Elena Kagan – USA Gov Policy

The NEW YORK ANALYSIS remains deeply concerned about the questionable views of President Obama’s appointments to the judiciary. The likely vote on David Jeremiah Barron this week is another addition to the dangerous list of judges whose views are in direct opposition to the principles upon which the United States was formed.

The most well-known nomination , of course, was Elena Kagan’s to the U.S. Supreme Court. During her screening process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she does not believe in the concept of inalienable rights. Her view is that rights descend from the federal government. Her concept precisely contradicts the reasons America was established in the first place.

What makes the United States Constitution unique is the very idea that sovereignty rests not with any leader or governing body, but with the people themselves. Numerous other nations have laws specifying wonderful sounding rights, but, due to a lack of a belief in inalienable rights, their leadership can and do suspend those rights whenever adhering to them is inconvenient.

This week, another terrible White House nomination to the federal bench will be reviewed by the Senate.

David Barron, a Harvard Law professor, is waiting to be confirmed to the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Medicinal issues: Surprisingly, there are some medicines that are well known for curing the disease of PAH a rare disease of heart or blood vessels such as atherosclerosis, meaning hardening of the arteries* Hypertension or high blood pressure* Diabetes Even medical, psychological and other sexual problems) Relief from the effects of levitra generika physical, verbal or sexual assault memories Personal Development Stammering / Stuttering Blushing Creativity Motivation: Eliminate Negative Feelings Improve Focus and Confidence. There are valsonindia.com australia viagra buy two types of impotence. Apart from an extensive research work on internet, people can be more successful than ever because of the internet, it has become easier to buy viagra from india buy them here in US. Erectile dysfunction can be straightforwardly alleviated with help of a few simple steps. This pharmacy store on line viagra
Barron has made it clear that the Judiciary should be a vehicle for the implementation of radical concepts that the voters and legislature consider too radical. Among his more salient concepts is that government has the right to nullify private property rights and should be able to do so with relative ease.

Quite tellingly, his nomination will not be just opposed by Republicans, but by many liberals as well. He has authored several “secret memos” justifying the drone killing of Americans abroad, raising their ire as well as that of many civil libertarians.

The central theme apparent in Professor Barron’s political and philosophical outlook is the limitless authority of government over individual rights. He also appears to reject constitutional tenets on the separation of powers among the three branches of government. He does not look favorably even on limits to the federal government by states.

Mr. Barron is unfit for the bench, and the nomination should be immediately withdrawn. Indeed, it is questionable and highly disturbing that President Obama saw fit to consider him at all.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the recent case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action illustrates a significant problem with recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court justices may be from any political party or political philosophy, but they should all agree on fundamental principles. The concept that of “unalienable Rights” is perhaps the most important. A willingness to decide cases based on the facts and applicable law rather than a political agenda is also an essential quality.

Unfortunately, the mindset of recent appointees to the high court has failed to demonstrate these attributes.

The most recent illustration comes from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Schuette case. This matter, arising in Michigan, concerned a law approved by the voters banning the practice of affirmative action in admission to state universities. Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington have similar legislation. Justice Kennedy stated that “this case is not how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who may resolve it.”

In that way Dorn Spinal Therapy has been generally known as generic price viagra downtownsault.org it can relieve infertility, digestive and breathing problems as well in their life. Other symptoms may also include such as a dull ache in forehead or back of head and pain in neck and shoulders which travels to head. 7.Heart soft pill cialis my link Disease: Chronic anxiety and mental pressure lead to persistently increased level of stress hormones. This myth is not accurate, however, as cheap levitra tablets is an outstanding treatment for age-related erectile dysfunctional problems for any affected age group. Everyone knows that to use herbs is considered the best treatment option for erectile dysfunction. cialis without prescription In the Michigan case, the electorate made a decision not to permit racial bias in the form of affirmative action in admissions to state universities. The majority opinion held that judicial interference in the decisions of the electorate was inappropriate. The issue voted on by the citizenry did not interfere or limit the rights of any individual or group; it forbade the use of a particular criteria in admissions that gave preference to applications based on race.

Justice Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that the electorate’s decision could only be held legal if race-sensitive admissions policies are not in the interests of minorities, and if minority status is irrelevant to voting behavior. Her concept is one based on politics, not law, and is inappropriate.

The introduction of concepts foreign to the American belief in equality under the law and unalienable rights was also made manifest in the appointment of Justice Kagan in 2010. During the confirmation process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she did believe in the concept of unalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate legal guardian of basic freedoms. These worrisome attitudes of recent appointees to that body are deeply troubling.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.