...and all I can say is that means we are in big trouble. Please watch the video and pay careful attention to how she answers the questions or how she sidesteps them. Listen to her every word, then read what I have to say below and ask yourself, is she fit to be sitting on the highest court of our land?
We are in trouble not only because Elena Kagan sidesteps questions asked of her during her confirmation hearing, and not only because thinks she only need concern herself with laws and or rights enumerated within the constitution and thereby the implication that she can ignore the Declaration of Independence, not only that she thinks her job "as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws", not only that by that quoted statement she shows she is blatantly unaware or simply ignoring separation of powers clause of the Constitution, not only that the senator questioning her based his argument solely on the Declaration of Independence apparently himself ignorant of the Bill of Rights (the import of which I will mention below), but that she - a nominee for Supreme Court Justice - apparently does not think that part of her job is to help protect our rights as outlined by our Founding Fathers in the documents that are the basis of all of our laws.
Don't either of these political dimwits realize that there is a very important, even critical document, within the collection of laws of the United States of America called the Bill of Rights? Do they not realize that within the Bill of Rights are amendments that were passed into law by the founding fathers, the same founding fathers for the most part who were responsible for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Do neither of them know that the reason they included the Bill of Rights is explained in the preamble to the bill? They should know it and so should you:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution."
Did the Senator doing the questioning exhibit his own ignorance by not confronting Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan with the Constitution and with the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution by way of amendment)? I would think he was on the right track by reminding her that we, as stated within the Declaration of Independence, have certain unalienable rights but I would also say that as she made every attempt to sidestep actually answering his question. He should have then confronted her with the Bill of Rights and asked her if that was also something she would protect (or as she said "enforce") - she could not have sidestepped that. It was a very, very important point that the senator failed to make and one by which he most assuredly would have shown that Kagan has little grasp of Constitutional Law and is therefore unfit to sit as a Justice of the highest court in the land.
Why do I make such a strong statement, in my opinion, as to her lack of suitability. Because she tried to skirt around the issue and as she made every attempt not to say whether or not she believed it would be her job as Supreme Court Justice to defend other rights than those enumerated within the Constitution, or if we even had such rights, those rights she would need to concern herself with as Supreme Court Justice but rights not enumerated within the law such as the example given by the Senator from the Declaration of Independence. Most importantly she failed to acknowledge that she understands that such rights are most definitely and specifically mentioned and protected within the law, within one of the most basic documents of our law - the Bill of Rights. I, of course, an making reference to the 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as found within the Bill of Rights:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Her answer to the Senator should have been an immediate 'Yes Senator, I most assuredly do believe that the people retain certain inalienable rights that have not been enumerated within the Constitution or other laws and it will be my job to protect those rights of the people...'. But alas, she is obviously either unaware of the 9th Amendment or, and this is the scary part, she is aware of it and unwilling to make judicial decisions based upon it and therefore is willing to ignore it and to ignore our rights! The 9th Amendment is one of the most important amendments contained within the Bill of Rights because it acknowledges that we the people have rights that are so basic they were not mentioned within the Constitution yet that lack of enumeration of them is no reason for us to lose them and that government is restricted from stripping those rights from us. Imagine that - a government actually realized it was fallible and could not possibly enumerate every right we have and actually wanted to protect those rights and actually did something to protect them! While imagining that, realize this - there was only one government in the world that thought so much of 'we the people' to acknowledge that very important point, and only one government in the world that put it into law to protect its people and now we are considering a nominee for the highest court of our land, a nominee who apparently has no clue that we have such rights or that the 9th Amendment says we have them.
I, in my personal capacity as a free citizen, urge you to contact your elected officials with Congress and oppose her confirmation as Supreme Court Justice.
All the best,
Friday Gun Pr0n #45
18 minutes ago