Kagan Turns Out To Be Incestuous

She has been an Inside the whole time.

Hey folks,

Turns out that Kagan is not just some Judge that Obama read some back round, reviewed some cases, and thought "Hey, maybe SHE would be a good choice." No. She has been there the whole time. Started out with the Clintons. How much? What was her involvement in the whole Lawsuit that lead up to the Impeachment? What was her involvement in White Water? Well, they will not tell us.

According to the AP - Kagan role in Clinton sex harassment suit withheld By Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 11, 5:29 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Bill Clinton's presidential library won't publicly release memos and notes Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wrote about the sexual harassment lawsuit that triggered Clinton's impeachment.

Kagan was involved in defending Clinton in the lawsuit brought by ex-Arkansas state worker Paula Jones, according to documents released Friday. Clinton's testimony for the Jones lawsuit, denying a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, led to his impeachment.

Why?

The library held back several of Kagan's memos to Clinton's top advisers in the case, saying that publicly releasing them would divulge confidential advice. They were turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on Kagan's nomination, however.

It's clear from files that were made public that Kagan had a hand in the Jones case. In a September 1996 memo, Kagan writes that she's been in touch with other lawyers on a brief in the Jones lawsuit and, "I am happy with the direction they seem to be taking."

Earlier that year, she forwards to colleagues a brief written by then-Solicitor General Walter Dellinger supporting Clinton's bid to postpone the civil trial until after he had left office.

"It's really pretty good," Kagan says of Dellinger's brief. She notes approvingly that the brief "downplays" the question of whether the president should have immunity for conduct before he took office, and instead focuses on the argument that the case should be delayed because it would disrupt the performance of Clinton's duties as chief executive.

The White House said Kagan, who didn't focus on litigation matters, played only a tangential role in both the Jones case and the Whitewater investigation of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's financial dealings.

So why all the secrecy? Why not just release them?

"Kagan's work focused principally on providing legal advice to the policy and legislative staff," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. Her "work on Whitewater and Paula Jones involved reviewing legal pleadings, assisting in response to document requests, and offering legal research on short-term projects."

Clinton could have chosen to keep the records off-limits entirely, Earnest said, but instead gave them to the Senate panel "in the interest of transparency."

The papers are part of a roughly 40,000-page cache of records released Friday, most related to Kagan's stint in the White House counsel's office in 1995 and 1996.

Clinton settled the Jones case before trial. Although the House impeached him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, the Senate rejected both counts.

But then again, how many Illinois people are in the White House? These people are ALL Incestuous. It should be no surprise that Kagan is already one of the Crew.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Kagan role in Clinton sex harassment suit withheld

Facts on Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's arrogance and disregard for law is troubling.

Hey folks,

Finally it is FRIDAY! Happy Friday to you. First a quick note. Yesterday was not my fault. Comcast was doing some "Routine Maintenance" which shut down their Internet connections for all of Stuart and neighboring area's. By the time it got back up, it was to late for me to discuss what I wanted to. Perhaps on Sunday.

Since it IS Friday, it's time to go to the Emails. This one was sent in by our friend BG. He does find some great stuff. It is from the Heritage Foundation. Here it is.

The Facts on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

President Barack Obama this morning nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.

» To ensure lawmakers, the media and the America can get all the facts on the Supreme Court vacancy, The Heritage Foundation has created a Rapid Response web page. Be sure to check back for all the latest updates.

Senators should "engage in robust advice and consent to assure that if confirmed Judge Sotomayor would not use her seat…to advance liberal policy preferences," argues Heritage Foundation Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow and former Attorney General Edwin Meese.

The "advice and consent" process, mandated by the Constitution, is a delicate and timely one. Senators should use it to determine whether Judge Sotomayor will faithfully and impartially interpret the Constitution and laws of this nation -- and not shape them to her policy preferences.

"Nominations should be judged by a common standard: Will they apply the Constitution of the United States and the law as it is written and according to its original meaning?" asks Heritage expert Conn Carroll. "Or will they use the lifetime appointment to enact policy preferences from the bench?"

Judge Sotomayor, who sits on the Federal Court of Appeals in New York, has a long record of statements about the proper role of judges, many of which raise important questions. Heritage constitutional scholar Robert Alt explains:

Judge Sotomayor's statements about judges as policymakers, her questioning of whether judges can be objective in most cases, and her insensitive statement that the ethnicity of some judges somehow makes them better at doing their job than judges of different ethnicity—raise serious questions about her view of judging which must be carefully and fully explored by the Senate.

Some of her thoughts on judges' role in shaping policy were captured on video.

President Obama has established an "aggressive confirmation timetable," writes Heritage senior policy analyst Andrew Grossman. But his push to complete all hearings and vote before Congress' August recess may be hasty and "risks shortchanging the Constitution's commands."

The Senate "should not delay" the confirmation process, Grossman argues, "but nor should it be rushed." - Amanda Reinecker

LINK: The Heritage Foundation

Now to address my new fan, "Nameless cynic," and those that think like he does, for just a second. Yes, I understand that she will be replacing a Lib LEANING Judge. I said that. But she would have NEVER got elevated to where she is now, if it were not for the sole purpose of the fact she is a Hispanic Female that does NOT agree with the Constitution. She is a Racist, and follows in Obama's Racism tendencies. She will be a Lackey. That's it. But of course pointing things like this out just get me and others called Racist. {Smile}

The fact is, she stands for and will push for Obama's agendas. Some of which are EXSTREMELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not that people like Nameless care about the Constitution. I and most American DO.

More and more people are waking up. They are seeing Obama for what he is. A fraud and a failure. Trillions spent. NOTHING solved. Him coming out yesterday saying that the economy is coming back from the brink is just completely pathetic. He is either outright lying to the American people, or, he truly is that ignorant. I'm not sure what's worse.

See you all Sunday.
Peter

Note: "From The Emails" is a weekly segment in the Friday edition of the OPNtalk Blog. If you care to send in News Articles, Comments, Stories, or anything else you may wish to share, please feel free to send it to opntalk@aim.com As always, you never know what you are going to see here.