|
|
|
|
Providing Cover for Elena Kagan
Part One of Three By Dave Andrusko Part Two is a superb explanation of the Kagan nomination sent out by NRLC. Part Three is a letter from three Congressmen inquiring into possible Obama Administration involvement in changing Kenya's abortion law. Please also be sure to read "National Right to Life News Today" (www.nationalrighttolifenewstoday.org) and please send all your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. Let me begin by strongly suggesting that you read Part Two of Tuesday's TN&V. Written by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, it raises serious questions about the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice, questions that deserves serious answers. I will talk about a few of the many other issues raised by pro-abortion President Obama's nomination of someone with no judicial experience, limited practice as an attorney, and a paper-thin paper trail.
None of what we will hear over the next three or four months will make any sense unless we appreciate all that is encompassed by this characterization made yesterday by the Associated Press: "Obama has started making calls to Senate leaders to inform them of his choice, while his White House team is launching a broad campaign-style outreach to Capitol Hill and the media. That effort is designed to shape the national image of Kagan, an unknown figure to much of America." Obama insists he is tired of the plucking candidates from the "judicial monastery"--typically men and women who have served on federal appeals courts--and then picks someone who, while she had not served on the bench, has swam in the waters of the most elite law schools her entire career, surfacing only to serve in government. The reason Obama has to shape Kagan's "national image" is that "A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that judicial experience is the most valued quality among a list of professional and personal characteristics, " according to the Washington Post's Robert Barnes and Jennifer Agiesta. So, Trick One for Obama is to convince the public it ought to be comfortable with a novice on the nation's highest court when "Seven in 10 say service as a judge is a positive quality for a Supreme Court nominee, while only 5 percent see it as a negative, according to Barnes and Agiesta. "In contrast, 35 percent view experience outside the legal world as a positive." But never far from the surface of any Supreme Court nomination is the abortion issue. Trick Two for Obama is convince those who are watching this process keenly that he is not appointing an "ideologue"--someone who will not only open up new territory for the Planned Parenthoods but will also attempt to take back land previously "lost," such as the Hyde Amendment. How? It helps if part of the Abortion Establishment voices, if not concern, at least tepid support, as they did when now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor was nominated. But better yet if something pops up that suggests Kagan is a seeker after "compromise." As we'll see below, this description of a memo Kagan wrote in 1997 is wrong on just about every level imaginable. First, the setting. According to today's Washington Post, "Kagan's take on Roe v. Wade could become a sleeper issue during the next six weeks, as activists on both the left and the right seek to better understand how the solicitor general might rule on a right to privacy if she is confirmed to the court," according to Michael Shear. Fair enough, but so what? Wouldn't you know, as it happens somehow hours after Kagan is nominated the Associated Press (AP) got its hand on "a 1997 memorandum authored by Kagan during the time she advised then-President Bill Clinton." This memo means, according to Shear, that "the answer to that question got a little bit clearer late Monday afternoon." In a nutshell, "According to the AP, the May 13, 1997, memo shows Kagan arguing that Clinton should support a compromise ban on late-term abortions as a way of avoiding a congressional override of his veto on a more restrictive, Republican bill. The compromise bill had been authored by then-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)" But, as NRLC's Johnson points out, "The AP does not understand the context of the memo. In 1997, Clinton was trying to prevent enactment of the NRLC-backed ban on partial-birth abortions. The Daschle measure was not a compromise -- it was an alternative bill, riddled with overlapping loopholes, a 'phony ban' concocted purely to provide political cover for pro-abortion senators." Johnson testified about this "phony ban" at a Joint Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and The Constitution Subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Here are the most salient quotes. "NRLC is strongly opposed to the 'phony ban' proposal currently being promoted by President Clinton, Senator Daschle, and a number of their allies in the media. The Clinton-Daschle phony ban would allow the 4,000 or more partial-birth abortions that are performed annually on perfectly healthy babies of perfectly healthy mothers, in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, to continue with no limitation whatsoever. Leon Panetta, then the White House chief of staff, confirmed when pressed by NBC News' Tim Russert on Meet the Press on December 15 that President Clinton will not sign the bill unless its scope is narrowed to the seventh month and later. "The Clinton-Daschle proposal is a political construct, designed to provide political cover for lawmakers who want to appear to their constituents as if they have voted to restrict partial-birth abortions, while actually voting for a hollow measure that is not likely to prevent a single partial-birth abortion, and which therefore is inoffensive to the pro-abortion lobby. This political ploy will become increasingly transparent as time goes on." (www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/test.html) I think it is entirely fair to say that this memo also serves the purpose of providing political cover for Kagan. When you read Part Two, you will see why it's needed! |
