Kagan Contradicted In Confirmation Testimony …

By Herself

Documents have surfaced from the Clinton library which directly contradict testimony given by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  To add insult to perjury, it was Kagan herself which authored the contradicting memo.

Clinton Library documents released after Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court reveal that ACOG sent the Clinton White House a draft of its “Statement on Intact Dilatation and Extraction” in December 1996.

A memo written by Kagan, who was working as Associate White House Counsel at the time, stated that it would be a “disaster” if the ACOG draft were released because it said a panel convened by ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

Yet -

Kagan told Sen. Hatch, “there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of physicians, to get it to change its medical views on the question.”

We all know, but can’t prove, that Kagan lied regarding the 2nd Amendment.  This little tidbit double downs Kagan’s veracity and provides ample evidence as to her unfitness to sit on ANY court.

Sphere: Related Content

Supreme Court Police Ban Praying on Courthouse Steps

What happened to the First Amendment?

Nathan Kellum, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said on May 5 of this year Mrs. Rigo and her class from Wickenburg Christian Academy in Wickenburg, Ariz., visited the Supreme Court for an educational tour. While standing on the Oval Plaza of the Court steps, the group began to pray quietly. Despite having prayed on Court grounds without incident during a previous trip, a Supreme Court police officer interrupted the prayer, informed the group they could not pray in that location, and guided them toward the street.

Sphere: Related Content

Does Paul Wilber Have A Conflict?

Paul Wilber is Salisbury’s city attorney.  He is also an attorney in private practice.  Therefore, it is logical that a conflict may arise from time to time between one client (the city of Salisbury) and another client.  I wouldn’t think that this would be a particular problem – provided that Wilber discloses such a conflict to all parties (and the public) as soon as that conflict comes to Wilber’s attention.

Next Monday the Salisbury City Council is expected to consider a request for a special zoning exception for a property at 505 Collins Avenue.  This property, which was permitted as a single family residence, now claims (or I should say, the owner claims) to be a “Veterans’ Home”.  Translation – the owner wishes to put a boarding house in a district zoned for single family residential properties.  OK, this kind of stuff happens all of the time.  What’s the problem?

Well, it seems that at least one of the parties involved, a Mr. Jerry Black, happens to be a client of none other than Paul Wilber.  That’s right!  The same Paul Wilber who currently serves as the Salisbury City Attorney.  Mr. Wilber serves as the registered agent for the corporation operated by Mr. Black.

So far, Mr. Black has appeared before the city planning commission.  The matter has been discussed in council work session.  The matter is due to be considered in a council legislative session in four days.  YET, Mr. Wilber has not bothered to inform the planning commission, the city council, or the public that he has an attorney / client relationship with Mr. Black.  I have no idea whether he has informed Mr. Black about both relationships, although I’m confident he is aware of the situation (he is using another law firm in this matter).

This isn’t the first time that there have been apparent conflicts between Wilber’s duties as city attorney and his private law practice.  About 2 1/2 years ago, Wilber’s firm represented a party in a dispute with the developers of the Old Mall project.  Given the city’s TIF financing of the project, one would argue that this may cause a problem.

To be fair to Wilber, I have neither heard of any actions by Wilber that were not in the city’s best interest in this matter, nor do I have any evidence of double dealing by Wilber.  However, that isn’t really the point.  The Salisbury City Council needs to demand that Wilber answer some questions IN PUBLIC:

1. What is your relationship with Mr. Black?  Is it ongoing?
2. Is Mr. Black aware of your relationship with the city and has he waived any potential conflict?
3. Why didn’t Wilber disclose his relationship with Mr. Black prior to any involvement on his part on behalf of the city of Salisbury?
4. When, exactly, was Mr. Wilber planning on disclosing his relationship with Mr. Black?

I’m quite sure that councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen have a few other questions.  Needless to say, the Barrie Comegys bloc doesn’t have much concern with little matters like this.  Shanie and Louise still want to give everyone raises and spend money on “worthy projects” like “The Bricks” and that brown field known as “Linens of the Week”.

Sphere: Related Content

Will GOP Halt Obama’s Next Supreme Court Nominee?

FOXNews reports that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyle (R-AZ) has fired a shot across the bow of the Obama administration regarding any possible replacement for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens:

He suggested the party did not want anyone so outspoken as Sonia Sotomayor, who was picked to replace former Justice David Souter last year, and said the decision on whether the GOP will filibuster will "all depend" on who the next nominee is.

"I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test," Kyl said. "And if he doesn’t nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don’t think — you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don’t think you’ll see them engage in a filibuster."

Stevens, the leader of the courts liberal wing, has stated that he will retire while Obama is still president.  Wait, I thought people like Stevens were “above politics”?

