3 Jul

Is Kagan A Liar

                                       

Judge Roy Bean, The Law West of the Pecos

A solicitor general represents the presidency before the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan represented the Obama Administration as Solicitor General. She has maintained that she would decline to participate in deliberations that she worked on while she was the Solicitor General, but refuses to indicate whether that included challenges to the Obama Health Care Law.

Constitutional challenges to the Health Care Law were raised for several months preceding President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Multiple states filed suit to stop the the Obama Health Care Plan. Ms Kagan insists she did not participate in conferring with the White House on the health care bill.

Senator Jeff Sessions the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, expressed a logical reaction to the inevitable sequence of events:

“It is all but inconceivable that, when the states challenged the new health care law in March 2010, Ms. Kagan did not participate as counsel or adviser to the administration on the matter, or express her opinion on the case’s merits at that time,”

Mr Sessions and six other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee wrote a letter, asking Ms Kagan detailed questions concerning her involvement in discussions concerning the law. During her confirmation hearings, Ms Kagan stated that she was asked briefly about the issue, but insisted that she had not expressed an opinion on the legislation or the challenges; a rather odd statement, since it is precisely her job description to represent and advise the White House on the viability of such legislation in respect to the Constitution and the legal challenges.

Recently released Justice Department Documents are in contradiction to her confirmation testimony: forty-nine Republican Congressional House members have beseeched the House Judiciary Committee to “promptly investigate” Supreme Curt Justice Elena Kagan’s role in preparing a defense for Obama’s health care law while she was Solicitor General.

Forty-nine house Republicans wrote a letter last Tuesday to committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas and the committee’s ranking Democrat, John Conyers Jr., from Michigan, it read that recently released Justice Department documents have placed Kagan’s testimony in doubt:

contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, actively participated with her Obama administration colleagues in formulating a defense

The House members maintain that the documents raise “serious questions” concerning Kagan’s ability to “exercise objectivity” in any and every case involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that comes before the Supreme Court. The question of honesty and integrity should also be addressed, but Americans have no faith in the moral integrity or the honesty of the Obama White House and the Holder Justice Department.

Rep. John Fleming, Louisiana Republican:

“Determining the extent of Justice Kagan’s involvement is imperative for Americans to have confidence in the impartiality of the Supreme Court,” said Mr. Fleming, a doctor. “Americans have a legitimate right to know the truth.

“If Obamacare is such a great law, like President Obama claims, then why are there dozens of lawsuits pending in the courts against it?” he said. “The reason is the law is fundamentally unconstitutional, and it is just a matter of time before it begins to unravel.”

If the Holder/Obama Justice Department is used as an example, we may assume that honesty and objectivity in the court is no longer considered to be a fundamental part of the process and that Kagan may have been selected solely on her opinions regarding the Obama Health Care issue and the American public should prepare to be railroaded once again by Chicago Machine tactics. What conclusions are Americans expected to draw if a Supreme Court Justice lies during confirmation testimony.

In the letter, the lawmakers said the law establishes “unambiguous conditions on which federal judges must recuse themselves from proceedings in which their impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” They said that under the law, a justice should recuse in cases where they “served in government employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

“Even from the limited number of DOJ emails released to date through the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, it is evident that Justice Kagan was involved in PPACA defense activities to a degree that warrants her disqualification from related proceedings as specified” by the law, the letter said.

Most of the released documents concerning Kagan’s involvement in Obama’s health care legislation were obtained and released in May by Judicial Watch, through a Freedom of Information Lawsuit.

Now the Justice Department is trying to backpedal and is in damage control mode. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler:

“During her tenure, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan did not play any substantive role in litigation challenging health care reform legislation, and the documents that were released reflect that.”

It is interesting that so many congressional members disagree. Kagan was sworn in to the Supreme Court on August 7, 2010. Because of her role as Solicitor General, she has recused herself from 25 of 51 cases the court accepted through December. Ms Kagan maintained that she would recuse herself on any cases brought to the Supreme Court on a case by case basis. She also maintained in written responses that she had no involvement in developing the government’s legal responses to to the health care law and was never asked her views; however, if as the documents portray that she lied, the American public will rightly assume she was lying concerning her own integrity in judging whether it is suitable for her to hear the challenges to the president’s health care Constitutionality.

Is this the sentence that will be the basis for Kagan’s impeachment:

“I attended at least one meeting where the existence of the litigation was briefly mentioned, but none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred,”

Forty-nine house members are more than a little concerned that the “Fix” is on. Senate Republicans sent a series of questions on whether she had been asked her opinion, offered her opinion read or reviewed filings of the case, approved a document. The Obama Administration and the Holder Justice Department have destroyed any faith in the honesty of those two branches of government. The Kagan affair looks like there will be further reasons to distrust the Obama White House and now the integrity of the Supreme Court. If these documents portray Kagan as a liar, and there appears as if that might be the case, the only way to resolve this issue will be to impeach her. For there was only one reason not to be honest about the issue and that was to stack the court in favor of ruling for the Obama White House on the health care issue.

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in American Exceptionalism, Baracks Broken Promises, Congress, Constitution, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Dem Congress Reckoning, Dem eats Dem, Democrats Deserting Obama, Health Care, MSM Bias, Nanny Government, ObamaCare Results, Obamanomics, Socialism, Socialized Health Care and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, July 3rd, 2011 at 2:05 pm
| 835 views

26 Responses to Is Kagan A Liar

  1. dee says: 1

    Maybe we’ll get lucky and she’ll only vote “present”.

    ReplyReply
  2. mathman says: 2

    Lied? Lied?
    Since when can it be asked with a straight face if a Democrat lied?
    Democrats must lie to their constituents; since their points of view are at variance with the people they purportedly represent, lying is the only option.
    General Kagan was chosen precisely because she would accurately represent the Obama position on the health care legislation. That much, at least, is obvious from a) her prior position in the Administration; b) the rapid rise in questions about extending the Commerce Clause so broadly; c) doubts that the current court would be willing to back Obama on whatever he wanted.
    So of course she lied. What do you expect? Honesty? Honesty does not apply to Democrats.
    Just look at the Main-Stream Media treatment of Bush II compared to Obama. Bush is called Bushitler, and nothing happens. Obama is called a dick, and the journalist is suspended.
    The fix is in. Socialism is to be rammed down our throats, by military force if necessary, because it is for our own good.
    Marx says so.
    And Marx is God.

    ReplyReply
  3. Scott in Oklahoma says: 3

    This comes as no surprise. Everyone connected to Obama has a problem with the truth. They all lie, even when telling the truth would be the easiest and best route to take. Pathological liars seem most qualified to serve in this administration.

    I am not optimistic about the future of our country…

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 4

    Of course there are some who believe that most of the present-day republican sales pitch is a lie, designed to bamboozle traditional conservatives into supporting the agenda of economic elitists.

    Should we expect Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because his wife received a $150,000 salary as CEO of a Tea Party organization, and another $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying group she founded? It’s also been recently disclosed that she previously earned hundreds of thousands working for the Heritage Foundation.

    There surely no partisan bias in that particular household.

    ReplyReply
  5. Scott in Oklahoma says: 5

    There’s a pretty big difference between a person being directly involved in something and a spouse being involved. In my mind, it isn’t the involvement that’s the big problem, it’s the deception. Like Anthony Wiener recently, or Bill Clinton in the past, the problem is the lies. Obama’s real guilty of deception, hell, he can’t tell the truth about much of anything. I will give him credit for one truthfull statement… he did say he was going to fundementally change this country; he has gone pretty far towards meeting that goal.

    Do I trust the Republicans? Nope. A complete flush and revamp of Washington D.C. appears to be in order, although I don’t imagine we’ll ever see that.

    ReplyReply
  6. disenchanted says: 6

    Her testimony was integral to her being confirmed. She lied. She should be taken out of office, which I believe only by impeachment can she be removed.

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 7

    @Greg, what kind of red herring is that bit of “non sequitur” nonsense?

    Virginia Thomas is not a sitting justice. Kagan is. She has never been married, so I’m quite sure your brain couldn’t have wandered off to thoughts of a “Mr. Kagan”, or “signifcant other”.

