Archive

Posts Tagged ‘scotus’

Justice Ginsburg, Without Her Mask, Channeling Margaret Sanger

October 23, 2012 2 comments

 

“WE DO NOT WANT WORD TO GET OUT THAT WE WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE NEGRO POPULATION.” ~Margaret Sanger, Founder Planned Parenthood

 

Justice Ginsburg Backtracks From Racist Abortion Comments

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/23/12 12:31 PM

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg caused a stir in July 2009 when she made commentsabout the Roe v. Wade abortion case that appeared racist. In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg said made it appear she supported Roe for population control reasons targeting minorities.

Roe is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that, along with Doe v. Bolton, allowed virtually unlimited abortions for any reason throughout pregnancy.

Ginsburg first advocated taxpayer funding of abortions and followed it up by saying she backed Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious,” she said then.

Reporter Emily Bazelon then asked Ginsburg a question about what she meant and Ginsburg responded that the 1980 Harris v. McRae ruling upholding the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions, surprised her.

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong,” Ginsburg said.

Now, Bazelon has written a follow up article, in which she reports Ginsburg “made it clear today that the issue she had in mind when we spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races).”

“Emily, you know that that line, which you quoted accurately, was vastly misinterpreted,” Ginsbug said. “I was surprised that the court went as far as it did in Roe v. Wade, and I did think that with the Medicaid reimbursement cases down the road that perhaps the court was thinking it did want more women to have access to reproductive choice. At the time, there was a concern about too many people inhabiting our planet. There was an organization called Zero Population Growth.” She continued, “In the press, there were articles about the danger of crowding our planet. So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade considerable concern about overpopulation.”

Bazelon adds:

 

I asked if she was talking about general concern in the society, as opposed to her own concern or the concern of the feminist legal community. Ginsburg said yes, and then returning to the issue of whether Congress could restrict Medicaid from covering abortion, added, “But I turned out to be wrong. Not too long after Roe v. Wade”—in Harris v. McRae— “the Supreme Court said it was OK to deny Medicaid funding for even therapeutic abortions.”

I asked if the idea of a link between concern about population growth and the court’s rulings on abortion turned out to be wrong. Justice Ginsburg said yes, stating the obvious: After all Roe v. Wade and the decisions that came after it are rooted in the right to privacy.

The history lesson is this: There was a feminist women’s rights argument for legal abortion in the 1970s, which the Supreme Court accepted in Roe v. Wade. And there was a separate and distinct argument about preventing population growth by being pro-abortion, made by groups like Zero Population Growth, which the court did not accept, not in Roe and not later. Justice Ginsburg herself has never made a population control argument for abortion. These were two different rationales promoted by two different movements. Justice Ginsburg touched on this today as well. She said that in the 1970s, when the ACLU women’s rights project sought funding from the Rockefeller Foundation—one of the groups worrying about overpopulation—the foundation “was not interested in the women’s rights business.”

Justice Ginsburg also made it clear today that the issue she had in mind when we spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races).

 

Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/23/justice-ginsburg-backtracks-from-racist-abortion-comments/

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius?

June 28, 2012 4 comments

Posted on June 28, 2012 by I.M. Citizen

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Hearings Have Begun For Radical Anti-Gunner Elena Kagan

June 29, 2010 1 comment

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The hearings on Elena Kagan — President Obama’s radical pick to join the U.S. Supreme Court — began yesterday. 

This is a VERY IMPORTANT battle that gun owners must fight, as evidenced by the slim victory in the McDonald v. Chicago case that was handed down by the high Court yesterday.

Kagan doesn’t have a record of judicial opinions, but her views on the Second Amendment are no mystery: 

* Kagan drafted a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;

* As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional;

* Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows; and

* Just today, Kagan gave a hint to her true colors.  When asked a simple question by Senator Grassley of Iowa — does the Second Amendment codify a pre-existing right from God or is it a right created by the Constitution? — Kagan looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  After an awkward pause, she said: “I’ve never considered that question.”

Yikes… the Supreme Court is no place for on-the-job training!

While two key Republican senators (Kyl and McConnell) had previously indicated that there would not be a filibuster of her nomination, Sen. McConnell seemed to open the door yesterday for such an action.

That’s why all Senators (especially the Republicans!) need to hear from you during this confirmation battle. 

Note:  Bill Olson, the Gun Owners Foundation attorney who spearheaded our amicus brief before the Court in the Chicago case, is scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Elena Kagan later this week.

By the way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation last year should now shed some important light on the Kagan hearings.  McDonald v. Chicago is the first Second Amendment case that Sotomayor has dealt with as a Supreme Court Justice.

It’s no surprise that she joined the anti-gun dissenters, but it highlights what a sham the judicial hearings are — and how Senators should put no stock in a nominee’s responses.

On July 14 of last year, Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings:

“Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s Decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right?  Is that correct?”

Sotomayor responded:  “Yes, Sir.”  In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right.

But then contrast this to the Chicago case where Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

“I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed… which is why Senators need to HEAVILY LOOK at Kagan’s record, not only in what she might say during these hearings.

ACTION:  Please… please… please… contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. 

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Senators.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to oppose and FILIBUSTER Elena Kagan’s nomination!  Not based on what she says during these hearings, but based on what she has already done.  Kagan may not have a record of judicial opinions, but her anti-gun views are no mystery: 

* Kagan helped draft a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;

* As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional; and

* Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

This is what she has done.  What she might say to earn Senate approval is almost completely irrelevant.  Consider that on July 14 of last year, Sonia Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings:  “Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right?  Is that correct?”

Sotomayor responded:  “Yes, Sir.”  In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right.  But in the Chicago ruling from June 28, Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

“I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed… which is why Senators need to LOOK CLOSELY at Kagan’s record, not what she might blabber during these hearings.

Please oppose the Kagan nomination.

Sincerely,

Categories: Miscellaneous Tags: ,

Kagan May Be Goldman Sachs’ Supreme Court “Golden Girl”


SOURCE:  JUDICIAL WATCH

Besides being a liberal activist and political operative with no judicial experience, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee has financial ties to a global investment firm embroiled in a major fraud scandal after getting a generous government bailout.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan worked for Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street titan that donates generously to Democrats, while she was dean of Harvard Law School and some believe she will be the firm’s “Golden Girl” on the U.S. Supreme Court if she gets confirmed.

Kagan worked as an “advisor” for Goldman Sachs for about four years and received a $10,000 annual “stipend” from the embattled investment banking and securities firm. The information only came to light because Kagan was forced to include it on financial disclosure forms when Obama appointed her Solicitor General last year.

Goldman Sachs has been charged with defrauding investors in the sale of securities with subprime mortgage ties when the housing market was collapsing. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) claims the firm misstated and omitted key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages, leaving investors to lose $1 billion.

The firm is one of many financial institutions that received a taxpayer bailout as part of Obama’s fraud-infested Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Allocation of the disastrous program’s $700 billion has been largely swayed by lobbyists, despite the president’s promises to restrict them from influencing the disbursement of tax dollars in this case. Goldman Sachs got a $10 billion infusion.

Not surprisingly, Kagan, her supporters and even the Justice Department assure that she was not involved in any investment decisions at Goldman Sachs. The Solicitor General was merely a member of the firms’ “advisory panel” that met once a year to discuss public policy issues.

Kagan is one of many top Obama Administration officials with close ties to Goldman Sachs. The president has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations from the financial giant and so has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s tight with ex-Goldman chief Robert Rubin, a member of her husband’s White House staff.

Obama’s current Chief of Staff, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, Deputy National Security Advisor, Director of the Congressional Budget Office and chief economic advisor are among the many with close ties to Goldman Sachs. A news website, which lists Goldman-tied Obama Administration power players, claims it’s become the Goldman Sachs administration.


Elena Kagan IS a Socialist. Just like the Rest Of This Evil Regime.

May 14, 2010 1 comment

ARE YOU EVEN SURPRISED ANYMORE?

RedState.com uncovered Kagan’s college thesis that essentially exposes her as an all out radical socialist.

Here is a quote to get you started:

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than pf socialism’s greatness. conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?”

The thesis is very telling and quite profound. As it turns out, according to Kagan’s thesis, she’s a part of a larger movement to identify failures of socialist movements of the past, in order to correct mistakes for future efforts.

%d bloggers like this: