Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Kagan: Church, State and Privacy

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

I too would like to get to the bottom of all this and get
some answers on what Kagan’s views truly are. I am troubled by some things that
I have read, and I need to know where Kagan stands on some core issues related
to reproductive choice and church and state separation.

Over the past couple of weeks, the following facts about
Kagan have been unearthed that I find particularly concerning:  

  • In 1987,
    while serving as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote a memo
    adopting a strict separationist viewpoint on tax funding. She asserted that
    religious groups should not be able to receive public funding for certain
    ostensibly secular activities, such as offering sex education to teens. These views were reflected in Marshall’s dissenting opinion
    in Bowen v. Kendrick. But
    unfortunately, Kagan changed her mind on the issue, and 22 years later, during
    her confirmation hearings for solicitor general, Kagan distanced herself from
    that analysis, calling it “deeply mistaken,” “utterly wrong,” and “the dumbest thing
    I ever heard.”

  • As a White
    House aide, Elena Kagan co-authored a memo in 1997 with Bruce Reed, calling on
    President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions. Then-Sen. Tom
    Daschle had proposed an amendment that would ban these abortions except
    when it was necessary to protect “grievous injury to [the mother's] physical health.”  Clinton was leaning toward vetoing the bill – he wanted
    broader protections for women’s health care. Pro-choice groups also opposed the
    amendment and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said the ban may
    violate the constitutional protection under Roe v. Wade. Still, Kagan advised
    Clinton to sign the bill with the amendment.

  • Also during her tenure as an aide to Clinton, Kagan favored
    a measure
    that provided funding to religious groups. The issue came up
    regarding “charitable choice” provisions of the Welfare Reform Bill. Clinton
    wanted to know what to do about the issue – as the bill stood, churches and
    religious groups could receive contracts and vouchers to participate in welfare
    and other social-service programs. Kagan was asked about the status of the religious provisions
    in the new welfare law, and she responded that she did not favor making changes
    to the “charitable choice” provisions of the bill.

Jay, I know you probably are in favor of all these things -
but realistically, it is unclear what Kagan really believes and what was done
for political purposes. It troubles me that we don’t know her stance on basic
constitutional issues and I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee asks some really
tough questions.

I think we should take to heart something Kagan
said years ago. During the Ruth Bader Ginsburg
hearings, she critiqued the Supreme Court nomination process as a “vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has
replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have
supplanted legal analysis.”

She demanded that the nominee be open to discussing her “understanding of the role of courts in our society, of the nature of
and values embodied in our Constitution, and of the proper tools and
techniques of interpretation, both constitutional and statutory.”

Let’s hold her to those words.

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(31)
post a comment
HG

posted May 19, 2010 at 8:59 pm


Yes, let’s hold her to those words. If we don’t get answers, or if the answers demonstrate opposition to long-standing legal understanding, then her nomination should not be endorsed.



report abuse
 

interpreter

posted May 20, 2010 at 8:18 pm


Yes, her nomination should not be endorsed because she has never been a judge and has absolutely no qualifications. Plus she is a gay rights advocate, and would probably vote to overturn current laws and legalize gay marriage.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 20, 2010 at 11:53 pm


What about the killing of babies?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 21, 2010 at 1:21 am


interpreter,
Not having prior experience as a judge is irrelevant, elevating a sitting federal judge to the court is only relatively new, a trend starting around 40 years ago. Prior to that, new justices were selected from the entire political spectrum; senators, govenors, etc. In fact, William Rehnquist had never served as a judge prior to his appointment to the court. Even further, please note that the Constitution does not require such a thing.
I don’t know if you ever read the decision handed down by the Court. I do and they are overly convoluted and defer to obscure legal precepts rather than common sense. I think a person never trained in legal mumbo-jumbo would do a better job of applying reason and rationality. As an example of ludicrous decision making, the Court went through a serpentine labyrinthian route to justify prohibiting the private cultivation and use of marijuana in California finding that such cultivation and usage violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Now marijuana may or may not be good for a person but I sure can’t figure out how some guy growing dope up in the hills for his own private use that he will never sell impacts interstate commerce. (Gonzales vs. Raich) That twisted piece of garbage is just the kind of thing long-term judges produce.
You say she has absolutely no qualifications. Nonsense, she has an extensive background in the law. Your comment indicates you don’t pay attention to the news or are intentionally ignoring the facts. I personally think any citizen who can read the words of the Constitution is qualified to interpret it. I read it and interpret it, it is composed of English words that anyone can decipher.
As to gay marriage, it should be allowed. There is certainly no prohibition of gay marriage in the Constitution. However, to be more precise about the whole thing, the first thing to do is require all state governments to cease marrying people. Marriage is a religious sacrament, it has no place on the list of governmental acts. If the state wants to grant economic benefits to couples it can do so via civil unions but should do so only in a manner blind to gender. If some religious folks want to get married, they can head to their church. Same thing with baptism, etc, etc.
Plus, someday, someone has to tell me why it is so important to bigoted religious folks that gay marriage never be allowed. I will just never understand the what drives some people to try and dictate the lives of others.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 21, 2010 at 5:07 pm


When your first hired as a judge, that is when you get experience.
How do you think that you get experience?, by doing it silly.
So this rhetoric of not having it is quite frankly not the issue.
It is the character of a person and what they stand for, and how they want to work at what they are doing, is what counts….
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 22, 2010 at 3:27 pm


Not all experience comes from being a judge. Experience comes from life experiences….
So some of your life experieces have been bad, and some have been good…..
So we learn not to repeat the same mistakes which we made throughout the years, that way we are not repeating the same lessons over and over….
Meanwhile we pick up the torch for what we have been successful at…
It could be anything, like speaking, organization, speed, direction, and character is very important…For you don’t want to be a crook, cheater, or wife beater…Our parents gave us life experiences as well as the people who have been in our lives and how they have treated us…
So, some hesitancy could be caused from the way people have treated you in the past…Like a stray dog, who has been beaten down so many times by other people and neglected by it owners, that they need a bit more help then the next individual…They think every time somebody taps them on the shoulder they are going to be hurt like they were before. Or, the time their family turned their back on them and blamed the dog for being neglected…So eventually the dog wonders away from home, in hopes of getting a new owner and someone else out their who will love and care for them…
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 22, 2010 at 3:32 pm


its
The possessive form of it.
————————
Do we have to get possessive of anything in life…Is not freedom in the ability to let people have their own creativity…
Or objects, don’t they come and go…..
So the old sang, let go, let God comes into play. That one is a good record to play over and over again…..
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 22, 2010 at 3:46 pm


I have allot of experience….
Some good, some bad, some ok, some horrible and the list goes on….cc



report abuse
 

Anan E. Maus

posted May 23, 2010 at 8:43 pm


all these debates about the merits of appointees are off-point.
if a nominee has the experience to perform the job, then they should be allowed to perform the job…right wing or left wing.
We have created such a climate of division…that everything becomes a political fight and nothing gets done.
Sure, if someone is shown to have a criminal background or have some extremely bizarre views…they can be rejected…outside of that kind of scenario…it is an abuse of the political process.
We have become so used to vicious political fighting, that that is now all we know.
There is something else….for both sides…..the actual needs of the people.
Let’s start fixing our roads and bridges and actually helping our citizens…the purpose of government.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted May 24, 2010 at 7:05 pm


interpreter
May 20, 2010 8:18 PM
“Yes, her nomination should not be endorsed because she has never been a judge and has absolutely no qualifications. Plus she is a gay rights advocate, and would probably vote to overturn current laws and legalize gay marriage.”
Gay marriage is ALREADY legal in America, ingerpreter – in 5 U.S. States and D.C.
What the court is likely to find is that GLBT citizens are entitled to both the Full Faith & credit clause’s protections (where a contract that is legal in one State MUST be legally recognized in all others – just as Loving v. Virginia was found). Also, the court could find that GLBT citizens are also entitled to the Equal Protections clause as well.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 25, 2010 at 11:24 pm


Re:Anan
No the debate about merits of appointees is not off point…Thank you very much…..
merit-Superior quality or worth; excellence:
I certainly want to know as much as I can if I am casting a vote for an appointee as you so call it, or whoever is in charge of that vote to make them well aware of all of their value systems….for this effects society at large…
When you say that it does not matter, this the problem..
That is why babies are being killed worldwide in this country. Somebody somewhere said,” I don’t give a damn about other people living and breathing”
Hell, it’s a choice, right…..not the choice that should be legal in this country…..
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 26, 2010 at 6:05 pm


Hell, they even picked the mother’s right to murder over the right of the person to grow and breath….
Well, isn’t that special…..
And you wonder why I think they are lacking some moral conscience….
Not only that, then we have a society which supports the choice of murder worldwide to boot….Is that not special or what?
Well, well, well, we have come a long way since Hitler haven’t we…
The mass murders world wide are just so plain out evil, that they have marketed it as a choice of conduct….Well how is that for liberty of the unborn, the Posterity which our Constitution mentions…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 26, 2010 at 6:09 pm


