Senator Lindsay Graham, R-SC, was the lone Republican on the Judiciary Panel who voted in favor of confirming Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. As the vote was taken yesterday afternoon, Graham said he thought President Obama "chose wisely" in making his nomination.
Wisely? It is wisdom only in that she will serve long after President Obama is out of office and will carry his extreme secular socialist agenda forward. Why would her nomination be "wise" to a Republican when she represents everything Republicans say they oppose?
This is an example of why we must be as well informed as possible regarding the candidates. Affiliation with a particular political party does not always ensure a good vote.
The members of the US Supreme Court make decisions that impacts every person in America.
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, and senior Republican on the Panel saw a very different Elena Kagan than Graham had seen and cast a very different vote. In voting "no," he made it very clear why he voted "no".
Although USA Today inserted their own disclaimer, they carried Session's comments as an editorial late yesterday afternoon.
The following are Senator Session's comments as he voted "no":
SOURCE USA TODAY.
By Jeff Sessions
After carefully reviewing Elena Kagan's record and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I must oppose her nomination.
OUR VIEW: Kagan deserves bipartisan backing, but won't get it
The American people want judges who impartially follow the text of the Constitution. They reject judges who use their power to impose their own political views — liberal or conservative — on the nation.
Throughout her career, Ms. Kagan has placed her politics above the law.
She has never been a judge, never tried a case before a jury and has practiced law for only three years. She is the least experienced nominee in the last half-century.
Her self-identified judicial heroes are among the most activist judges to ever serve. She even worked to confirm ACLU General Counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most activist judge now on the Supreme Court.
As a senior adviser to President Clinton, she was instrumental in efforts to restrict private gun rights and to stop legislation to limit "partial-birth" abortions.
As dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan kicked the military out of the campus recruitment office in violation of the federal law's equal access requirement. Because of her personal opposition to the "don't ask, don't tell" statute, she demeaned and punished the military as our troops were fighting and dying in two wars overseas.
Later, as solicitor general, Ms. Kagan gravely jeopardized the same statute when she allowed a severely flawed circuit court ruling to stand without challenge, despite her sworn duty to defend the law.
Unfortunately, her testimony at the Senate hearing failed to address these concerns, and was more like White House spin than a clear and honest response to questions.
President Obama himself has said that he looks for judges who will impose "their broader vision of what America should be." That is what he thinks he has in Ms. Kagan: someone who shares his big-government vision for the country, and who is willing to advance it from the bench.
In fact, when asked at the hearing, Ms. Kagan was unable to identify any constitutional limits on the government's power to control people's economic decisions.
Americans who are deeply troubled by Washington's growing disregard for the Constitution should also be troubled by this nomination. No senator should vote to confirm an individual to any court who lacks fidelity to the law.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This is a time when we must be very, very vigilant and informed. Much hangs in the balance in the upcoming elections.
Faith and Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.