Posts Tagged ‘big government’

Ultra-liberal senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)? More like big government commies…

July 31, 2012
Anti-gun Lautenberg trying to
put amendment on Cybersecurity Bill
Washington is, to say the least, not a town known for its high moral standards.
 
But there is, perhaps, no one with more expertise in milking shameless advantage out of national tragedy than ultra-liberal senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
 
So it can hardly be a surprise that, this week, these anti-gun Senators intend to offer an amendment to the cybersecurity bill which would prohibit the manufacture of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds.
 
They appear oblivious to the fact that their “gun ban” mentality created a deadly situation in Aurora, Colorado, where there was a room with a number of trained military marksmen — and none of them were allowed to have a gun.
 
Any one of those individuals could have made a big difference.  Heck, does anyone doubt there would have been a different outcome if George Zimmerman had been in the theater?
 
Incidentally, lest anyone think that banning magazines is the be-all-and-end-all for Lautenberg, he has already announced that he intends to follow up his magazine ban with legislation to monitor and limit your purchases of ammunition.
 
Explains the clueless Lautenberg:  “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck ….”
 
So this Einstein believes you don’t need 100 rounds of ammunition?  Who decided that our Bill of Rights should be a “Bill of Needs”? 
 
It’s time to nip this nasty piece of work in the bud and ensure that his efforts to exploit innocent victims for political gain do not go any further.
ACTIONClick here to contact your Senators.  Demand that they vote against the Lautenberg-Schumer magazine-ban amendment to the cybersecurity bill.

Fools one and all.

 

Deadline Nears On BATFE Shotgun Ban Comments:

April 23, 2011

As we reported on and since Jan. 28, May 1 is the deadline for public comments concerning a shotgun importation ban that has been proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. A working group within the BATFE has recommended that any shotgun (semi-automatic, pump-action or any other) that has any one of 10 specific features should be banned from importation, on the grounds that such shotguns are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for a readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”

SOURCE

The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or sporting…

Dead Border Patrol Agent Scandle gets even worse

April 22, 2011

Two updates have developed in the continually-breaking story of scandal and corruption at the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives revolving around the U.S. guns-to-Mexico scheme that deliberately placed American firearms in the hands of drug cartels.

The Department of Justice has refused, yet again, to provide Senator Charles Grassley with the documents he has demanded concerning the illegal plot. Grassley took to the Senate floor last week to blast the Obama Administration and Eric Holder for their stonewalling on the issue and their continued failure to provide to Congress the materials necessary for an investigation.

Regarding that refusal, National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has filed a legal appeal challenging the DOJ-ATF.

A slideshow of the appeal can be found here.

Meanwhile, a second development indicates the origins of the Project Gunwalker scandal (also known as Operation Fast and Furious, and Project Gunrunner). Mike Vanderboegh has discovered documentation that gives the reader a look at the mindset, the motives, and the foundation of what led to the illegal operation.

The Government Accountability Office produced a report in 2009 that highlighted the problem with gun trafficking to Mexico and the lack of a coherent policy to address it. From there, things got out of control when addressing the problem became a central focus of The Department of Homeland Security, the ATF, and its umbrella bureau, the Department of Justice.

Vanderboegh explains:

Let me tell you what this was, and where it came from, based on a conversation I had with a long-time, well-informed veteran of American government intelligence operations the other day.

“Do you think,” he asked me, “that this happened accidentally in a vacuum?” Meaning that one day “Gunwalker Bill” Newell, Phoenix SAC, just got a wild hair and decided to invent his own foreign policy. “Things like this happen because of meetings. People sit in meetings and they decide what they want to happen. And then they take decisions, make policy and implement that policy to achieve those ends.” He added, “That’s why State is so nervous. They signed off on this. In a meeting.”

Gunrunner, I pointed out to him, predated the Obama administration. “Yes, but ‘walking guns’ didn’t.” I told him it seemed to me that given the dates on the documents that the meetings crafting this policy must have taken place sometime in mid-2009. “And who took power in January, 2009?” he replied.

