The Implications of Elena Kagan, Nascent Supreme Court Justice

"Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was confirmed by the Senate this afternoon."

Today’s yes votes included Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the lone Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to support Kagan when the panel recommended the nomination to the full Senate on a 13-6 vote.

What are the ramifications of Kagan's confirmation?

 3   She believes that the government can abitrarily ban books and movies:

Elena Kagan argued on behalf of Citizens United essentially stating it would not be a violation of the First Amendment to have movies or even books banned. Of course, she only meant certain movies/books for specific times, but even so, I believe the point remains... all tyrants find a pretext for their tyranny. That tyranny may even begin with a humble, caring act, but one day we awake to find we have lost all freedom. When it comes to our rights, the freedom of speech is not one I am willing to mess around with. I could never support a Supreme Court nominee like Elena Kagan.

 2   She does not believe in The Bill of Rights -- and, in particular, the Second Amendment:

Kagan has spent her professional career implementing anti-gun initiatives as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, as counsel for the Clinton Administration and as President Obama’s Solicitor General. Furthermore, Kagan’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirms a hostility to the idea that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right of all Americans incorporated against state action restricting that right. The fact of the matter is that Elena Kagan will vote to uphold every local, state and federal restriction of the right of Americans to 'keep and bear Arms...'

...When Kagan served the Clinton Administration, she showed a strong hostility to gun rights. The L.A. Times reported on may 11th of this year that Kagan “drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.” Kagan’s political activism in implementing a gun control agenda was a political act, yet this nominee has yet to explain her constitutional justification for that executive order.

 1   She believes the federal government has unlimited power over the individual:

On Tuesday evening, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) posed a hypothetical question to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: If Congress passed a law that said Americans "have to eat three vegetables and three fruits, every day ... does that violate the Commerce Clause?"

"Sounds like a dumb law," Kagan replied.

"Yeah, I got one that's real similar to it that I think is equally dumb," Coburn shot back, referring to Obamacare's mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance. "I'm not going to mention which one it is."

Kagan wouldn't say whether or not she believes the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to pass a law requiring Americans to eat fruits and vegetables.

By Doug Ross