If Elena Kagan’s malfeasance does not fit “exceptional circumstances,” the term has no meaning.

For the record, the phrase used by the Gang of 14 was "extraordinary circumstances," not "exceptional circumstances."

But Knight has nothing on the Family Research Council, which appears to be on the verge of losing its mind at the prospect of seeing Kagan on the Supreme Court:

In all of American history, only 111 justices have had the privilege of serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. By the end of this week, members of the Senate will have made their decision on the 112th. If it is Elena Kagan, the President's controversial Solicitor General, she will most likely join this elite club with the third fewest confirmation votes of any nominee in history. Outside the Beltway, she is unpopular even with everyday Americans, who are "more convinced than ever" that she is an ideological liberal one goal: to supplant the Constitution with a permanent Obama agenda. "It is all but certain," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said, "that, if confirmed, Ms. Kagan will bring to the [Court] a progressive activist judicial philosophy which holds that unelected judges are empowered to set national policy from the bench." Her entire career--from the Clinton administration to Harvard Law School and the Solicitor General's office--is marred by a trail of unprincipled decisions.

Whether it was rewriting a medical group's opinion to promote infanticide or intentionally fixing a case to sink marriage, Kagan has proven that she will always ignore the law if it conflicts with her ultra-Left philosophy (or career goals). She may have zero experience as a judge, but the White House believes that she has plenty where it matters most: in years of pro-abortion, anti-American activism. Like the liberals in Congress, she is on the wrong side of the American people (and the Constitution) on every value we hold dear: the promise of new life, the stability of the family, the valor of our troops, the power of faith, and the significance of speech.

Human Events Labels Sen. Graham a Euphemism for "Bitch" for Supporting Kagan

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send Elena Kagan's nomination to the full Senate for a confirmation vote, with Sen. Lindsey Graham being the only Republican on the Committee to support her.

Needless to say, Graham's decision is not sitting well with the Right, which is why Human Events responded by more or less calling him a "bitch":

Kagan: A Fake John Roberts, A Radical Homosexualist, and a Sign of The End Times

As the questioning in Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing finally gets underway, right-wing groups are busy releasing statements and reports claiming she is everything from a "clear and present danger to the Constitution" to a sign of the end times.

The Judicial Crisis Network's first day write-up is particularly confusing, as they seem convinced that Kagan is trying to "disguise herself as the next John Roberts" 

The Senate Judiciary Committee just concluded the first day of Elena Kagan's hearings to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. Our summary of Day 1: She may not be a Constitutionalist, but she sure plays one on TV.

As we expected, Kagan followed in Justice Sotomayor's footsteps and disguised herself as the next John Roberts, and Democratic Senators did their best to help her hide from her record of extreme activism on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, and the scope of government power. According to Kagan, "what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint." In the immortal words of The Who, "Don't get fooled again."

Seeing as it was John Roberts who "disguised" himself as a umpire who would just call balls and strikes and then, once confirmed, revealed himself to be a blatant judicial activist, that is a pretty ironic criticism for JCN to level.

But at least the JCN's complaints are at least coherent, unlike those of Gordon Klingenschmitt:

Chaplain Klingenschmitt has contracted with a team of investigative journalists including Brian Camenker, Amy Contrada and Peter LaBarbera to investigate and report breaking news about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

While serving as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan's administration demanded and forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to cover sex-change operations as an "equal right" paid benefit, harming gender-confused students, as confirmed in 2006 and 2008 by Harvard Crimson newspaper articles.

Kagan also offered sympathetic ear to lesbian group Lambda's Transgender Task Force demand to force all women to share public bathrooms and locker-rooms with cross-dressing men, which is now part of Harvard's dormitory policy, according to the report.

"This is further proof Elena Kagan cannot be trusted to impartially rule on Obamacare or bathroom bills like ENDA, since she believes sin is a Constitutional right," said Chaplain Klingenschmitt, "but rights come from God, who never grants the right to sin."

Because if anything is going to clarify these confirmation hearings, is a report written by a bunch of militantly anti-gay activists like Klingenschmitt, Camenker, and LaBarbera ... and now that is exactly what we have:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.

Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.

Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.

There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.

But that is actually quite reasonable compared to this statement from Tim LaHaye and Craig Parshall claiming that Kagan "presents a danger as old as the book of Genesis" and that her confirmation could be a sign of the End Times:

First, if she becomes a Supreme Court justice, she could be the all-important fifth vote in favor of interpreting our Constitution, not according to the vision of our Founding Fathers, but from an international law standpoint, a concept that would have seemed treasonous to our Founders. Three justices on the Court have already relied on foreign law in their opinions: Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg. Recently-installed justice Sotomayor has praised Ruth Bader Ginsberg's penchant for international law, so we can assume she will be a legal globalist as well. Five justices create a majority and with Kagan on board they could begin radically steering us away from view of the Constitution that honors our Judeo-Christian heritage and founding.

Second, if this happens, it will usher America into a new age of global law. With Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, international legal standards could well be imposed on Americans by the High Court's legal globalists, even without the Senate approving a specific international treaty. In our new novel, Edge of Apocalypse, we show how this trend might create a modern-day legal nightmare for conscientious Christians. We need only to turn to Genesis chapter 11 to see how God opposed the ancient attempt at global unification: the Lord declared the tragic result that would follow if a centralized group of fallen men were to consolidate an unlimited, unrestrained power over the planet.

Keep your eyes on the Supreme Court's view of global law. It could be one of the most telling 'signs of the times.'