Sphere: Related Content

Should We Heckle Obama?

Harken back to the 2010 State of the Union Address:

President Obama attacked the Supreme Court with them sitting before him.  I wonder how Obama would feel if a GOP Congressional majority booed him at the 2011 State of the Union?  Yes I know, two wrongs don’t make a right.

This is was National Review had to say about Chief Justice John Robert’s remarks on the matter:

Chief Justice John Roberts, belatedly responding to the president’s State of the Union address, said it was “troubling” for the justices to be surrounded by hooting and hollering critics of their campaign-finance decision without being able to respond. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said it was the Court’s decision that was troubling. (Translation: Democrats think they have found a winning issue.) Roberts was right. Next year, the justices should stay home.

Chief Justice Roberts is right.  So is the NR, the Justices should stay home.

Sphere: Related Content

STOP THE MANDATE!

As noted in an earlier post, Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Virginia to void ObamaCare.  You can help to support Cuccinelli’s efforts.

General Cuccinelli has launched a petition supporting the suit and calling for the courts to STOP THE MANDATE!  Show your support and fight this unprecedented attack on our liberty.

Also support the Club for Growth’s new ObamaCare page – RepealIt.org  Join thousands of Americans and leaders such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is supporting the repeal.

H/T – Bearing Drift

We also recommend that you read Jim Hoeft’s excellent post on Cuccinelli and the lawsuit.

Sphere: Related Content

Cuccinelli to File Suit Against ObamaCare

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he will file suit, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  In a statement last night:

At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.

Cuccinelli also argues that the bill past by the US House yesterday (the Senate passed the same bill last Christmas Eve) creates a conflict between the federal government and the Commonwealth:

"We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce."

"If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives."

In earlier interviews, Cuccinelli stated that he would file such a suit in Virginia’s Eastern District, also known as the “Rocket Docket” for it’s speed in handling cases.

Sphere: Related Content

O’Connor Testifies Against Election of Judges

Retired US Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor testified yesterday before the Maryland Senate yesterday in support of AG Doug Gansler’s proposal to end the election of judges in Maryland.  O’Connor argues that ending the election of judges would help to reinforce confidence in our nation’s courts and end the appearance of corruption innate in judges being forced to seek campaign contributions.

Sounds great.  Appointed judges are so much better.  Right?  Not really.  Appointing judges just moves the politics from out front into the back room.  Maryland Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Howard) hits the nail right on the head:

If this passes, no longer will any citizen of Maryland have the right to run for judge. If you’re not a favored son of a governor or lawmaker, forget about it. You will have to play the political game.

An excellent, and recent, case in point – Does anyone really believe that Senate Majority Leader Mike Miller’s son would have been appointed a judge IF NOT for his father’s political clout?

Sphere: Related Content

Gansler Proposes Postponing Judicial Elections

Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler wants to take away your right to elect judges.  At least that’s what the headline in today’s Annapolis Capital reads.  In reality, Gansler is proposing that judges have to be confirmed by voters within 10 years of their appointment rather than the current two years.

In theory, Gansler’s proposal has merit.  In theory …  In reality Gansler wants to make what is already political patronage even more deeply entrenched.

Judgeships are political appointments, nothing more.  That’s not to say the most judges aren’t well qualified; I’m sure they are.  However, forcing a judge to stand before the voters on occasion isn’t such a bad idea.  Although judges are rarely turned out of office, forcing them to stand before voters helps to keep judges grounded.  If you doubt this, you need only look at the federal judiciary.

Our founders designed the federal judiciary with lifetime appointment to prevent undue political influence on the judiciary.  Sadly, we have reached the point where political appointees to the federal bench and literally make law from the bench.  One need only look to the 9th US Circuit to see a living, breathing argument for a limited term of office for federal judges.

As I noted earlier, Gansler’s proposed has theoretical merit.  However, his left wing ideology shines through:

Gansler, however, argued that voters don’t have enough information after a year or two to make an educated decision. He also said voters regularly unseat minority judges, undoing the efforts of recent governors to diversify the bench.

"It becomes a contest run on popularity, often with racial undertones," Gansler said of the contested elections. "There is an obvious dearth of minorities on the bench."

In Gansler’s world, only the liberal elite posses the wisdom to appoint judges.  If a judge refuses to enforce the law or adequately sentence dangerous criminals, voters should have little to no recourse.

If anything, the current system doesn’t force judges to appear on a ballot often enough.  Rather than be elected to a 15 year term, perhaps judges should have to stand for re-election every 8 years.

Sphere: Related Content

Delaware Judge Faces Sexual Abuse Charges

Court of Common Pleas Judge William C. Bradley faces two lawsuits alleging sexual abuse over 30 years ago.  Bradley remains on the bench.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »