The New Jewish Justice
President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the seat on the US Supreme Court now held by Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring. If confirmed ( a "slam dunk"), she will be the eighth Jew to serve on the Court and will increase the Jewish share of the Court to one-third, an all-time high. Obama, in less than two years in office, will have appointed more Jews to the Supreme Court than the last six Republican presidents combined.
Here is a brief look at the history of Jewish members of the Supreme Court:
In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson appointed prominent Jewish attorney Louis D Brandeis to the Supreme Court. At that time Jews were routinely excluded from most law firms, corporations, resorts and suburbs. This appointment showed the Jews that the Democratic Party was especially favorable to their ambitions in American politics.
President Herbert Hoover appointed Benjamin Cardozo to the Court in 1932. After he died in 1938, President Roosevelt appointed Felix Frankfurter to the seat, which later became known as the "Jewish seat" on the Court. He was succeeded by Arthur Goldberg in 1962. When President Lyndon Johnson appointed Goldberg to be the US Ambassador the to UN in 1965, Johnson then appointed Abe Fortas to the seat. However, Fortas was forced to resign in 1969.
Then the "Jewish seat" vanished as President Richard Nixon nominated one gentile after another to fill the seat until finally Harry Blackmun was confirmed. (1)
In 1987 President Ronald Reagan nominated Jewish federal judge Douglas H Ginsburg to succeed Justice Lewis Powell, but the nomination was withdrawn after it was revealed that Ginsburg had been smoking marijuana.
Both current Jewish Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were appointed by President Bill Clinton .
Could the need to placate Jewish voters (and donors) before the 2010 congressional elections have been a factor in the selection of Elena Kagan? While Jews were more supportive of Barack Obama for President than any other white (non-Hispanic) ethnic group in 2008, many have turned against him over his hostility towards Israel. For example, publishers Mort Zuckerman (US News & World Report and NY Daily News) and Martin Peretz (The New Republic) both endorsed Obama for President, but have soured on him over Israel.
Although Jews comprise less than 3 percent of the US population, they vote and participate in politics at a higher rate than other ethnic groups. Morevoer, they are concentrated in big states in which the two major parties are highly competitive. For instance, this year the Jewish vote will be crucial in senate races in New York and Florida.(2) Jews can also tip the balance in a number of suburban congressional districts. That is also why Republicans will not filibuster the Kagan nomination: GOP senators from swing states will not dare antagonize their Jewish constituents. Whatever votes are cast against confirmation will be from hard-core Republican states in which the Jewish vote is insignificant.
Some will complain that Kagan has no judicial experience, but if Obama wanted a Jewish woman with that experience he might well have picked Judge Judith Scheindlin. Her confirmation hearings would have made great TV!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Tapes of his conversations prove that Nixon disliked American Jews, except for Henry Kissinger. His first choice to succeed Fortas was Clement Haynsworth, who was rejected by the Senate. His second choice, Harold G Carswell, was also rejected. Blackmun had no problem.
(2) Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is also facing a tough race, but since he is Jewish himself I believe he would garner the Jewish vote anyway. Since the Florida race features three serious candidates, even a small group can make a big difference!
Here is a brief look at the history of Jewish members of the Supreme Court:
In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson appointed prominent Jewish attorney Louis D Brandeis to the Supreme Court. At that time Jews were routinely excluded from most law firms, corporations, resorts and suburbs. This appointment showed the Jews that the Democratic Party was especially favorable to their ambitions in American politics.
President Herbert Hoover appointed Benjamin Cardozo to the Court in 1932. After he died in 1938, President Roosevelt appointed Felix Frankfurter to the seat, which later became known as the "Jewish seat" on the Court. He was succeeded by Arthur Goldberg in 1962. When President Lyndon Johnson appointed Goldberg to be the US Ambassador the to UN in 1965, Johnson then appointed Abe Fortas to the seat. However, Fortas was forced to resign in 1969.
Then the "Jewish seat" vanished as President Richard Nixon nominated one gentile after another to fill the seat until finally Harry Blackmun was confirmed. (1)
In 1987 President Ronald Reagan nominated Jewish federal judge Douglas H Ginsburg to succeed Justice Lewis Powell, but the nomination was withdrawn after it was revealed that Ginsburg had been smoking marijuana.
Both current Jewish Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were appointed by President Bill Clinton .
Could the need to placate Jewish voters (and donors) before the 2010 congressional elections have been a factor in the selection of Elena Kagan? While Jews were more supportive of Barack Obama for President than any other white (non-Hispanic) ethnic group in 2008, many have turned against him over his hostility towards Israel. For example, publishers Mort Zuckerman (US News & World Report and NY Daily News) and Martin Peretz (The New Republic) both endorsed Obama for President, but have soured on him over Israel.
Although Jews comprise less than 3 percent of the US population, they vote and participate in politics at a higher rate than other ethnic groups. Morevoer, they are concentrated in big states in which the two major parties are highly competitive. For instance, this year the Jewish vote will be crucial in senate races in New York and Florida.(2) Jews can also tip the balance in a number of suburban congressional districts. That is also why Republicans will not filibuster the Kagan nomination: GOP senators from swing states will not dare antagonize their Jewish constituents. Whatever votes are cast against confirmation will be from hard-core Republican states in which the Jewish vote is insignificant.
Some will complain that Kagan has no judicial experience, but if Obama wanted a Jewish woman with that experience he might well have picked Judge Judith Scheindlin. Her confirmation hearings would have made great TV!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Tapes of his conversations prove that Nixon disliked American Jews, except for Henry Kissinger. His first choice to succeed Fortas was Clement Haynsworth, who was rejected by the Senate. His second choice, Harold G Carswell, was also rejected. Blackmun had no problem.
(2) Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is also facing a tough race, but since he is Jewish himself I believe he would garner the Jewish vote anyway. Since the Florida race features three serious candidates, even a small group can make a big difference!
Labels: Jews, Kagan, Supreme Court
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 3:31 PM
4 Comments:
Well I strongly disagree, I don't think this has anything to do with being Jewish. Being Jewish in this case was a side issue. If she would have been the only Jew on the court, then it might be an issue, but if she is confirmed there will be three Jewish justices. At this point one more makes no difference to Jews at all.
In addition of course Mr. Glazer gave no evidence at all that this nomination had anything to do with her being Jewish.
On the other hand one could make a strong case that she was chosen because she is a homosexual. Obama made promsies to the homosexuals that he has not kept. He owes homosexuals and this may be the pay off.
One could also make the case that she was chosen because she has the same world view as does Obama. She is extremely liberal and a Marxist. She has said that the Supreme Court should be about helping the little guy over the rich guy.
I think the true reason is the third reason, that she simply has the same world view as Obama.
As an aside Mr Glazer fully knows that Jewish Law is very much against the idea of having the law favor anyone including favoring the poor over the rich. In fact the Torah specifically instructs judges to NOT act like this. Judges shold act to enforce and uphold and interpret the law, NOT to favor one constituent over the other, even the poor over the rich. This is fascism.
But Obama is a fascistic socialist. He not only wants government control of everything, he wants to control every aspect of our lives and he wants to favor certain classes of people and certain individuals over others. This is his world view and it is also the new Surpene Court nominee's world view as well.
Welcome to Obama's world: Fascistic Socialism; not that much different from the National Socialist Party (except for the absence of the death camps (as yet anyway))of the 1930's and 1940's.
Here is proof of my comments regarding the policies of the nominee.
1. socialist:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152133
2. homosexual activist:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=144353
3. favors giving preferential treatment in court to certain groups over others:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rush-limbaugh-calls-elena-kagan-idealist-radical/story?id=10605848
Well it looks like the new Supreme Court nominee is also against the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not a great characeteristic for a Supreme Court judge to be against our constitution.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Kagan: Some speech
can be 'disappeared'
Wanted 'societal costs' counted
against 1st Amendment rights
Posted: May 10, 2010
By Aaron Klein
NEW YORK – President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, argued certain forms of speech that promote "racial or gender inequality" could be "disappeared."
In her few academic papers, Kagan evidences strong beliefs for court intervention in speech, going so far as to posit First Amendment speech should be weighed against "societal costs.”
In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and … actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
Kagan's academic writings are sparse – just nine articles, two of which are book reviews.
Her stand on free speech could become a hot button issue as the Senate convenes to confirm her. If approved, Kagan would give the high court three women justices for the first time. She would be the youngest member on the current court and the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.
WND has reported that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the country as "sad" for those who still hope to "change America."
WND also reported Kagan has advocated for an increased presidential role in regulation, which, she conceded, would make such affairs more and more an extension of the president's own policy and political agenda.
Kagan was nominated as U.S. solicitor general by Obama in January and confirmed by the Senate in March. She was a dean of Harvard Law School and previously served alongside Obama as a professor of law at the University of Chicago.
A former clerk to Abner Mikva at the D.C. federal appeals court, Kagan was heavily involved in promoting the health-care policy of the Clinton administration.
Obama praised her because while he said a "judge's job is to interpret the law, not make the law," she has evidenced a "keen understanding of the impact of the law on people's lives."
The president said she has a "firm grasp on the nexus and boundaries between our three branches of government."
But more importantly, she understands, "behind the law there are stories, stories of people's lives," Obama said.
Kagan said the law is "endlessly interesting" and also "protects the most fundamental rights and freedoms."
It appears that Mr Glazer likes for example, apples, without even considering if there are worms inside. My point, we would be wiser looking at the qualifications of a person, their record, AND their character in determining who should fill this life time appointment as judge in the land, rather than on what the ethnicity alone is. This is what gets us in trouble.
Post a Comment
<< Home