What Passes For News and CNSNews.com

Yesterday I posted a press release from Rabbi Yehuda Levin claiming that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she will issue "extremist decisions" from the bench that will, in turn, unleash a "backlash" of anti-Semitic violence across the nation to sweep the nation. As such, Kagan's confirmation represents an "existential threat" to Jews in America and she therefore must be defeated.

Now obviously, that is insane.  But, as Media Matters notes, apparently not too insane for CNSNews to pick it up and turn it into an article.  And not just an old article that regurgitates Levin's absurd release, but one that actually contacted him for further comment:

Levin told CNSNews.com that his fellow rabbis--and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and traditional Jews--are puzzled at the president’s choice of Kagan.

“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”

Barring a rebuff from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Levin told CNSNews.com that the rabbis want someone in the Senate to launch a filibuster to stop Kagan's nomination from coming to a vote.

"We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said. 

And, of course, Matt Drudge is now promoting this article ... and so the cycle continues.

Senate Republicans Tap Holy Warrior as Witness Against Kagan

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee released the list of witnesses who will testify during Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing next week - here is the list of "Minority Witnesses" who will oppose her confirmation

- Robert Alt, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
- Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, US Army (ret.)
- Capt. Pete Hegseth, Army National Guard
- Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, Benesch
- David Kopel, Esq., Independence Institute
- Colonel Thomas N. Moe, USAF (ret.)
- David Norcross, Esq., Blank Rome
- William J. Olson, Esq., William J. Olson, P.C.
- Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
- Steven Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
- Ronald Rotunda, The Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University School of Law
- Ed Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
- Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life
- Capt. Flagg Youngblood, USAF

Most of the witness are to be expected, but some -like Tony Perkins and Charmaine Yoest - are rather surprising.

And then there is Jerry Boykin.  Really? That guy is completely off the rails.

He's the one who was forced to retire after declaring that we were engaged in a spiritual war with Islam that "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus," saying that knows we will eventually win because our God is bigger than theirs.

Since then, Boykin has become a fixture on the fringe right-wing circuit, teaming up with the likes of  "Christocrat" Rick Scarborough and Dominionist Janet Porter and even sharing the stage with professional anti-gay activists like Peter LaBarbera.

In fact, Boykin is also on the Board of Rick Joyner's Oak Initiative which I wrote about just earlier today, along with Porter, Lou Sheldon, and Cindy Jacobs.

This is who Senate Republican want to bring it in testify against Kagan?  The mind reels.

Kagan's Confirmation Represents an "Existential Threat" To Jews In America

Normally, when we post a release from Rabbi Yehuda Levin it is about how allowing gays to serve in the military will cause natural disasters or cause God to repeal his "Divine Grace from our military's struggles" which will thus make us lose wars.

But in an apparent effort not to be typecast as merely an anti-gay loon, Levin is branching out, today releasing a statement opposing the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on the grounds that she is Jewish and that she will issue "extremist decisions" from the bench - the combination of the two, you see, will inevitably cause a "backlash" of anti-Semitic violence to sweep the nation, representing an "existential threat" to Jews in America: 

It is clear from Ms. Kagan's record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, Partial-Birth-Abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the "supremacy" of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of Biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society's already steep decline into Sodom and Gommorah.

It should be clear that Ms. Kagan's long line of forebearers, presumably tracing back to Sinai, would have sacrificed their lives rather than embrace the anti-G-d, counter-sanctity agenda that she has lived and promoted.

We are puzzled as to why President Obama would not honor a different minority with this nomination. We fear a backlash, fed by pent up grass-roots resentment over extremist decisions Ms. Kagan is bound to issue.

In these socially and economically trying times, we are most concerned about being scapegoated and targeted by even a tiny subset of the tens of millions of citizens simply fed up with an imperial anti-family, anti-Biblical Judiciary (an example being Judge Walker, now addressing California's Prop. 8). We wonder: exactly what was the President thinking?

For the record, let this statement serve as an unequivocal protest, establishing that Ms. Kagan's philosophy and approach are antithetical to traditional Judaism. We emphatically reject her ascendancy to the Court!

We urge decent Senators of both parties to have mercy on the nation, in light of the direction we are heading. This nomination must be delayed in committee for as long as possible, and then either voted down or filibustered. We family and religious people will surely employ our last weapon - the ballot box - to respond to those who ignore this existential threat, and insist on contaminating the cultural wellsprings from which we and our children are forced to drink.

It is late in the game. We implore voters to convey these concerns to their Senators - feckless and otherwise.

The Pathetic Desperation of the Anti-Kagan Campaign

Because the Right has very little ammunition against Elena Kagan heading into her confirmation hearings next week, they have been desperately trying to make up "controversies" that they can try to use against her.

Which is why a donation made by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal to Harvard University to establish an Islamic Studies program at the time that Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School has been transformed into a right-wing claim that Kagan supports Sharia Law and "the enemy" while hating our troops. 

So I guess it was only a matter of time until we started seeing things like this in Frank Gaffney's column in The Washington Times:

Hats off to Sen. Jeff Sessions. The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has opened up an important new front in the debate over Solicitor General Elena Kagan's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court: her attitude toward the repressive legal code authoritative Islam calls Shariah and her enabling of efforts to insinuate it into this country.

By so doing, the Alabama legislator has given his colleagues and the country an opportunity not only to flesh out and evaluate the thin public record of President Obama's second nominee to a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court but also afforded us all what Mr. Obama might call a "teachable moment."