And then we have the Supreme Court which is supposed to vote on the side of the Constitution towards Posterity, and the president as well to vote for protecting them….
Then they use the thought of the unborn not being developed enough to say they are a person….big fat liar…..cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 26, 2010 at 7:31 pm


cc: “And then we have the Supreme Court which is supposed to vote on the side of the Constitution towards Posterity…”
Which they have. Blessings of Liberty secured therein have been recognized for those who qualify. This has all been explained to you, but you’re about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
cc: “Well, well, well, we have come a long way since Hitler haven’t we…”
Like Glenn Beck, you have Hitler Tourette’s. Comparing America to Nazi Germany because our laws permit abortion exhibits an extremely poor understanding of history. I notice you still improperly use the word ‘murder’, for shock value, … being deliberately, repeatedly, wrong is the same as wilfully lying.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 27, 2010 at 7:16 pm


HG,
Qualify, your a joker of a human being……I guess the child has to yell and scream at you first, before you would ever consider them as a person?
They do qualify as Posterity, thank you very much….You and your fellow murdering philosophers believe if, you just murder them before they develop then they don’t qualify as a person……Hos insane…
That is why we have God, for people like you and the rest who feel that they can do what they want with a human being and get away with it….The thing that gets me is, that we have this view in leadership and then we have the people who sit by and quietly smile as if it were a normal thing to murder a child under law….The choice should be to protect the child, not murder by choice….Thank you very much….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 27, 2010 at 7:22 pm


p.s.
Because, I for one feel that individuals who support murder and the laws which are institutionalized by them with a gleam in their eye…view this as a Hitler type of philosophy….For when you care for human being and want to protect them.,,,then you make sure the laws don’t get past….You don’t sign on the dotted line and shake your head with a smile and tell the rest of the folks that it is a choice to murder children and this is a choice that should be protected…..Bad idea for society….cc
I understand history perfectly…I understand there will be people in power who will abuse authority and corrupt society with the views of killing people who are innocent , not only that they can not even protect themselves from you….So they need others to step in and protect them by law,…..seeing how people have become so arrogant in nature to think of themselves so highly to think that they endorse killing those little growing babies….and no this is not funny….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm


how
how
how
In what manner or way; by what mean:
So how do you propose that these children be murdered under law by your choice, HG?
That would be the biggest let down of society if we took in to consideration your views on protecting the unborn…For these are the children of the our future….Ous Posterity…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 27, 2010 at 7:29 pm


our
our
our
The possesive form of we……
So what are possesive of, Mr. HG?
Could it be your ego….to try and prove that your better then the rest by way of saying or should I write, writing that you are somehow more qualified to be a person…..??
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 27, 2010 at 7:31 pm


you
you
you
Use to refer to the one or ones being addressed.

So, you don’t have to address me any further on the subject, I am not stupid enough to think that that is not a person growing in the womb, known as our Posterity….cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 28, 2010 at 8:40 pm


cc; “They do qualify as Posterity, thank you very much…”
Not under the law they don’t, thank you even more.
cc: “That is why we have God”
There are no gods, silly.
cc: “The choice should be to protect the child, not murder by choice…”
You use the word ‘choice’, but you don’t want people to have one. Still improperly using the word murder too, for shock value, I see.
cc: “I am not stupid enough to think…”
To think humanity began in the Garden of Eden 6000 years ago with a talking snake for company etc. etc. You are THAT stupid, and that has to be dumb enough!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 29, 2010 at 4:37 pm


NO HG,
Thank you very much, I know where a baby comes from and I certainly don’t have to take the definition of a child not being a child until it is living and breathing out of the womb….Let alone, not call them our Posterity….
As for God, you know where you came from and how you were designed enough to breath and pump blood. So, I will not even look or address those who think of themselves so highly as not consider the Lord above for strength and logic..For is your logic comes from man, it is only limited to what you have been educated in as far as the secular world is conscerned…..
And as far as the choice is conscerned….I don’t believe in giving humans the right to pre-meditate the killing of an innocent human being under law…For that would be a Hitler view point….So, you of course would be viewed as having like mind of Hitler himself, if you think that you have a right to murder people without cause….Just because of a choice…..
As far as shock value is conscerned, well that would be those who sit by and quietly respond to murder by choice as a right decision….of value…Of course their are evil people who will always choose evil as their choice…I for one will not be siding on your court of the law….
As for abortion being murder by definition…It does not take much to figure out when you suck a human being our of a birth canal while developing, that it is….And as far as Embryonic Stem-Cell is conscerned, well we know those are developing people too, so don’t give me this line of bull that they are some abstract blob of tissue which is not yet a human because they are not breathing, kicking and yelling at you for their life…..For they are of different blood type and they have different DNA then you, and they have different finger tips then their mother or father, and their eyes are completely unique to themselves…..So this lieing quack of bull is for you to uncover as a lie to yourself. Those are people and those are our Posterity…….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm


What you didn’t like the title…….I guess you like to control everything…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 29, 2010 at 4:55 pm


there
there
there
——-
So there you have it folks,,,,People kill people by legal choice, because people at this point gave them the right to do so….cc
Have a nice day, and understand that you have a right of choice to change murdering people by choice by way of who you vote for and what you stand for….You can make a difference and you can give that person a right to breath by choice……cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm


cc: “As for abortion being murder by definition…It does not take much to figure out when you suck a human being our of a birth canal while developing, that it is…”
So, when we eat an egg, we’ve murdered a chicken? No. Murder, by definition, must be unlawful.
cc: “So, you of course would be viewed as having like mind of Hitler himself, if you think that you have a right to murder people without cause….Just because of a choice…”
I might be viewed that way by people with tiny little brains, but that doesn’t bother me. Not people, not murder. Many lives have been sacrificed upon the altar of freedom to secure the right which you seek to revoke. You will not succeed in doing so while this Constitution stands, may that be for a long, long, time.
cc: “You can make a difference and you can give that person a right to breath by choice…”
No, I can’t, because I’m a man. Men, properly, have no legal control over the abortion decision. Men do have, however, under gender discrimination law, the same right to not become a parent due to a sex act resulting in pregnancy. I believe that, in the future, women will no longer be given the option of deciding for men whether or not they will be a parent as a result of pregnancy. Women decide for women, men decide for men; neither the sex act, nor pregnancy, is determinative under the law.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 1, 2010 at 7:25 pm


HG, iS WHAT HE IS………
aN EGG IS NOT A HUMAN BEING….
MURDER IS MURDER…..
Tiny little brains think that murdering people is not murder….
———————————————
YOur a jirk HG, so,,,,,,,,,,you can go back to bed and hopefully get up in th morning with a bigger brain to be more thoughtful towards others in their quest to save people….
You of course can side with murdering people like HItler did, they all raised their head high like they were patriotic or something while they were doing it….with guns in hand like it was a right to kill innocent people by choice because they were not like themselves…
Virtually smaller then you of course, developing of course, and certainly a bit more innocent then the people who sit in a circle and say yes to choice of murder……no, I am not for satanic attacks of the unborn….cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted June 2, 2010 at 2:45 am


cc: “HG, iS WHAT HE IS………”
All things are.
cc: “MURDER IS MURDER…..”
Brilliant.
cc: “Tiny little brains think that murdering people is not murder….”
They may even think that not murdering people is murdering people, after all, they have tiny brains.
You can try to take rights away from the people, the way Hitler did, and you can claim it’s part of an effort to fight Satan. I think you’re just another nut who wants to inflict your limited world view upon everyone.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 4, 2010 at 5:07 pm


I think your just another piece of garbage who stepped out into the world only thinking of himself when it comes to life….thus contaminating the world with views of slaughter by dollar….There you go, HG, that can be your slogan….Slaughter by dollar….Get those little brains out the way…Is that what you think, HG? For they are little brains….How much money are you getting out of the deal by murdering developing children?
For if you are not actually doing it, you certainly have done your fair share in promoting that activity….!!!!!!!!
I would wrather have a heavenly minded writer then a worldly self-gratifying promoter…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 4, 2010 at 5:09 pm


Ow, do not worry, I know the difference between individuals who care about life and those who don’t.
The End….cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted June 4, 2010 at 5:51 pm


cc: “For they are little brains….How much money are you getting out of the deal by murdering developing children?”
Everything is relative. I neither profit from, nor promote, abortion. I promote women’s right to abort pregnancy IF they choose. Deciding to have sex is separate from deciding to become a parent. Neither having sex nor getting pregnant as a result indicate a desire or financial/emotional ability to become a parent. Forcing people to have children when they don’t want to is a very BAD idea, morally and socially.
I would rather people of this country keep the freedoms they fought to secure.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm


hey can someone tell me why right-wing Christians have such trouble with the English language? Maybe they should have to take a test before they are technically considered citizens… just a thought.



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted August 11, 2010 at 5:49 am


Good writing, and I very much agree with your thoughts and insights. Hope that more could write such a good word, I said, to continue coming to visit, thank you for sharing.i love buy umbrella very much .



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.