The question is, did Elana Kagan purposely, and most deliberately, lie during the testimony she provided during her confirmation hearings after being nominated to the Supreme Court by Barry “Almighty?” Survey says, or at least there is a significant amount of evidence that would indicate, that yes, she in fact did lie. And apparently forty-nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives--including the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and two presidential candidates—are now of the same opinion. Because they are pointing to evidence that they say is "contradictory" to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's confirmation testimony and are calling for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the matter. The lawmakers involved here, also say they believe that there is significant evidence that has already been made public which very clearly shows that Kagan must recuse herself from any court cases involving the health care bill signed into law by Barry at the time she was serving as his solicitor general. "We respectfully call upon the House Judiciary Committee to promptly investigate the extent to which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in preparing a legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) during her tenure as Solicitor General," the 49 lawmakers wrote in a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R.-Texas), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.), the ranking, probably the most rank, member of the committee.
In the letter they say that, "Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA." The documents referenced on the letter were those released by the Justice Department as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request that was filed by CNSNews.com on May 25, 2010 and that is now the subject of a federal court case pitting the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and the U.S. Justice Department. Now it should come as no big surprise to anyone with a brain, that Barry’s Justice Department, under the stellar leadership of Eric Holder, is now asking a federal judge to block any further release of documents sought under the FOIA request. Rep. John Fleming, a Republican from here in Florida, was the lead signer of the letter. Other signers include House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.), Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price (R.-Ga.), and Representatives Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) and Ron Paul (R.-Texas), who are also presidential candidates. Eleven of the members who signed the letter are physicians, including Fleming, Price and Paul. "Regrettably the Justice Department has been uncooperative to date with repeated FOIA requests that seek the full body of relevant emails from the Office of the Solicitor General that would reveal the scope of Kagan's involvement in PPACA defense activities," the 49 congressmen said in their letter to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers.
The documents relating to Kagan and any involvement that she might had regarding the health-care issue that have been released thus far by the Justice Department are the result of that Freedom of Information Act request filed by CNSNews.com in May 25, 2010, and that was before Kagan's confirmation hearings. That request sought three categories of records: 1) those that reflected communications Kagan had had or meetings she had attended personally or electronically in which the administration's health care reform plan was a topic, 2) those that reflected communications she had had or meetings she had attended personally or electronically in which legal challenges to the health-care reform bill President Obama signed was a topic, and 3) those that reflected communications she had had or meetings she had attended personally or electronically in which there was discussion of whether Kagan ought to recuse herself from any matter as solicitor general because it might later come before her were she confirmed to a federal court.
The natural reflex of Barry’s Justice Department was, as always, to stall on producing any documents that might be relevant to the request. So, on Nov. 23, 2010, the Media Research Center sued in federal court in an attempt to force them to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. In two initial, and rather contradictory, response letters to the CNSNews.com FOIA request in June 2010, the Justice Department at first made the idiotic claim that it is somehow exempt under the FOIA law and is therefore not required to respond to any FOIA requests, whether they’re coming CNSNews.com' or anyone else. But shortly thereafter it altered direction and withdrew that letter and issued a second letter in which it said that it would prepare a response to the request once CNSNews.com had clarified two points in question. Both letters came from some bimbo named Valerie Hall, who was the executive officer in Kagan's Office of Solicitor General. The first item in need of clarification and something that Hall stated as being something the solicitor general's office needed to know was, what was meant in CNSNews.com's FOIA request by the term “the administration’s health-care reform plan.” The second item needing clarification was what was meant by the term “any particular case” in the prong of the FOIA request asking for any records related to any discussions or meetings Kagan might have had about recusing herself from cases as solicitor general because they might later come before her were she confirmed to a federal court.
CNSNews.com sent the Justice Department the clarifications the same day that the Justice Department had requested them. The House members in signing their letter to the Judiciary Committee are calling for an investigation of Kagan's involvement in “Obamacare” noting in the letter that federal law prohibits a Supreme Court Justice from participating in a case where his or her impartiality might be reasonably questioned or where he or she has expressed an opinion on the matter while serving in government office. "As you know," they wrote, "Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code establishes unambiguous conditions in which federal judges must recuse themselves from proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned," the lawmakers wrote. "According to the law, a justice should recuse themselves in cases 'where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity served as counsel, adviser 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 a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, it is evident that Justice Kagan was involved in PPACA defense activities to a degree that warrants her disqualifications from related proceedings as specified by Section 455," the lawmakers said.
During her Senate confirmation process, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kagan a series of written questions probing the possibility that in her role as Barry’s solicitor general, where it was her job to defend the administration's position in federal court cases, she might have been involved in the cases challenging Barry “Almighty’s” health care law. Or, if she might have, at least, discussed the underlying legal and constitutional issues arising from any proposed health care legislation. Two questions the senators asked took in the health-care issue with a very broad sweep. One question asked Kagan: “Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?” Another question asked Kagan: “Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any potential litigation from such legislation?” Kagan’s answered both questions with a simple, unambiguous, one-word answer: “No.” Now knowing as we do the ease with which Liberals are able to lie, and the frequency with which they do so, the simple one word response of “NO,” should not have been allowed to suffice in the first place.
Now I suppose there will be more than a few on the liberal end of the sanity spectrum who will claim that this whole thing is nothing more than a witch hunt or, at the very least, some sort of retaliatory counter-attack stemming from the demand once made that Justice Thomas must recuse himself, for reasons that were completely irrelevant to say the least. If I remember right, it was in early 2010 when seventy-four stellar House Democrats, led by former New York Rep. Anthony "The Sexter" Weiner, sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas with the subject being their collective call for him to sit out of any deliberations regarding the "Affordable Care Act," otherwise known as “Obamacare.” Their rationale for putting forth such a cockamamie idea was based on his wife's ties to a lobbying group that opposed, and as far as I know still opposes, the health care law. In his letter, Mr. Weiner stated at the time that, "The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law.” "From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred." Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, founded the conservative group Liberty Central, but stepped down in December amid controversy over a memo under her name calling for the repeal of the "unconstitutional law." The group, which later took down the memo from its site, blamed staff error and said it "assiduously avoids" taking positions on the constitutionality of specific issues. It was this memo that became the basis for the letter sponsored by then Rep. Weiner and his cadre of Democrat imbeciles all in the hopes that it would somehow cause enough of a stir to put sufficient pressure on Justice Thomas that would then cause him to remove himself from any deliberation of an issue that is sure to come before the Court.
Barry, has himself provided the proof that he too realizes that his attempt to seize control of our healthcare system is obviously unconstitutional, by his picking of Kagan in the first place. It is that act that can very easily be seen as nothing more than a blatant attempt to pack the Court. We have witnessed on any number of occasions the fact that Democrats will go to whatever length they see as being necessary to prevent a Supreme Court Justice who tends to support the Constitution, as written, from being confirmed. But they will expend even a higher level of energy to ensure the successful confirmation of a nominee who has a history of blatantly ignoring the Constitution, who sees it as more of a living document which is very much open to interpretation. Democrats have historically referred to those who are strict constructionists regardng the Constitution, as being extreme, outside the mainstream and as being activist judges. However, when looking over the course of our history it is far more apparent that those to whom these accusations are much more applicable, would be those judges who are nearly always put on the bench by liberals. The confirmation of Kagan lays bare the level of hypocrisy in play here as Barry and the Democrats are desperate to gain and to keep control of the way Americans are able to obtain their healthcare.
No comments:
Post a Comment