Specifically, this Supreme Court nomination offers a prism for examining the concerted and ominous campaign under way to bring Shariah to America, thanks to the troubling role Ms. Kagan played during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Apparently Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell got "'many good ideas" from his official state visit to Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado.
  • Someone should ask Gov. Bob McDonnell if Pat Robertson will be attending his "thank you retreat".
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee voted out Robert Chatigny’s nomination today - Concerned Women for America responded by saying "Senators Should Reject Obama's 'Empathy for Sadists' Judge".
  • Speaking of CWA, they are very upset about President Obama's salty language.
  • For all their screaming and yelling, Religious Right groups don't appear to have generated much opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  • Bryan Fischer bravely attacks the National Association of Evangelicals for supporting immigration reform while conveniently failing to attack right-wing leaders like Mat Staver, Richard Land, and Ken Blackwell, who also support it.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Michael Pakaluk explaining why he doesn't want the children of gay couples attending Catholic school with his children: "The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic, or refer to such things in conversation, as they go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which--as not being related to procreation-- is inherently eroticized and pornographic. He might expose other children to such things, as he might easily have encountered them in his household."

Better Courts Now: Seeking Judges With a Christian Bias

When Better Courts Now was launched back in March, its stated goal was to see right-wing judges elected "across San Diego County and eventually America."  For now, the group is focusing on California and has, in recent weeks, been making it clear that they are not looking to support merely conservative judges, but Christian judges who will carry out God's will on the bench.

The election is tomorrow and pastor Brian Hendry, who is running the group, really wants to make their goal clear:

"We've always been involved in the political realm, in believing that too often Christians have dropped the ball over the years and have allowed...an agenda that's not a biblical agenda to take over," Hendry explains. "In our prayers and in looking for different ways to attack, we realized, especially in California, that the judiciary was definitely an area that had been running amok, if you will."

He contends that judicial activists have tried to push a social agenda, such as when the state Supreme Court legalized, albeit for a short time, homosexual marriage. Better Courts Now wants godly men on the bench, but opponents say Christian judges would be activists for Christ.

"To say that somehow a Christian coming in with a biblical worldview will give them a bias that will lead them to not be able to follow the law -- we actually believe that bias, if you will, or that worldview helps them to follow the law, because they stand on virtues and principles that they cannot violate," Hendry contends.

Hendry was also the guest on "WallBuilders Live" last Friday where he discussed this effort with Rick Green, who recently lost his own run for the state Supreme Court.  To say that Green was excited by this new effort would be a massive understatement, as Green and Hendry spent a large part of the interview discussing their desire to see this operation duplicated all across the country.

So it should not come as a surprise if we see some sort of WallBuilders/Better Court Now joint operation emerge down the road.   

Better Courts Now Endorsed Candidates Vow To Carry Out God's Will

A few months back, I wrote a post about a new right-wing group that had formed in California for the purpose of taking control of the state's court system.  Many of those involved had been highly active in the Prop. 8 fight and saw this new effort, called Better Courts Now, as a way of making sure that issues like Prop. 8 never succeed in the courts by "unifying the moral vote" and electing judges with a right-wing agenda.

Well, the election for state judges in California takes place on June 8 and Better Courts Now has rolled out its slate of candidates:

A group of conservative attorneys say they are on a mission from God to unseat four California judges in a rare challenge that is turning a traditionally snooze-button election into what both sides call a battle for the integrity of U.S. courts.

Vowing to be God's ambassadors on the bench, the four San Diego Superior Court candidates are backed by pastors, gun enthusiasts, and opponents of abortion and same-sex marriages.

"We believe our country is under assault and needs Christian values," said Craig Candelore, a family law attorney who is one of the group's candidates. "Unfortunately, God has called upon us to do this only with the judiciary."

...

The Better Courts Now candidates accused the bar of being swayed by politics. Candelore said a victory would mark only the beginning: "If we can take our judiciary, we can take our legislature and our executive branch."

Better Courts Now has posted campaign videos from each of its endorsed candidates, including Candelore:

Prophecy and Political Update With Cindy Jacobs

It's been a rather slow news day here, so why not spend ten minutes getting up to speed on the latest prophecies from Cindy Jacobs?

The video is actually dated April 29, but just showed up on the General's International website and in it, Jacobs highlights two prophecies she made recently, the first about the birth of a new island and the second about fire coming from ice.  Both have come true, Jacobs explains, citing some new island forming off of Hawaii and the volcanic explosion in Iceland.

She goes on to prophecy that the upcoming Global Day of Prayer, which coincides with the Day of Pentecost, will lead to news reports all over the world of "great and mighty miracles." In addition, there will be great breakthroughs in fighting human trafficking, as well as earthquakes, flooding, and the bursting of dams as God prepares to show the world that he is in command.

Also, there is going to be some "shaking" along the border between North Korea and China, but she is not sure what exactly:

In other, more straightforward political news, Jacobs and GI want activists to utilize the resources and action steps set out by Faith 2 Action, Gordon Klingenschmitt, and the Family Research Council to urge the Senate to "oppose and filibuster Elena Kagan":

The President's nomination to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is a social liberal with no judicial experience, and she is allegedly a lesbian. Among many other points of concern, Kagan possesses an incredibly hostile view of the military, opposing "don't ask, don't tell", and she endorses presidential control of federal agencies on domestic issues as well as the federal banning of certain books, pamphlets and "hate speech"--a violation of First Amendment rights. For more information:

* Elena Kagan Profile from FRC Action's thecloakroomblog.org
* Roundup of Articles on Kagan from FRC's thecloakroomblog.org

Let us pray that the Senate Judiciary Committee would thoroughly and diligently examine Kagan's qualifications. May the new Supreme Court Justice pick be someone who will uphold righteousness in this Nation. Here are some action steps, outlined by Faith2Action.org, which we can take:

1.The following seven Republicans sadly voted for Kagan in 2009 in the 61-31 vote to confirm her as Solicitor General. Please call each to say "oppose and filibuster Elena Kagan" right away. Let's seize momentum! Kyl (R-AZ, 202-224-4521), Hatch (R-UT, 202-224-5251), Coburn (R-OK, 202-224-5754), Lugar (R-IN, 202-224-4814), Snowe (R-ME, 202-224-5344), Collins (R-ME, 202-224-2523), Gregg (R-NH, 202-224-3324). Also please call new Senator Scott Brown (R-MA, 202-224-4543)

2. Send correspondence to the offices of your Senators.

a. Chaplain Klingenschmitt's Pray in Jesus' Name organization can send a fax petition to all 100 U.S. Senators, or a couple of smaller groups of swing-vote or Judiciary Committee Senators on your behalf, opposing this nomination. Click here for details on sending your petitions.

b. The Family Research Council has also set up a system for sending letters to your Senators in the form of an email or a printed letter. For details, click here.

As for the 2010 U.S. elections, I urge you to take note of who is running in your state at every level, and where they stand on the issues--and vote righteously. We all know that we are seriously reaping from a whole generation of believers, that as a whole, have not paid adequate attention to the election process and, as the Body of Christ in general, have not voted, or have not voted responsibly. Let us be the Salt and Light we are called to be, exercising our right and responsibility to vote with Scriptural convictions. Here is an excellent resource to help you make informed choices.

Focus on The Family Opposes Kagan Due To Her "Commitment to the LGBT Agenda"

Last month, Focus on the Family made news when it suddenly backtracked from its earlier stance that that a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation was "not even pertinent" to the question of the nominee's qualifications to sit on the court.

Under pressure from militantly anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, Focus did an about-face and declared that "someone who is a practicing homosexual is a non starter for the group," saying that "homosexual behavior is a sin" and a nominee's "character and moral rectitude should be key considerations" in opposing a nominee.

Today, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and LaBarbera and others are already opposing her on the grounds that she might be a lesbian ... and now Focus on the Family has announced its opposition as well (Focus does not explicitly cite this issue, instead focusing on Kagan's "commitment to the LGBT agenda" as its justification): 

Focus on the Family Action Senior Vice President Tom Minnery released the following statement today in response to President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“We are extremely disappointed by the President’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

“Kagan’s nomination is a triumph for liberal ideology and judicial activism. She has never been a judge, nor written a judicial opinion. In fact, she has very limited experience in the actual practice of law. Her resume reveals her to be an academic who has served liberal judges, liberal presidents, and liberal universities. Her entire career has been lived in a narrow slice of the judicial spectrum.

“Even with her sparse legal record, one thing stands out – her emotional and legal commitment to the LGBT agenda. Calling the federal prohibition against gays serving in the military ‘a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order,’ she argued to the Supreme Court that law schools should be allowed to exclude military recruiters from campus while still accepting hundreds of millions in federal dollars, a position which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected, including the very liberal justice she would be replacing, Justice Stevens.

“Sadly, we look for a Justice Kagan to work for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage upon all 50 states. We expect a continuation on her part of the Leftist allegiance to abortion-on-demand as well as the standard hostility to religion in the public square that has come to epitomize the liberal wing of the court.

“Americans have time and time again voiced their desire for judges who will judge according to the text and original understanding of our laws and Constitution. It is that fidelity to our Founders’ intent for the proper role and responsibility of the judiciary that makes a good Supreme Court justice. Yet for the second time in two years, the president has nominated someone who is committed to molding the law and the Constitution into something more to their liking rather than demonstrating what should be the non-negotiable quality of judicial restraint.

“We oppose this nomination and call upon the Senate to reject it as well. America deserves better.”

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago when new Focus president Jim Daly was saying this

Yet it's clear Daly, who has met with gay activists, sees diminishing returns in continuing the culture wars.

"I'm not fearful that change will happen in America. It will happen. ... I don't know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles," he said, noting that for "98 percent" of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.

"It's going to be difficult in this culture and the way the demographics are going right now," he went on. "You look at the under-35 age group. I think it's splitting 60-40 support for same-sex marriage. There's a lot of people in the U.S. [who] basically come to the conclusion that this is something between two adults. I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I'm not going to demean human beings for the process."

While Daly keeps claiming that he not out to demean people and is seeking a more civil dialogue with his opponents, Minnery is running around saying that gays or anyone who supports them are morally unfit for the bench.

Maybe Focus ought to try to get its story straight.   

Right Wing Responses to Kagan for SCOTUS

A collection of early responses from the Right to the news that President Obama intends to nominate Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme Court (I will continue to update this post throughout the day as more statements are released).

Catholic Families for America:

Today Catholic Families for America, one of the largest groups of lay Catholics in the country, announced its opposition to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing "grave concerns" about her promotion of same-sex "marriage" and abortion, as well as a "dangerous internationalism" that has become fashionable among leftist jurists.

To galvanize citizens' concerns, particularly those of Catholic voters, CFA has initiated a nationwide petition that it will forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The petition can be signed.

"By nominating Miss Kagan to the Supreme Court, the president continues to demonstrate a brass-knuckles, Chicago-mobster mentality toward unifying our nation," said Dr. Kevin Roberts, executive director of CFA. "Naming someone who has been so actively hostile to traditional marriage and to the unborn lays bare the president's pro-abortion, anti-family agenda, in spite of what he says to the contrary."

Americans United for Life

Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law. Americans United for Life will oppose President Obama's attempt to reshape the Court as an activist, pro-abortion institution through which unelected judges will work to impose an out-of-the-mainstream social agenda upon the American people."

Ed Whelan:

2. Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any justice in the last five decades or more. In addition to zero judicial experience, she has only a few years of real-world legal experience. Further, notwithstanding all her years in academia, she has only a scant record of legal scholarship. Kagan flunks her own “threshold” test of the minimal qualifications needed for a Supreme Court nominee.

3. There is a striking mismatch between the White House’s populist rhetoric about seeking a justice with a “keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people” and the reality of the Kagan pick. Kagan is the consummate Obama insider, and her meteoric rise over the last 15 years—from obscure academic and Clinton White House staffer to Harvard law school dean to Supreme Court nominee—would seem to reflect what writer Christopher Caldwell describes as the “intermarriage of financial and executive branch elites [that] could only have happened in the Clinton years” and that has fostered the dominant financial-political oligarchy in America. In this regard, Kagan’s paid role as a Goldman Sachs adviser is the perfect marker of her status in the oligarchy—and of her unfathomable remoteness from ordinary Americans.

4. Kagan’s record thus manages to replicate the primary supposed defect of the judicial monastery—isolation from the real-world lives of ordinary Americans—without conferring the broader benefits of judicial experience.

Bill Kristol:

For me, the key obstacle to Elena Kagan's confirmation is ... [h]er hostility to the U.S. military.

Hostility? Isn't that harsh? Kagan has professed at times her admiration for those who serve in the military, even as she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard Law School. But how does one square her professed admiration with her actions--embracing an attempt to overturn the Solomon Amendment that was rejected 8-0 by the Supreme Court--and her words?

Priests for Life:

"Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.

"But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one's position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, such as abortion, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."

Ed Meese:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law—is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

Chuck Norris:

It's that "unknown" Elena Kagan who has gun owners particularly concerned at the moment, not only because she's Obama's favored choice but because evidence for her beliefs on gun control is extremely scarce.

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society:

I'm deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering. Solicitor General Kagan has been nominated with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, and only a year as Solicitor General of the United States. She is one of the most inexperienced nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory.

Susan B. Anthony List:

"Elena Kagan has no judicial record from which to determine her position on Roe v. Wade, but she has publicly criticized the 1991 Supreme Court ruling to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion, and has also criticized crisis pregnancy centers. Additionally, President Obama has said he prefers a Supreme Court nominee who would take a special interest in 'women's rights'--a barely masked euphemism for abortion rights. Through the judicial confirmation process the American people must know where Elena Kagan stands on the abortion issue, and it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to find out.

"Ms. Kagan's publicly demonstrated prejudices do not lend themselves well to blind justice. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice--and they knew that one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."

Judicial Crisis Network:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan is out of step with main street Americans, her limited record is outside the mainstream of American legal thought, and she lacks any substantial qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan has no prior experience that qualifies her for the Supreme Court.

...

Ultimately, it is difficult to see how Kagan’s extreme left wing views and lack of relevant experience qualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Gary Bauer:

"Sadly, President Obama, while saying repeatedly that he wants to bring people together, does something to tear people apart by choosing another liberal activist and long-time abortion advocate to have long-term power over the fabric of American life. Equally troubling at this time of terrorist activity and international unrest is the fact that while she was dean of the Harvard Law school, Kagan opposed military recruiting. Our Armed Forces who protect and defend our freedom deserve better.

"Obama has become the 'Divider in Chief,' choosing racial identity politics, socialist economics and extreme liberal activists who would tear the fabric of American society. Whether you look at his appointments or his policies, Obama goes out of his way to repudiate the values and desires of the American people.

"This is an opportunity for Republicans to represent the values of millions of Americans who are counting on them to defend the rule of law. Republicans in the Senate need to use every tool available to determine the nominee's views on such pivotal issues as whether terrorists deserve the same rights as Americans, whether the U.S. Constitution has hidden code in it supporting radical social change, and whether the Constitution requires that the public square be purged of Judeo-Christian values.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel:

Judges should interpret, not make the law. The Senate should press hard to question Elena Kagan on her judicial philosophy. The public deserves to know whether Kagan will use her transnational law philosophy as a lens through which she views the Constitution. And the public needs to know whether her personal views will trump the Constitution, as they appeared to do when she banned military recruiters from campus.

American Center for Law and Justice:

This is the beginning of an important, deliberative process in which the American people deserve to know where Elena Kagan stands on the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The fact that Elena Kagan has no previous judicial experience underscores the importance of closely examining her judicial philosophy - will she abide by the Constitution, or will she take an activist view? With the Senate’s constitutional role of providing ‘advice and consent’ regarding nominees, we call on the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide full and thorough hearings and ask the tough questions about how Kagan views the role of Justices, the Constitution, and the rule of law. While no nominee should express legal opinions concerning specific issues, the American people deserve to know whether this nominee – which could serve for many decades – embraces the philosophy of judicial activism.

American Life League:

"Clearly, Kagan has demonstrated a record of interpreting the law in the light of homosexual, pro-abortion activism.

"What's at stake here is the core constitutional question that passionately divides the country – does our Constitution seek human rights for all human beings or merely some human beings? Kagan's answers to her 2009 confirmation hearings provide clear insight into her future judicial philosophy.

"Will President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Kagan be another example of his continued disregard for human rights in favor of advancing his favorite pet political agenda – abortion on demand courtesy of the American tax dollar?

"With the nomination of 50-year-old Kagan, will President Obama assure his long-lasting assault on the most fundamental human right of personhood?

"As President Obama races against the election clock, he has worked to undermine many of the American values and principles that make this nation the greatest on Earth.

