Changes

===Preparation by Bill Clinton===

===Preparation by Bill Clinton===

As a result of a request by senators who would vote on her nomination, 90,000 pages of records from the Clinton White House were released which revealed that Kagan played a role in crafting former [[President Bill Clinton]]’s policies on abortion, assisted suicide, religious freedom, gun control, welfare reform and tobacco. In addition, they also show that Kagan was part of Clinton's small army of lawyers which unsuccessfully sought to postpone Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against him. As a result of her work, Clinton sought to gain her a seat on the federal appeals court in Washington, often a steppingstone to the Supreme Court, an appointment which the [[Republican]]-controlled Senate opposed. In response to Kagan's note of thanks, the former President stated,  "I was honored to nominate you - you will be a wonderful judge if we can get you through - and young enough to have a profound impact."<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/12/documents-show-kagan-a-political-pragmatist/print ''Kagan had role in Clinton White House’s big fights''], [[Associated Press]]  June 12, 2010</ref>

As a result of a request by senators who would vote on her nomination, 90,000 pages of records from the Clinton White House were released which revealed that Kagan played a role in crafting former [[President Bill Clinton]]’s policies on abortion, assisted suicide, religious freedom, gun control, welfare reform and tobacco. In addition, they also show that Kagan was part of Clinton's small army of lawyers which unsuccessfully sought to postpone Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against him. As a result of her work, Clinton sought to gain her a seat on the federal appeals court in Washington, often a steppingstone to the Supreme Court, an appointment which the [[Republican]]-controlled Senate opposed. In response to Kagan's note of thanks, the former President stated,  "I was honored to nominate you - you will be a wonderful judge if we can get you through - and young enough to have a profound impact."<ref>[https://dailycaller.com/2010/06/12/documents-show-kagan-a-political-pragmatist/print ''Kagan had role in Clinton White House’s big fights''], [[Associated Press]]  June 12, 2010</ref>

==Confirmation==

==Confirmation==

In an abortion case pertaining to a prisoner who sought the state to pay for her murder of the preborn infant, Kagan sought to persuade then president Clinton to choose a version of the bill that would pass, while protecting a woman's right to abortion.<ref>''Kagan Expressed Broad View of Religious Freedom'', New York Times, June 11, 2010</ref>  

In an abortion case pertaining to a prisoner who sought the state to pay for her murder of the preborn infant, Kagan sought to persuade then president Clinton to choose a version of the bill that would pass, while protecting a woman's right to abortion.<ref>''Kagan Expressed Broad View of Religious Freedom'', New York Times, June 11, 2010</ref>  

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the leader of the Susan B. Anthony List, explained that:<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat4932.html</ref>

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the leader of the Susan B. Anthony List, explained that:<ref>https://www.lifenews.com/nat4932.html</ref>

{{cquote|In the past Kagan has been a strong supporter of the pro-abortion agenda.  She has vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics which promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers.}}

{{cquote|In the past Kagan has been a strong supporter of the pro-abortion agenda.  She has vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics which promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers.}}

Kagan also apparently supports greater Presidential power. In a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article,<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/kagan/Kagan-_Presidential_Administration.pdf</ref> Kagan defended the [[Clinton administration]]'s assertion of the right to direct federal regulatory agencies without congressional or court involvement. In review of this, William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, stated, "She is certainly a fan of presidential power."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/06/obama_taps_harvard_law_school_dean_as_solicitor_general?mode=PF Boston Globe], January 6, 2009</ref> Neal Katyal, who has succeeded Kagan as Solicitor General, also was critical of her support of expanded executive power.<ref>http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Katyal.pdf</ref> However, in an 2001 article in the Harvard Law, Kagan wrote that while she largely welcomed Clinton's expanded  presidential control, she cautioned, “President Clinton’s assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan’s assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions.”<ref>New York Times, Politics, ''Kagan's Notable Statements and Writings'', May 9, 2010</ref>

Kagan also apparently supports greater Presidential power. In a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article,<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/kagan/Kagan-_Presidential_Administration.pdf</ref> Kagan defended the [[Clinton administration]]'s assertion of the right to direct federal regulatory agencies without congressional or court involvement. In review of this, William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, stated, "She is certainly a fan of presidential power."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/06/obama_taps_harvard_law_school_dean_as_solicitor_general?mode=PF Boston Globe], January 6, 2009</ref> Neal Katyal, who has succeeded Kagan as Solicitor General, also was critical of her support of expanded executive power.<ref>http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Katyal.pdf</ref> However, in an 2001 article in the Harvard Law, Kagan wrote that while she largely welcomed Clinton's expanded  presidential control, she cautioned, “President Clinton’s assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan’s assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions.”<ref>New York Times, Politics, ''Kagan's Notable Statements and Writings'', May 9, 2010</ref>