    Lying in the confirmation hearings about her involvement should disqualify an already underqualified woman for SCOTUS. It’s the height of hypocrisy to demonstrate such disrespect for an oath, sworn before a Congressional hearing, and then expect to serve on the High Court.

    ReplyReply
  8. Skookum says: 8

    This is being treated as if it is a clerical error by the media or a minor inconvenience that only needs a few more lies and it will blow away. To me, unless the documentation doesn’t exist, it is perjury. Since Obama knew perjury was being committed and only stood to gain with his silence, he is involved. This is a breach of the trust of the American people and of the offices involved. If the documentation exists, Kagan should be impeached and Obama’s participation requires an impeachment investigation; especially since he stood to have a better chance of defeating challenges to Obamacare if he already knew how one justice was going to argue. His silence reflects a complicit agreement with Kagan’s perjury, assuming she indeed committed perjury.

    Childish defenses are not worthy of a response. Perjury is lying under oath and if we no longer respect the laws regarding perjury, at the highest levels of the court, the entire legal system is broken. Obama cannot pick and choose among the laws regarding perjury, which laws he is going to enforce; to the contrary, it is time for the American people to restore integrity and honesty to the courts and to the government.

    ReplyReply
  9. John Cooper says: 9

    Skookum writes: “…the entire legal system is broken.” Seems that way, doesn’t it. One set of laws for the ruling class, and another for the serfs.

    ReplyReply
  10. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 10

    These are matters of legaleze which always make good fodder for whomever wants to use it for their purposes. Why not wait and let the law make any determinations, instead of politicians. After all, we’re supposed to be a nation of laws–but writings like this one seem more like vigilantism.

    ReplyReply
  11. Scott in Oklahoma says: 11

    Liberal1, the problem is our government is not interested in enforcing the law anymore, at least not on “The Ruling Class”. The President has the attitude that he can do anything he wants, regardless of the wishes of the people, the law or Congress for that matter. The people that he appoints are of the same opinion, they are the protected class. He demonstrated that during his campaign, but his supporters ignored it (campaign finance laws and accountability), he demostrated it again with his appointments of “czars” and recess appointments to facilitate circumventing legislation via ruling by regulation.

    Yes, we are supposed to be a nation of laws, but when the ones tasked with the enforcement of these laws don’t follow or enforce our country’s laws, do you have a suggestion of what we are to do? And don’t say “wait for the election”, I am not all that optimistic that we’re going to see a legitimate election in 2012. Chavez was elected once, look where they are now. Is that the direction you desire?

    ReplyReply
  12. Skookum says: 12

    Perjury is perjury and is considered a felony. Perjury is why Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred. It was not for having sex with a fat girl as Liberals and he like to pretend.

    The politicians are pursuing this matter very carefully and presumably, if Kagan perjured herself, they will impeach her and hopefully her accomplice. Would they be creating all this commotion without damning evidence, not likely, but where are all the indignant Libs standing up with sanctimonious outrange and hyperventilation, protesting Kagan’s innocence. What an opportunity for drama and finger pointing.

    None have stood to defend their president’s choice; no, they don’t want to be made to look like a fool and be cast as one of Obama’s lackeys, just to end up more likely to be thrown out with the garbage in 2012. A low profile is their key to survival. They only want to distance themselves from this wreck of a president and his disastrous presidency.

    Resisting the impeachment proceeding may well mean signing your own political death warrant in the current political atmosphere.

    Wanting and expecting the government machinery to function as it is supposed to, without political prejudice is hardly vigilantism. Using the MSM as a propaganda bureau that exists only to paint the president and his cronies in a favorable and glowing light requires articles like this and is the reason there will be several hundred to several thousand read it and draw their own conclusions.

    Obama would love to control us and talk radio with Chavez and Stalin type authority, but it is the Constitution that allows us to theorize, editorialize, and write these articles. The same Constitution that Obama feels he so desperately needs to change to have a more even redistribution of wealth and more control over people like the FA crowd.

    ReplyReply
  13. jmac says: 13

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): Yeah, Right. Tell me again about Holder and the afros voting intimidation in Philadelphia.