He continued, summing up this way. The gun issue was known to be radioactive. Every time the Democrats embraced it they got killed at the polls the next election cycle. What was needed, in Rahm Emanuel’s parlance, was a good crisis to exploit, something to change the paradigm. The gun confiscationists had always danced in the blood (my term, not his) of every mass shooting and gotten nowhere, to their chagrin and frustration. What was needed was a game changer. Something that fit the meme of “we’ve got to tighten up on American gunowners, gun stores and gun shows because they are feeding the slaughter.” Mexico was perfect. The ATF controlled the reporting of the statistics, the headlines were lurid and if the rest of us gunnies knew that you don’t get automatic weapons, hand grenades and RPGs from gun shows and gun stores, most of the American people were too ignorant of the issue to care about the distinction. But the fact was, as the IG report and other sources concluded, the amount of weapons from those legitimate American sources did not meet the allegation. More importantly the statistics didn’t meet the policy need. So, how to “fix” that? Project Gunwalker. If there weren’t enough semi-auto “assault rifles” in Mexico, the ATF could fix that. And the murders would follow, justifying the policy change of cracking down on “assault rifles,” gun shows and the like.

“So,” I said, “you’re saying that this was a deliberate attempt by policymakers at the highest levels of the Obama administration to subvert the Second Amendment and further diminish the free exercise of firearm rights of honest citizens?”

“You got it. Sucks, huh?” He laughed bitterly.

In short, DOJ, ATF, and DHS needed an issue that would allow them to make a strong case to the American public that U.S. guns laws must be tightened significantly in order to address the problem of gun trafficking to Mexico. And they found that issue in Project Gunwalker. If the agencies mentioned above could somehow prove statistically that drug cartel firearms were coming primarily from the U.S., then they could insist on more gun control.

Things only went downhill from there.

Vanderboegh continues,

In the process of updating and expanding a previous timeline of the Gunwalker scandal, the question hit me once more, where did this come from? Something changed when the Obama administration took over, something that involved a lot of inter-agency coordination. And then it hit me, one other thing my spook friend told me that I hadn‘t reported, that up until now I‘d totally forgot. “Don’t worry about ‘following the money’ on this one,” he said, “follow the power — follow the paper, because paper is how power is transmitted in the federal government.” So I went and I looked and I found this, the real Rosetta Stone of this scandal, hiding in plain sight. Read it and I think you‘ll agree that whatever happened at ground level in the Gunwalker Scandal, it had its roots in this Obama change of policy.

One more thing. I think you, like me, will find confirmation of what I said earlier this month about EPIC — El Paso Intelligence Center: What did EPIC know about Project Gunwalker and when did they know it? Likely answer: Everything and early. The strong and extensive inter-agency coordination described in the document below makes it certain that EPIC, ICE, CBP, DHS and other agencies HAD to be cognizant at some command level of what was happening with the Gunwalker fiasco.

Documentation concerning these assertions can be found here and here.

Within the latter report, issued by the federal government, we find tale-tell statements such as these:

Enhance programs at EPIC targeting illegal weapons smuggling/trafficking. ATF’s Project Gunrunner utilizes the EPIC Gun Desk as the focal point for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of investigative leads derived from Federal, State, local, and international law enforcement agencies.

And these:

Rapidly share weapons seizure information among U.S. law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement organizations have a variety of intelligence collection capabilities and programs which are either directly or indirectly related to information on illicit weapons smuggling/trafficking. Such resources must be utilized in a coordinated and cohesive manner. The ICE Border Violence Intelligence Cell and ATF Gun Desk located at EPIC each utilize separate systems to collect and maintain information relating

to weapons seizures, such as TECS, ATF’s OnLine Lead, the National Tracing Center, Violent Crime Analysis Branch, and the U.S. Bomb Data Center. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice will address options for establishing methods to rapidly share information derived from Federal, State, and local and Government of Mexico illicit weapons seizures.

By putting 2 and 2 together it is not difficult to see the game plan. Implement Operation Gunrunner, i.e., send U.S. guns to Mexico, and then rabidly share weapons seizure information among U.S. law enforcement agencies, information that would, of course, show that U.S. guns are arming the Mexican drug cartels.

Much more about this is provided at Vanderboegh’s site.  Read it all.

SOURCE
This was re-posted, in full using a long standing agreement. Please visit the source website for more articles.
So much for the ninety percent myth, as well as any sort of trust in the higher levels of this epic failure administration…

S. 436..? Yet another abomination from the usual suspects…

April 18, 2011

Gads… Go on the road for a few months. Alright, more than a few, and what are the treasonous types up too?

You guessed it; No good! At least if you are any sort of decent American. Read on…

This is an effort to embody Barack Obama’s Arizona newspaper article into legislation — and to milk political advantage from the tragedy in Tucson. It would:

  • withhold federal crime-fighting funds from states which fail to provide a sufficient number of names to the FBI’s Instantcheck system (with penalties possible for states that fall as little as 10% short of providing all names [sec. 101];
  • require federal agencies to turn over the names of all prohibited persons (which would presumably include the names of all persons admitting to having smoked as little as one marijuana cigarette) [sec. 102];
  • redefine “adjudicated as a mental defective” (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)) to impose a gun ban in any case in which a “lawful authority” (including, presumably, a school or a Medicare-funded doctor) prescribes counseling or medication in response to “subnormal intelligence, mental illness, or incompetency” [sec. 103];
  • require colleges to set up a procedure for investigating students who are acting strange and “reporting” them [sec. 103]; -allow a person to be put on the FBI’s drug abuser list if, among other things, he admitted to “possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the last five years” (thereby, humorously, removing current law’s theoretical gun ban for large numbers of unadmitted pot smokers) [sec.104];
  • ban all private person-to-person sales of firearms, requiring that all sales go through federal firearms licensees or the police, who would conduct a background check [Title II].

See All Firearms Legislation In The 112th Congress

This is yet another abomination being thrust upon the people of the United (apparently not so.) States of America.

Back a few, yes only a few years ago, a fellow called TexasFred started talking about a thing. It was called, or more properly became called, the Taxed Enough Already movement. The TEA PARTY. The idea being local control, and accountability of the various politicians. That is still the overriding mission of real TEA PARTY people. Keep it local, keep it hot, and hold those that we elect to their words and promises. All these “National” TEA Party types are forgetting the mission. The mission folks, is local needs, desires, and accountability. We, the local people, have a duty as well as responsibility to see that our wants, needs, and desires are supported by those that we elect as our leaders.

Then the cards fall as they were dealt. Yes. That was a Libertarian view. However, the TEA Party is not Libertarian in a philosophical sense. It is made up of a vast selection of peoples. It crosses racial and ethnic boundaries, political, and regional facets. It does include peoples of many stripes; As it were. We are called AMERICAN’S. For a reason… We are all different, and we combine the strengths of our backgrounds while never forgetting our weaknesses. From there, we go on. Never have we been perfect. Yet I would submit; We AMERICANS have established the finest of nations that this world has yet to see. Anyone that thinks different is more than welcome to post about a better place.

We; Americans, need to guard our liberty and freedom. Every day, every minute, from those that would steal our birthright. That being Liberty and Freedom. Think about it people!

Last; Please say a prayer for those folks plying Elk Mountain and Bordeaux Road. Truck drivers die every hour because states (corruption) refuse to close roads, driver managers preach safety yet send their charges into the gates of hell. All so that you can have your broccoli…

May God bless each and everyone; Keep your powder dry.


California: Stuck on stupid!

November 24, 2010

Thank God that I got out of there in 1978. It was bad enough back then…

“In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits. … This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests. In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy — backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels — virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.” –columnist Joel Kotkin

And then these words of wisdom;

“In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes — and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue — and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes. How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise. High tax rates, which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration. The New York Times reported in 2006: ‘An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.’ Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder — and in the rhetoric of the demagogues. If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that. And spare us so-called ‘deficit reduction commissions.'” –columnist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

Political Correctness, and getting laid; Talk about Big Brother / Sister!

October 27, 2010

What follows, is well? Beyond stupid in my not so humble opinion…

I am a Conservative Libertarian, hence the name of this blog. What follows, is either some really funny tounge in cheek. Or some serious Big Government Mysandry / Misogyny intrusion on personal liberty…

Seeking Promiscuous Heathen Female Roommate


Dear Fair Housing Center of West Michigan,

I am writing to express my concern over a recent civil rights complaint that has been filed against a woman who posted an advertisement at her church last July. Apparently, you were upset that she was seeking a Christian roommate. I came to that conclusion after reading the following in the complaint you recently filed against her: “(The ad) expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.”

As someone who is preparing to move to Grand Rapids, I am concerned about your complaint. I’m not concerned about the Christian woman. I’m concerned about myself. Let me explain.

Because of recent financial hardships I have had to take a job in Michigan and, for the same reasons, I am going to have to seek a roommate. I want to live with a woman. Not just any woman but, preferably, a really sexually promiscuous one. In order to increase the chances that she’ll be promiscuous I am specifically demanding that she be a practitioner of Heathenism, just like me.

But now I have read a Fox News story that quotes your Executive Director Nancy Haynes as saying “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exemptions to that.” Director Haynes statement is incorrect because there is, in fact, an exemption for gender when there is a shared living space. I plan to take advantage of that by discriminating on the basis of gender. I’ll seek women only and, of course, demand that the woman I choose shares a bedroom with me throughout the duration of our relationship.

I am concerned that Director Haynes has said that, depending on the outcome of the case, the Christian woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and fair housing training to prevent it from happening again. I don’t want to face the same prospect.

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, recently told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. And he made no distinction between an owner-placed ad and one placed by a prospective occupant.

Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is representing the Christian woman free of charge. He says this case is simply “outrageous.” So I plan to call the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to see if they will defend my right to live with a promiscuous heathen woman. I know they would not represent me if I were seeking a Christian roommate. Thank Government Almighty they aren’t morally consistent!

Okay folks, I couldn’t remove the “sign up” Button… Here is the source

Greed, and Government

October 19, 2010

“Those who are always accusing people in the private sector of ‘greed’ almost never accuse government of greed, no matter what it does. Indeed, the question of whether the government is greedy almost never comes up, so most of us probably never think about it. … There are escheat laws, under which the government can seize the assets of someone who has died and whose heirs have not claimed those assets after some period of time. The theory is that there is no reason why banks should get that money. On the other hand, there is no reason why politicians should get it either, but the politicians write the laws. … Escheat laws are just one of the ways governments seize money. Income tax rates have been as high as 90 percent in the top brackets. Even after you have paid the taxes on your income and saved or invested part of what is left, the government comes back to take more of that same money, after you die, with estate taxes. Perhaps one of the most unconscionable acts of greed by government is confiscating people’s homes, in order to turn this property over to other people, who are expected to build things that will pay more taxes. … The biggest beneficiaries are the politicians who get a larger amount of tax money to spend in ways that will increase their prospects of getting re-elected. Seldom, if ever, are the people whose homes are destroyed, and whose lives are disrupted, among the affluent or rich. Urban renewal may go through the South Bronx, but not through Beverly Hills. And no one calls it greed.” –economist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