In 2003, Elena Kagan presented an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the government'  federal campaign finance law in ''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'', in which the FEC had outlawed corporations, including non-profits, from spending funds from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The specific cause was government opposition to a 90-minute documentary by the non-profit organization, [[Citizens United]], opposing [[Hillary Clinton]], then candidate for president. The Court rejected the government's argument and invalidated the law as unconstitutional,<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5bReargued%5d.pdf Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]</ref> with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] commenting, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."<ref>David N. Bossie,  ''Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?'', The Washington Post, Friday, May 21, 2010; A17</ref>   

In 2003, Elena Kagan presented an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the government'  federal campaign finance law in ''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'', in which the FEC had outlawed corporations, including non-profits, from spending funds from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The specific cause was government opposition to a 90-minute documentary by the non-profit organization, [[Citizens United]], opposing [[Hillary Clinton]], then candidate for president. The Court rejected the government's argument and invalidated the law as unconstitutional,<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5bReargued%5d.pdf Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]</ref> with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] commenting, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."<ref>David N. Bossie,  ''Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?'', The Washington Post, Friday, May 21, 2010; A17</ref>   

Kagan has extensive ties to Goldman-Sachs, a financial institution under federal investigation.<ref>http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/27/kagan-sat-on-goldman-sachs-board/</ref>

Kagan has extensive ties to Goldman-Sachs, a financial institution under federal investigation.<ref>http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/27/kagan-sat-on-goldman-sachs-board/</ref>

Concerning [[Constitutional Theory]], the interpretive basis used for deciding what the [[Constitution]] means,  at her Solicitor General hearing Elena Kagan testified in favor of the use of foreign law to interpret the [[U.S. Constitution]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20283.html</ref> She also wrote, “I think a judge should try to the greatest extent possible to separate constitutional interpretation from his or her own values and beliefs. In order to accomplish this result, the judge should look to constitutional text, history, structure and precedent." And that "The Constitution generally imposes limitations on government rather than establishes affirmative rights and thus has what might be thought of as a libertarian slant. I fully accept this traditional understanding, and if I am confirmed as solicitor general, I would expect to make arguments consistent with it."<ref>[http://documents.nytimes.com/elena-kagan-documents#document/p306 Written answers to Senate questions during her confirmation for solicitor general (2009)]</ref>  

Concerning [[Constitutional Theory]], the interpretive basis used for deciding what the [[Constitution]] means,  at her Solicitor General hearing Elena Kagan testified in favor of the use of foreign law to interpret the [[U.S. Constitution]].<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20283.html</ref> She also wrote, “I think a judge should try to the greatest extent possible to separate constitutional interpretation from his or her own values and beliefs. In order to accomplish this result, the judge should look to constitutional text, history, structure and precedent." And that "The Constitution generally imposes limitations on government rather than establishes affirmative rights and thus has what might be thought of as a libertarian slant. I fully accept this traditional understanding, and if I am confirmed as solicitor general, I would expect to make arguments consistent with it."<ref>[http://documents.nytimes.com/elena-kagan-documents#document/p306 Written answers to Senate questions during her confirmation for solicitor general (2009)]</ref>  

Relating to judicial activism, Kagan stated in her Oxford thesis, “Judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. “Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid.”  However, at her 2009 confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, she stated, “I think it is a great deal better for the elected branches to take the lead in creating a more just society than for courts to do so.” <ref>http://documents.nytimes.com/elena-kagan-documents#document/p305</ref>  

Relating to judicial activism, Kagan stated in her Oxford thesis, “Judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. “Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid.”  However, at her 2009 confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, she stated, “I think it is a great deal better for the elected branches to take the lead in creating a more just society than for courts to do so.” <ref>http://documents.nytimes.com/elena-kagan-documents#document/p305</ref>  

==Further reading==

==Further reading==

* [http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/now_he_tells_us.html Lawrence J. Siskind, ''Now He Tells Us!''], American Thinker June 20, 2010

* [https://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=https://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/now_he_tells_us.html Lawrence J. Siskind, ''Now He Tells Us!''], American Thinker June 20, 2010

==References==

==References==