Life Issues Institute:

"Mr. Obama has once again made it clear that he strictly follows a pro-abortion litmus test for anyone he nominates to the Supreme Court," said Bradley Mattes, executive director of Life Issues Institute. "We should not be surprised that his legacy will be the intentional killing of our nation's most vulnerable citizens--unborn babies. This nomination is a tragedy for America's women and their unborn children."

Concerned Women for America:

“In her disdain for the military, Elena Kagan considers her own views and opinions as more important than obeying the law and equipping the country with the best fighting force in the world. We need justices who put national security over the feelings or demands of special interest groups.

“We urge the US Senate to oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan. We want a justice who will defend the Constitution, support our families and uphold the right to life and traditional marriage.”

Operation Rescue:

Elena Kagan's support for abortion and her predisposition for judicial activism makes her a poor selection. We need a justice that will uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it though judicial activism. It is clear that as long as Obama is president, we cannot expect anything other than the nomination of radical liberal pro-aborts, even though those with that political philosophy and agenda are opposed by the majority of the American people.

Family Research Council:

"Elena Kagan's lack of legal experience will be discussed by both sides of the aisle but her record of liberal activism should not be overlooked.

"As the Harvard Law School Dean, Elena Kagan tried to bar the military from recruiting on her law school's campus during the height of the Iraq War based on her opposition to the federal law restricting homosexuals in the military. She fought the issue all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled unanimously against her, an extraordinary rebuke to her legal and substantive reasoning.

"Ms. Kagan's incredibly hostile view of the military suggests she is out of touch with mainstream sensibilities and obedience to the rule of law. President Obama promised a nominee committed to the 'rule of law,' but, instead, he appears to have nominated a hard-left activist to the Supreme Court.

Traditional Values Coalition:

“President Obama’s pick of Elena Kagan demonstrates his willingness to subvert the Constitution for his personal agenda and impose his leftist ideology on our nation for the next 30 to 40 years,” continued Lafferty. “The Obama Administration has already saddled the next two generations of Americans with a mountain of debt, and the lifetime appointment of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court will extend the radical Obama agenda over them.”

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness:

“It is unfortunate that President Barack Obama has chosen to replace the only military veteran on the Supreme Court with a nominee whose only significant record indicates deliberate hostility and opposition to laws protecting the culture and best interests of the American military.”

Donnelly continued, “Senators considering this nomination should question Elena Kagan’s flawed logic and anti-military attitude that she expressed by signing an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment in Rumsfeld v. Fair. It is significant that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that legislation, which protects equal access for military recruiters on college campuses, with a unanimous (8-0) vote. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not agree with Kagan’s anti-military views.”

National Organization for Marriage:

Don’t be fooled, Pres. Obama today has nominated a radical justice who will vote to overturn Prop 8 in California, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the laws protecting marriage in all 50 states.

NOM has reviewed her record, and today we told the press. “A vote for Elana Kagan will be a vote for imposing gay marriage on all 50 states.”

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Rick Santorum has endorsed Jay Riemersma, warning that otherwise "our country could slip away under your watch."
  • Americans United for Life is giving Rep. John Boehner the 2010 Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award.
  • Fox News is refusing to run an ad on climate change on the grounds that it is "too confusing."
  • Tammy Bruce has joined GOProud's Advisory Council.
  • For some reason, Janice Shaw Crouse provided written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the hearing on the Violence Against Women Act.
  • Finally, Concerned Women for America does not approve of efforts to decriminalize marijuana in Washington DC: "Women and mothers have enough to worry about without the easy availability of marijuana added to the list."

NOM, FRC, Harry Jackson Continue to Fight Against Marriage In DC

The Family Research Council has sent out an action alert announcing an anti-marriage equality rally tomorrow ahead of oral arguments at the D.C. Court of Appeals:

The battle for marriage in D.C. and America rages, and God's people have a voice in the outcome. As participating members of the Stand4MarriageDC executive committee I would like to ask you to join the citizens of the District of Columbia and our nation's capital to rally and show your support for marriage between one man and one woman.

Here are the details:

WHAT: "Let the People Vote" Marriage Hearing/Rally and Press Event

WHEN: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM

WHERE: District of Columbia Court of Appeals (430 E St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001)

WHO: Stand4MarriageDC Coalition

Did you know that the citizens of D.C. have the same authority as the D.C. City Council to create a law? Well that's what the court hearing on the "Marriage Initiative of 2009" and rally is about!

Once again, thank you for your continued concern and engagement on the D.C. Marriage issue. We need your help in showing support and shining the spotlight on same-sex "marriage" in the District of Columbia. Please join me, members of The Stand4MarriageDC Coalition (Bishop Harry Jackson), and local pastors for a rally and press event on this important issue. While some will fill the seats of the courtroom, others will fill the sidewalks to show support of marriage!

Your participation in this rally is important as we join to defend marriage. You can help reverse the course of marriage re-definition in our nation's capital and America by coming out and supporting the effort. A little bit of effort will go a long way in defending marriage.

We need you there! Wear white to show unity! Join us tomorrow -- Tuesday May 4th, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. for the D.C. Court's hearing on the "Marriage Initiative of 2009" to determine if the people have a right to vote on Marriage in D.C. The en banc oral arguments will be heard in the ceremonial courtroom of the D.C. Court of Appeals. So all nine judges will be present to hear the case and plea to "Let the People Vote"!

If you believe the citizens of D.C. should be allowed to vote on the redefinition of marriage, then we need you there!

The National Organization for Marriage will be joining them:

Join us Tuesday at 9am in front of the DC Court of Appeals as we rally for marriage!

On Tuesday morning, the Court of Appeals will be hearing the appeal in the DC Marriage Initiative case. As the media covers the arguments inside, NOM is joining Bishop Harry Jackson (also lead plaintiff in the case) and the Stand4Marriage DC team in calling on all marriage supporters to come together in a public display of support for marriage and for the rights of DC voters.

Join us for this historic event, as our coalition comes together across all racial, religious, and party lines to affirm the importance of marriage. Help support the African-American pastors and voters who have taken the lead in this important civil rights struggle to protect marriage and the voting rights of DC citizens. Over the past months, NOM has been contributing to Democratic city council candidates willing to stand for marriage, and on Tuesday Democrats and Republicans alike will come together in common cause to protect marriage.

Please join us!

We will gather at 9am outside the DC Court of Appeals (430 E St. NW), just four blocks west of Union Station and around the corner from the Judiciary Square Metro station. I will be joining Bishop Jackson and others in speaking at the event, as we fight to protect marriage in our nation's capital.

Sessions: Obama "Sees the Constitution as an Inconvenience"

Sen. Jeff Sessions has already made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose pretty much anyone that President Obama nominates to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and he keeps coming up with new reasons why, despite the fact that Obama has not even made the announcement yet. 

But I have to say that his latest justification is rather remarkable, as he is now accusing Obama of seeking a nominee who has no respect for the Constitution and who sees it merely as an "inconvenience" to be sidetracked ... just as Obama does: 

Sen. Jeff Sessions says that a Supreme Court nominee who followed President Obama's legal philosophy of considering the impact of a decision rather than following the law would not be qualified for the high court.

“He said that he wanted a judge who would consider the impact the decision would have on ordinary Americans,” Sessions (R.-Ala.) said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS. “That’s a call to something other than the law and the facts. That’s a call to something more akin to politics than law. And so again I think the President’s presenting a troubling philosophy, and you have to assume that’s the kind of judge he’s going to nominate.”

Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that kind of standard shouldn’t be confirmed whether it’s espoused by a liberal or conservative.

“You can have a liberal or conservative judge who has such strong personal views that they can’t -- and won’t -- follow the law,” Sessions said. “Both of those are disqualified.”

He questioned whether Obama considers the Constitution when making decisions. “I think the American people are coming to recognize that the President sees the Constitution as an inconvenience…a handicap to achieving the agenda that he has,” he said.

Focus On Gay Nominee: From "Not Even Pertinent" to "Non Starter"

As we noted in our earlier post, before President Obama named his nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, Religious Right groups were staking out the position that a gay nominee would not necessarily warrant their opposition:

In a move that will surprise gay activists and liberals, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, a top religious right group, tells me that his organization has no problem with GOP Senator Jeff Sessions‘ claim today that he’s open to a Supreme Court nominee with “gay tendencies.”

The spokesperson confirms the group won’t oppose a gay SCOTUS nominee over sexual orientation.

“We agree with Senator Sessions,” Bruce Hausknecht, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, which was founded by top religious right figure James Dobson, told me a few minutes ago. “The issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not.”

Their sexual orientation “should never come up,” he continued. “It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”

...

“Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” FOF spokesperson Hausknecht continued. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.” For example, he said, “If someone says, `I don’t care what the law says, on the next case involving sexual orientation, I’m going to decide the case in favor of the openly gay party,’ that would be a breach of judicial duty.”

Contrast that with the "clarification" Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery gave today to Peter LaBarbera:

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

Greg Sargent, to whom Hausknecht gave the above statement last year, understandably wanted to find out why Focus was suddenly backtracking, but Minnery inists that the group is doing nothing of the sort - it's just that Hausknecht got it wrong last time

“I don’t think it’s correct to say we’re backtracking,” he told me. “We didn’t get it right the first time.”

Asked if the new statement meant that being homosexual is a deal-breaker, Minnery replied: “Someone who is a practicing homosexual is a non starter for the group.” Asked if this was the case no matter what the person’s views, he replied: “That’s correct.”

A year ago, Focus on the Family said that a SCOTUS nominee's sexual orientation was "not even pertinent" to the question of whether they were qualified for the court. 

Today, Focus on the Family says that gays are sinners and immoral and the idea of not opposing a "practicing homosexual is a non starter," based solely on their sexual orientation.

All the while insisting that the group is not "backtracking."

SCOTUS Round-Up: Right Ready To Spend Millions Fighting Gay Nominee Women Don't Like

Remember last time around when various Religious Right groups were saying that they would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee just because said nominee was gay

In fact, Focus on the Family's Bruce Hausknecht went on record saying "the issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not":

“Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” FOF spokesperson Hausknecht continued. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.” For example, he said, “If someone says, `I don’t care what the law says, on the next case involving sexual orientation, I’m going to decide the case in favor of the openly gay party,’ that would be a breach of judicial duty.”

Well, Focus received a lot of flack for that from professional anti-gay activists like Gary Glenn and Peter LaBarbera and now Focus' Tom Minnery has "clarified" their position to LaBarbera, stating that the organization would oppose a gay nominee because said nominee would be, by definition, sinful and immoral: 

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

In other news, right-wing groups are planning on raising and spending millions of dollars to fight Obama's nominee, without even knowing who it is:

Even without a nominee, some conservative organizations are bracing for a fight based on the ideological leanings of previous Obama judicial nominees.

Carrie Severino, the general counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, formerly called the Judicial Confirmation Network, said her group was prepared to launch a media campaign costing in the seven figures, similar to the one it waged against Sotomayor.