Government Nannyism

October 5, 2010

“The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have adopted a view of virtually unlimited government power that is clearly contrary to the Founders] vision of a constitutionally limited government. In their vision, government roams the countryside fixing problems — any problems. Having trouble paying your mortgage? Don’t worry, the federal government will help you. Your local school not doing a good job? The federal government will be there to help. Don’t have health insurance? The federal government will make you buy it. … The Constitution, with all its messy checks and balances and its attempt to limit government to only certain ‘enumerated powers,’ is little more than a nuisance. … It makes one wonder why members of Congress take that silly oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution’ when they are sworn into office. ‘Are you serious?’ responded a stunned and baffled Nancy Pelosi when asked about the constitutionality of the health-care bill. … Perhaps the American public is waking up to the dangers of government power and the need for true constitutional restraint.” –Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner

SOURCE

It’s back: Disclose Act returns

September 23, 2010

Anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) is giving voters yet another reason why he must be defeated in November.

Preparing for heavy losses in the general election, anti-gun Democrat leaders like Reid and Charles Schumer (D-NY) appear to be readying for a vote on the so-called DISCLOSE Act, possibly this week.

While Reid has not yet officially taken the necessary steps to move the bill, his communications director sent out this Tweet on Tuesday: “We’re debating DISCLOSE Act tomorrow [Wednesday] w/ vote Thursday.”

You may recall that the DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House in June, died in the Senate in July after an intense lobbying effort by Gun Owners of America and other groups.

The bill, sponsored by Schumer, puts severe and unconstitutional limits on GOA’s ability to hold individual congressmen accountable in the weeks leading up to an election.

Instead of protecting the most important type of speech protected by the First Amendment — political speech — this bill would force groups like GOA to “disclose” the names of donors in certain political advertisements.

Since Gun Owners of America is not willing to disclose its membership lists to the Federal Election Commission, we could be prohibited from running radio or TV ads exposing a federal candidate’s voting record within 60 days of a general election.

This is just another attempt by pathetic, anti-gun politicians to save their jobs before the political earthquake in November strikes.

And, as has been the case so often over the past two years, Reid, Schumer and Co. are using the rules of the Senate to bring the bill directly to the floor. There have been no committee hearings to debate the merits of the bill, thus the American people have no opportunity to see just how egregiously DISCLOSE violates the Constitution.

While the bill does contain a controversial provision to exempt the National Rifle Association, GOA remains adamantly opposed to it on constitutional grounds.

Please urge your Senators to protect ALL of the Bill of Rights. Remind them that your ability to protect the Second Amendment relies on the safeguards of the First Amendment.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose the DISCLOSE Act. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing Senator Schumer’s so-called DISCLOSE Act.

This bill was defeated once in the Senate, but now anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring it back to the floor for another vote.

The DISCLOSE Act is just another attempt by politicians to cling to their jobs by silencing groups like Gun Owners of America.

And, as has been the case so often over the past two years, Reid, Schumer and Co. are using the rules of the Senate to bring the bill directly to the floor. There have been no committee hearings to debate the merits of the bill, thus the American people have no opportunity to see just how the ironically named DISCLOSE Act violates the Constitution.

Gun Owners of America represents the views of hundreds of thousands of Second Amendment supporters. Any bill that squelched the free speech rights of groups like GOA is also an attack on my rights.

Please vote NO on Sen. Schumer’s DISCLOSE Act.

Sincerely,

The Senate will likely vote on the DISCLOSE Act again TODAY. That’s why we’re sending this message earlier than normal. It’s urgent that you act quickly.
Incumbents banded together in 2002 to make it effectively a crime, punishable by jail, for a non-profit group like DownsizeDC.org to broadcast issue ads during the final days of an election campaign.
The Supreme Court fixed this problem earlier this year, getting something right for a change. In the Citizens United case they restored the right of non-profit corporations like DownsizeDC.org, Inc., to broadcast issue ads during elections.
The name of the case fits. Non-wealthy CITIZENS are UNITED in organizations: They band together using their First Amendment rights of association and press to publish and broadcast their opinions. Bad laws have forced we citizens into a legal cul de sac, where WE NEED CORPORATIONS LIKE CITIZENS UNITED AND DOWNSIZE DC TO HELP US ACHIEVE OUR GOAL OF BEING HEARD. But . . .
In this year when most Americans want to fire Congress, the incumbent politicians are making a last ditch effort to protect incumbency — by chilling dissent. Here’s what’s at stake . . .
Because DownsizeDC.org is un-willing to expose its list of supporters (your name) to the Federal Election Commission we would be PROHIBITED from running ads exposing a candidate’s record.
We explain, in greater detail, how this law would affect the groups you love most at the web page opposing the anti-First Amendment DISCLOSE Act.
To create artificial demand for this terrible bill, numerous politicians, including the President, have lied about the Citizens United decision. It’s time to call them on it — literally.
First, send them a letter RIGHT NOW. Here’s what I wrote using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System:
There has been a massive disinformation campaign designed to push through this anti-First Amendment bill.
* Some Representatives and Senators have said that the Citizens United ruling overturned 100 years of law, when it fact it merely overturned a 20-year old decision. http://tinyurl.com/2f9c4qq
* Many of these same incumbent politicians claimed that now major corporations, like BP, would be able to buy our elections (one of your members even said bribery was now legal!).
* Which is richly ironic, because . . .

a) The DISCLOSE Act only restricts regular-sized non-profits while exempting behemoths like the NRA and AARP, and . . . http://tinyurl.com/2vxe23w
b) Major commercial corporations have always held tremendous sway over our government, and any pretense that they don’t insults my intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Face it: The DISCLOSE Act is about NOTHING MORE THAN CHILLING DISSENT.
And I’m in on the secret.
If you vote for this bill then it means you want to disenfranchise the little guy for the benfit of yourself and big special interests.
There’s a better alternative. As James Madison said Federalist No.10, the best way to counter the influence of tremendous wealth, and the concentrated benefits that big corporations seek, is to foster the freedom for many voices to join the political fray. That’s why the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law,” that even “abridges” (remotely infringes) on my rights of association and expression — NO LAW.
I emphatically urge you to work and vote for a filibuster, and failing that, to work as hard as you can to defeat the DISCLOSE Act.
END LETTER
Second, because the vote is occurring today, PLEASE ALSO CALL YOUR SENATORS ON THE PHONE. Their numbers are provided on the same page where you send your letter to Congress, if you’re logged-in to your account.
Remember to tell them you’re a constituent of theirs, and to be brief, polite, but forceful.
Please pass this message on to others, removing the information below my signature so no one accidentally unsubscribes you. Also, if you have a blog, please repost this information.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Elena Kagan: As more becomes known

May 12, 2010

Long before Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s April 9 announcement that he will retire this June, legal observers had already picked a front-runner for the seat Stevens has occupied for 34 years: former Harvard Law School dean and current US Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Kagan is seen as the politically wise choice for Democrats. Some legal and political observers say the moderate credentials that earned her quick congressional approval in 2009 for solicitor general — the government’s head lawyer and spokesperson before the Supreme Court — would translate into a relatively smooth Supreme Court confirmation. Having already approved her as SG, it would be difficult for congressional Republicans to oppose Kagan’s nomination and paint her as “outside the mainstream.”

But this focus on short-term political calculation obscures the most significant consideration. On matters of executive authority — where the judicial branch has been a vital bulwark against post-9/11 “war on terror” civil-liberties violations — Kagan’s record indicates an ideological departure from Justice Stevens, who authored watershed detainee-rights opinions and organized the five-justice majorities that struck down other Bush administration power grabs.

To be sure, attempting to assess a judicial philosophy, much less a justice’s evolution once on the bench, is difficult (see David Souter). And Kagan’s tight-lipped nature regarding her personal legal philosophy, coupled with a scant paper trail, doesn’t help. But if her record — the few clues she provided as an academic, and in her tenure thus far as SG — is any indication, she’s more likely to side with the conservative bloc on matters of executive power and war-time presidential authority.