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

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

New Era in World Affairs

There will be a dramatic change in Washington in the aftermath of the election. What will this mean for America’s national security and foreign affairs? Our guests, former CIA officer and Vice President at the Center for Security Policy Clair Lopez, along with ret. Col. John Mills, (author of The Nation Will Follow) provide extraordinary insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here: https://rumble.com/v5oonnb-the-american-political-zone-november-12-2024.html