“I think we have funding in place. We are prepared to really fight,” she said.

Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, another conservative group, said that a judicial fight can boost fundraising and energize the base to get out and vote in the midterm elections.

Finally, Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, has an op-ed on FoxNews.com explaining just "What Women Want In a Supreme Court Nominee" - remarkably, what all women want seems to be exactly the same as what CWA wants:

Just because Justice Stevens was a liberal on the Court, it does not mean that President Obama must nominate another liberal to replace him. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is already salivating at the possibility of a justice who will “stand equally strong for” abortion on demand.

Obama sailed into office as a man expected to heal the nation, unite the political parties, and bring warm fuzzies to a country divided. On the contrary, since entering the White House our president and his policies have driven the country into an unfathomable divide, even lending to the uprising of the Tea Party movement, which brought out everyone from retirees to soccer moms -- and professionals who never cared about politics -- because Obama introduced policies that would destroy the lives they had built.

Women want a Justice who will uphold the Constitution, the right to life, and will preserve the family as a foundational cornerstone of our society. They don’t want someone who will legislate from the bench and uphold abhorrent legislation like the health care bill.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Steve King are BFFs.  Why is that not surprising?
  • Why is Sen. Scott Brown's daughter now a contributor to "The Early Show"?
  • Rick Santorum says the only reason he endorsed Arlen Specter last time around was because Specter promised to support President Bush's SCOTUS nominees.
  • Focus on the Family has kicked-off a 12-city tour aimed at educating couples on how to strengthen their marriage, parenting skills, and family life.
  • Harry Jackson defends Michael Steel, saying Steel deserves more time to get things organized.  Seriously.
  • Quote of the day I from Dave Welch on standing up to gays: "We must stand boldly, declare God's standard of morality for the good of the people and take back the ground that has been yielded to the forces of spiritual darkness by cleaning house at every level of government, education, media and the arts. However, as it will be with God's judgment, we must start in the house of God. "
  • Quote of the day II comes from those who don't want to see Rick Green on the Texas Supreme Court: "Let’s not jeopardize that good work by electing someone who is likely to attract criticism and ridicule for himself and our entire judiciary."
Syndicate content

Judiciary Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/21/2011, 11:37am
Janet Porter’s proposed “heartbeat bill” in Ohio, which would criminalize abortion in the vast majority of cases, is so extreme that the Ohio Right to Life Society refuses to back it, but for some anti-choice radicals, it does not go far enough. As we’ve previously reported, Personhood USA wants to put a personhood amendment on the Ohio ballot in 2012, and Personhood Ohio is no fan of Porter’s “heartbeat bill.” While the personhood movement may appear to be a fringe group, since proponents oppose even draconian legislation like the “heartbeat... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 09/15/2011, 1:00pm
Mississippi is set to vote this November on a patently unconstitutional personhood amendment that would criminalize abortion in their state, and ‘personhood’ advocates now strive to put a similar amendment on the ballot in Ohio in 2012. Personhood laws would not only prohibit abortion in all cases but also ban certain forms of birth control and the treatment of ectopic pregnancies by giving legal rights to zygotes. The anti-choice activists hope that Ohio will vote on it at the same time as the swing state’s closely contested presidential election. Right now Ohio is on the... MORE
Coral, Wednesday 07/27/2011, 11:40am
After his testimony at last week’s DOMA hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund has been doing the rounds in the right-wing radio circuit. In a recent interview withthe Concerned Women for America’s radio show, Nimocks hit all of the classic anti-marriage-equality arguments, claiming that marriage between a man and a woman “naturally builds families,” and that children do best with two heterosexual parents. Nimocks then tried to discredit the comparison of DOMA to the laws against interracial marriage during the civil... MORE
, Wednesday 06/08/2011, 12:07pm
(cross posted to the People For Blog) Mat Staver of the ironically named Liberty Counsel has a new video up where he takes credit for the shameful filibuster of Goodwin Liu. That clears up so much. Was it Mat Staver who "exposed" the "extremism" of this extremely qualified nominee? Was it Mat Staver who convinced every Republican senator but one to ignore Liu's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his detailed written submissions, and his many articles, all of which disproved the lies being told about him? Was it Mat Staver whose keen legal arguments... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 05/04/2011, 3:20pm
Religious Right and pro-corporate groups failed today to block President Obama’s nominee for U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, John McConnell, from receiving an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The Senate invoked cloture on McConnell’s nomination in a 63-33 vote, defeating the filibuster against McConnell. Filibusters against district court judges are extremely rare—only a handful of District Court nominees have ever faced cloture votes, and none have ever been blocked—and many Republicans previously vowed they would never filibuster a judicial nominee. Today’... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 04/22/2011, 10:13am
After the Religious Right’s successful campaign, with massive funding from Newt Gingrich, to remove three state Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections who backed marriage equality, now the Iowa GOP is pushing for the impeachment of the remaining justices. Bob Vander Plaats, the anti-gay activist who led the drive to remove the Justices and heads The Family Leader, has previously called for the resignation of the entire Supreme Court and advocated for their removal over the marriage equality ruling in Varnum v. Brien. He is also building ties with likely presidential candidates as... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 04/19/2011, 9:46am
Today, People For the American Way released a new report entitled "Barton’s Bunk: Religious Right ‘Historian’ Hits the Big Time in Tea Party America" written by PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery that exposes David Barton's shoddy pseudo-history and why it matters:  Barton’s growing visibility and influence with members of Congress and other Republican Party officials is troubling for many reasons: he distorts history and the Constitution for political purposes; he encourages religious divisiveness and unequal treatment for religious minorities;... MORE