    ReplyReply
  14. johngalt says: 14

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    After all, we’re supposed to be a nation of laws

    It is exactly because of this that Kagan is being investigated.

    Liberal/progressives have long given up the idea that we are a nation of laws.

    Article VI of the Constitution;

    This Constitution , and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    What this means is that the Constitution is the supreme law, from which, all other laws of the government are sprung from. And that in being the supreme law, all other laws must abide by the Constitution itself and be able to reconcile themselves with the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution.

    Liberal/progressives care little about this, as laws continue to be extended to the states, and the people, which directly defy those limitations placed upon their powers. In so doing, they veer away from the idea that we are a ‘nation of laws’ and wander into the realm of ‘rule by the whims of man’.

    ReplyReply
  15. Ivan says: 15

    She has maintained that she would decline to participate in deliberations that she worked on while she was the Solicitor General, but refuses to indicate whether that included challenges to the Obama Health Care Law.

    Surprise! A liberal lied while giving testimony to the Senate!

    And this is news?

    ReplyReply
  16. Ivan says: 16

    The politicians are pursuing this matter very carefully and presumably, if Kagan perjured herself, they will impeach her and hopefully her accomplice. Would they be creating all this commotion without damning evidence, not likely, but where are all the indignant Libs standing up with sanctimonious outrange and hyperventilation, protesting Kagan’s innocence. What an opportunity for drama and finger pointing.

    Care to wager some money on this?

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 17

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): These are matters of legaleze which always make good fodder for whomever wants to use it for their purposes.

    Criminy, lib no objective… do you even read about issues and events before you type?

    Lying under oath when attempting to be confirmed for a job on the High Court is far beyond “good fodder”, and unquestionably illegal activity. It warrants not only a reversal of her confirmation, but penalties for the perjury.

    Why not wait and let the law make any determinations, instead of politicians. After all, we’re supposed to be a nation of laws–but writings like this one seem more like vigilantism.

    Well ain’t that interesting…. because it’s politicians who are doing the investigation… not the AG office. Of course, they don’t want to uphold any law, or prosecute known offenders (i.e. Black Panthers, etal)

    Regardless of your blind party devotion, having a perjurer hold a life time appointment on the highest court in the land should be of concern. If you have none, you are clearly out of your depths for recognizing the repercussions.

    ReplyReply
  18. MataHarley says: 18

    @Skookum: The politicians are pursuing this matter very carefully and presumably, if Kagan perjured herself, they will impeach her and hopefully her accomplice.

    The problem with this, Skook, is that it’s wishful thinking. First of all the investigation is being tasked to the House Judiciary Committee. And while they’re at it, they ought to snoop into the AG”s culpable aiding and abetting as well.

    However SCOTUS confirmation is the authority of the Senate, not the House. And I am unaware of any power they have to reverse a Senate confirmation.

    ReplyReply
  19. Greg says: 19

    @MataHarley, #7:

    Lying in the confirmation hearings about her involvement should disqualify an already underqualified woman for SCOTUS.

    You all act as though it has been demonstrated that she did lie. It has NOT been.

    What we have are accusations, and a lot of accusers with a transparently obvious political motivation for making them.

    ReplyReply
  20. Skookum says: 20

    Mata, the Senate will probably be under a Republican majority in 2012. Couldn’t Kagan be impeached at that time or has the Obama pulled another fast one on the Republic. Will we forced to sit and watch her rule on her own defense motions that are brought by the Obama Administration to defend against state challenges; while knowing she perjured herself already in reference to the Obama Care case. We are about to allow Obama and Kagan to make a mockery of our judicial system and the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  21. Corn Trader says: 21

    What a load of BS. Lying to the Senate while under oath is a felony. Clinton was impeached for the same reason. This is not legaleze, it is one of the fundamentals underpinning our system of jurisprudence. If one can lie with impunity while under oath, there is no longer any justice of any kind in this country. Even more egregious in this instance is that she was a nominee for the Supreme Court.

    ReplyReply
  22. mos 8541 says: 22

    She is incompetent to sit on any bench. She lies through her teeth at the hearings and she knew it. Her confinement was a straight party-line vote. What did you expect from garbage…low class piece of illiterate trash who calls herself a lawyer…..but than anyone can get through law school and pass the bar..depending on how much money one has…Smile America..most lawyers in the country are unemployable as attorneys…much less her…trash….

    ReplyReply
  23. MataHarley says: 23

    @Greg: You all act as though it has been demonstrated that she did lie. It has NOT been.

    What we have are accusations, and a lot of accusers with a transparently obvious political motivation for making them.

    Wishful thinking, Greg. What we have are email documents, released by the DOJ, that already directly conflict with Kagan’s testimony under oath about her involvement.

    That’s not an accusation… that’s a smoking gun of guilt. All that’s left to be determined is the depth of the guilt. But fear not… she’ll only get a slap on the wrist at best.

    @Skookum: Mata, the Senate will probably be under a Republican majority in 2012. Couldn’t Kagan be impeached at that time or has the Obama pulled another fast one on the Republic.

    The two part process of impeachment, trial and removal of a sitting justice first begins in the House, Skook. But they cannot remove her.

    They present articles of impeachment to the chamber (which need to be the same offenses that would impeach any other government official… and we know perjury is one), and a simple majority House vote can trigger a trial that is conducted by the Senate. If it’s a POTUS (i.e. Clinton), it’s presided over by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Any other official and it’s presided over by a committe of Senators… the Impeachment Trial Committee. A committee of “Managers” from the House act as the prosecutors.

    At the conclusion of the Senate trial, it takes 2/3rds vote to get a conviction from the Senate. I doubt that the GOP will pick up a supermajority of 67 in 2012.

    Only Samuel Chase – one of the Declaration’s original signers – has been impeached and tried as a sitting High Court justice. The Senate acquitted him of all eight charges, and Chase continued on in SCOTUS until his death. In history, the House has voted only 14 times to impeach lower level justices. Seven were found guilty and removed from office. Four were acquitted, and the other three resigned before a final Senate vote/ruling.

    Make that bet with Ivan, and you’ll be paying out big time. Your best hope is that it goes to trial, and Kagan simply throws her hands up in the air, and dry cleans her robe for return voluntarily.

    Obama and ilk will not be the first to make a mockery of our judicial system. That’s been going on for some time now… before the Zero ever got to town, and Kagan was even a glint in the community organizer in chief’s eyes. The justices, at all levels, themselves, have done a great job of that.

    ReplyReply
  24. Skookum says: 24

    Thanks for the inside story Mata. It’s true that Kagan is unlikely to be impeached; however, that is no reason to let the issue be swept away by a complicit media. Perjury is a felony and if it is obvious that she perjured herself, I will make the evidence known until everyone who can read will know the story or at least make the effort. It will cost Obama and his Democrats votes; presuming some Democrats actually care about the country and are not mindless ideologues.

    ReplyReply
  25. Greg says: 25

    @MataHarley, #23:

    That’s not an accusation… that’s a smoking gun of guilt.

    Sure it is.

    What’s there that suggests Kagan herself participated in any legal defense advice and strategy sessions? It reads to me as if her involvement was entirely along the lines of designating which individuals should be participating.

    A major effort will be no doubt be mounted to try to convince the public that the face of Jesus has been proven to truly be there on the burned torilla. I don’t see it yet. Maybe convincing evidence for the assertion will yet surface.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 26

    Kagan could very well be impeached. She is just unlikely to be convicted of the articles of impeachment in the Senate, Skook. Clinton was impeached… he was also acquitted. Think of “impeachment” as a grand jury who decides if there is enough evidence for a trial. The trial and it’s outcome are a different story.

    @Greg: What’s there that suggests Kagan herself participated in any legal defense advice and strategy sessions?

    You’re moving goalposts, Greg. That’s like suggesting if a burglar didn’t commit murder, he’s not really a burglar or a felon. The question is, do the emails cast significant doubt on her testimony, claiming she was far more than an arms length away. The answer is “yes”.

    The emails are direct evidence that the testimony she gave about her involvement was watered down fabrications in order to get a job that lasts a lifetime. As I said, the guilt is established. The only thing left is the depth of the guilt.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site