Obama's choice - Elena Kagan - no friend to Unborn childrenPresident Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. supreme Court is another reminder of the consequence of the nation having elected the most pro-abortion president in history. His selection is someone who reflects his radical views especially on abortion and homosexuality presents the Senate with a unique opportunity to ask serious questions of someone who has absolutely no judicial experience and who history as a lawyer has been one of a political appointee and recipient of political connections. She has never practiced law and yet she was appointed by Obama as his solicitor general. The instant irony is that various bastions of the Left have been the first to point out her lack of qualifications.
But do not be misdirected by the serious questions raised by such articles. Her placement on the court will be a means of advancing the leftist agenda and affecting the rule of law for generations.
Expect to see and read various liberal groups to "question" her qualifications. Some will be in earnest; others will be merely puffing in order to make her "appear" to be less than the radical she truly is. The headlines have already tried to paint her as a "moderate" and raised her "advice" to Clinton regarding the partial birth abortion bill being evidence of such "moderation." The truth is her advice was an effort to salvage Clinton's position with the Congress which was set to override any veto of the bill. But being willing to support a ban on partial birth abortion does not make one anti-abortion. It is no guarantee that Kagan would should a change in Roe. All one has to do is look as where she has been the dean of law.
As one who has a deep appreciation of the rule of law and a desire to see the rule of law applied equally to all persons, I am always amazed at the willingness of the left to jettison any respect for the law if someone of their ideology can be placed in a position of power. The left was so very critical of the qualifications of someone such as Justice Thomas or Alito, yet they will ignore these very same arguments when it comes to their own candidate. again it is not about the rule of law. It is about using power to manipulate the law to achieve social transformation.
When it comes to efforts by the left to transform society, the classic model has been their effort to normalize sexual perversion. Behavior that was once universally condemned as abhorrent, is now argued as a right and the some courts have even attempted to normalize such behavior and compare it to marriage. Radicals such as Kagan support such decisions by these courts. Her decisions at Harvard regarding the efforts of the Military to recruit for JAG officers further underscore her disdain for the rule of law. Thus it is that in order to try and avoid these discussions, the press will try to paint her as "foremost legal mind," a moderate, a consensus builder. The press and the media will avoid the subject of abortion, except to claim that she is a "moderate on the issue, something totally untrue.
So what is to be done? After all the Democrats control the Senate.
Those who are honest in their examination, whether conservative in their approach toward the law or liberal, must admit that she has very little experience to bring to the court other than an academic perspective. She has no real world experience as a lawyer. She has never tried a case. She is totally unqualified to sit on the bench and render decisions about matters of which she knows nothing. In that respect this nomination is similar to Harriet Miers, who had no judicial experience and was opposed by conservatives and others because of such history. Is Kagan any different? Is Kagan nothing more than an extension of Barack Obama?
Hopefully those Republican senators who are pro-lie will ask some basic questions. Questions on used to be asked in high school biology; questions that are not above her pay grade. Questions such as
Do you agree with the scientific and medical evidence that recognizes the humanity of a living unborn child?
If not, can you provide any credible evidence to support your position that the child is the womb is not a human being?
Does the government have the right not to offer women abortion services as a part of nay health care provision?
Does the government have a right NOT to pay for or subsidize abortion?
Do parents have a right to know and then provide consent prior to an abortion if their under age daughter is pregnant and considering abortion?
Should pharmacists and other in the medical profession be required to provide services to which they are morally opposed?
These are just a few questions being asked at present. Other major pro-life groups are doing the same.. If you have any thoughts or questions that you think should be asked, write them in the comments section.
It is going to be an interesting summer.