Washington, D.C. –Senator John Ensign today announced his vote against Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice. Senator Ensign met with Ms. Kagan this week and was not satisfied with the answers that she provided on a variety of important issues.
“As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in keeping the overreaching arm of government in check. That said, anyone nominated to sit on the bench of this court must be willing to do the same – set aside personal politics and views and defer to the Constitution for the good of our country,” said Ensign. “While I am impressed with her intellect and accomplishments, my meeting with Ms. Kagan did little to dispel my concerns as to whether she will adhere to the Framer’s intent of the Constitution.”
Ms. Kagan’s barring of military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus was in violation of the law and instead established a separate but unequal policy for recruiting. This dishonored the military at a time when our servicemen and women were laying down their lives in defense of our country. Even more troubling was that Ms. Kagan expressed unfamiliarity with the intent of our Founding Fathers when they drafted the Second Amendment, especially given her past work and advocacy to undercut this fundamental individual right.
Further, a review of her writings from when she was a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall and her work as an advisor to President Clinton signaled that her history of political activism would not likely end if she were confirmed as a Justice.
“Ms. Kagan’s lack of support for the United States military, demonstrated hostility toward the Second Amendment and her propensity toward political activism signaled to me that her role on the Court would be one of liberal judicial activism. For this reason, I will respectfully oppose her nomination to the United States Supreme Court.”Senator Ensign should read his own words. As a Senator, he himself is responsible for representing ALL of the people of the state he was elected to represent, yet he frequently sides with his Plutocratic buddies and against the interests of the people he was elected to represent. That, in and of itself, constitutes political activism.
Because she worked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and worked for the Clinton administration, she should be classified as a political activist? I think not. In case Mr. Ensign has forgotten, Thurgood Marshall was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and was a strong supporter of Constitutional protections of individual rights as well as equal rights under the law for all. Justice Marshall once said, "Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." Judical activism is currently in play on the Roberts' court. That activism can be seen in the Court's granting of "personhood" to corporations and allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of funds to influence elections. No doubt Mr. Ensign doesn't see that as activism, but for you and I, that's some pretty serious judicial activism whose aim is influence elections in such a way that corporations and the elite can manipulate and control, not just our minds, but the nation as a whole.
Mr. Ensign claims that Ms. Kagan broke the law in barring recruiters from recruiting on campus. If that were true, she would have been arrested, charged, tried and convicted of such a crime. That's not the case. Instead, she merely exercised her Constitutional rights to protest a war and the process by which those who ended up having to fight that war were selected. That, Mr. Ensign, is one of those inalienable rights this is guaranteed to each of us by our Constitution. If anything, Mr. Ensign should be celebrating that she exercised that right, not attempting to perversely twist it into a proclivity to deny others, their second amendment rights.
Mr. Ensign, I am an 8-year Vietnam Era Veteran and you do not speak for me. I applaud Ms. Kagan for standing up in protest to the inequities she and others perceived. As an American, she as do others, have that very right. Veterans and active duty personnel serve this nation each and every day to ensure that we continue to have that right. I chose serve. She chose to protest. That's okay by me in my book, and I'm looking forward to her confirmation, despite Mr. Ensign's Nay vote.
Oh yeah, and one more thing Mr. Ensign, there are a large number of your constituents who are not satisfied with your answers regarding your unethical behavior ... and alleged illegal behavior. So just exactly who are you to judge the suitability of others?