Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


What Happened to the Kagan Standard?

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, 

I agree.  The confirmation hearings produced little when it came to clear and direct answers from Elena Kagan about her judicial philosophy – specifically how she views church/state issues.

I can’t help but recall the words she used in a 1995 law-journal article.  After serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee staff during Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hearing, Kagan wrote that Supreme Court confirmation hearings had become a “vapid and hollow charade” and taken on “an air of vacuity and farce.”  

At the time, she offered a solution calling on a nominee to discuss “the votes she would cast, the perspective she would add, and the direction in which she would move the institution.”

Here’s the problem – Kagan didn’t take her own advice.  She refused to discuss any of these at her own hearing, which prompted the question:  What happened to the Kagan standard?

The vote count is underway as the Senate Judiciary Committee – followed by the full Senate – votes on her nomination.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who voted in favor of Kagan in March 2009 when she was up for confirmation as President Obama’s solicitor general, has said he will not support Kagan’s nomination to the high court.

Sen. Hatch lamented that she chose not to answer many questions by a host of Senators – including questions about freedom of speech and campaign finance reform.  Based on her academic and political experience, Sen. Hatch concluded that Kagan would not embrace a judicial philosophy that he could support.  In his words, her record “shows that her primarily academic and political experience and her activist judicial philosophy make her inappropriate for serving on the Supreme Court.”   He added:  “Her hearing offered nothing to neutralize the clear evidence of what kind of justice she will be.”

And, then there’s this analysis from Bloomberg news  which points to the notion that adding Kagan to the Court is likely to only further split the Court – and the voting – along partisan lines.

“Kagan’s career suggests she will join the Democratic group more often than not. She served for four years in President Bill Clinton’s White House, working to support abortion rights, bolster weapons restrictions and authorize federal regulation of tobacco.   ‘My views are generally progressive,’ the lifelong Democrat said at her confirmation hearing in June.”

Barry, I don’t think we will get a clear understanding of where Kagan stands on the church/state issues and a host of others until she is on the bench and begins actively participating in cases.

That’s certainly not the way it should work – but the carefully choreographed confirmation hearings did nothing to reveal much beyond what we already knew.

And, consider this:  if confirmed, Kagan would be the first successful nominee in recent years – according to a new Gallup poll - whose nomination was backed by less than a majority of Americans.

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(73)
post a comment
Your Name

posted July 19, 2010 at 3:19 pm


Ang……
Great outfit…wonder, where you got that idea for that pict…?
Whatever, I don’t really want to protect the sinful nature of an individual…
So, that was just an attempt at trying to manipulate the situation, so you could get another bit of bedside manner…ey? And that goes for all of you out there as well.
cc



report abuse
 

Stranger here

posted July 19, 2010 at 3:44 pm


Jay, you never bother to address the fact that it’s only YOUR religion that wishes to impose its rules on the rest of society. I can’t ever recall a single Hindu getting to grill a nominee. Nor a prominent Buddhist. Or a Taoist. Or a Rastafarian. Or a Sikh. Or a Jain. Or a Universalist-Unitarian.
why is it onlyl (radically) right-wing Catholics and Protestants that get this privilege?
I mean, fer gawd’s sake, Tony Perkins of the “Family” “Research” Council (a group recognized as a hate-group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, btw) got to question Kagan. What the “F” is up with THAT?
Can’t your side be happy that you get to limit the National Day of Prayer to the kind that James Dobson’s wife approves of?



report abuse
 

marmelade

posted July 19, 2010 at 4:01 pm


Jay,
It seems that to you only a progressive has an ” activist judicial philosophy”. Some of the more radical right wingers on the court are obviously much more to your liking. Perish any progressive non-religious thought.



report abuse
 

Brent Cooper

posted July 19, 2010 at 5:09 pm


Check out the 2 blogs started by Harvard law students attacking Kagan for her actions as Harvard law dean in whitewashing a ghostwriting/plagiarism scandal involving Larry Tribe as to which Kagan had a conflict of interest, given her past ghostwriting for Tribe. In particular, they’ve put together a very entertaining video explaining the whole thing:
http://authorskeptics.blogspot.com
http://harvardparody.wordpress.com



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted July 19, 2010 at 5:38 pm


Everybody knew from the beginning that Kagan would be approved. I like the way one commentator put it: The Republicans on the committee will make a lot a noise about thoroughly investigating her qualifications and then they will oppose her simply because Obama nominated her. Obama caught them with their pants down because now several members of the Party of No would have to backpedal because of their previous support for her. Jay, you guys are just so transparent…



report abuse
 

Leslie

posted July 21, 2010 at 1:27 am


What many people don’t realize is since the 1970’s college and high school students are taught that the Constitution is a “living,breathing doccument” and since the Brown vs Board of education decision of the late 50’s, the decisions that are made or the concept of “living and breathing” is a judicial philosophy based upon what the Supreme’s “believe” the public want or are ready for. The boomer generation educated in the Liberal and Ivy League Colleges got it first and in the 70’s the generality was pretty well throughout the Public Universiites. Sadly, it wasnt often described as just the Democratic or Liberal Judges who subscribed to this even though the WArren Court of the 60’s and 70’s changed by majority vote, many of the original or 200 year law precedent that following precedent enlarged and began the Civil Liability Lawsuits and money of the ACLU and Lawyer-up mentality or deep pocket mentality. It was only later in the 80’s that these judges were identified as Judges who were Progressive or Activist. The real question then as now, is how to the Justices Know or decide what the public or citizens or majority would want. Or how do they know what the public is ready for as in Brown vs The Board of Education?
I have asked this question to several professors in Sociology, History, Civics and Constitutional law classes at different Universities throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and my career. The answer is never the same. But the question to Kagan should have been in this day and age of false and biasded media, just as to Sara Palin in far out Alaska. “What newspapers and media to you watch and how often?” Do you have time to read internet and new media? If abortion is set precedent at its most extreme, how does a judge determine and change precedent if it is obvious it is unpopular, to extreme and was never accepted by the public in its current legality? How does the Constition Breath and live, and change if past precedent is generally believed to be bad or extreme law by media, the public and known by the Justices?????
What many young supporters of abortion don’t know or understand is the first decision to legalize abortion, Roe vs Wade, was the decision that a woman could decide to terminate pregnacy in the first trimester. How the decisions have expanded and declared unconstitutional cases where States have attempted to go back to that limited time frame, or change the vast expandsion of abortion in more recent decisions, has many times been based on little besides activist judges on the Supremes “fearing” certain words are wrong or to limiting in scope, never seeming to look at the “INTENT’ of the State to just get repeat or late term abortions back under control or to the early term when the fetuc is decidedly less viable or developed. If we do away with the idea or objective of a Supreme Court that is unbiased or wise, rather than technical and secular or partisan. The wise or non partisan President would choose or try to appoint someone who would BALANCE the COURT, not weight it. Kagans position will truly be more long lasting and carry more weight than any Congress or President for a longer time. If we are now to the point where a President nominates Justices who “think like he/she does” rather than with experience in both criminal and civil law and public and private work experience. If the Presidents all choose from the same tank of Liberal Far Eastern University thought and think tanks. If his/her objective is to appoint someone with just his philosophy (which Sotomeyer and Kagan mimic), then the President is not appointing whats in the nations best interest in seeking the odd number or swing vote that is thoughtful and experienced in thought, but is choosing “my way or the hyway” and seeking political ideology over Equal Justice through balance of thought, national representation and ideological diversity.
Bi Partisanship means compromise, by Democrats not listening to the people or compromising with Republicans, they are as guilty of Paritsanship and bias, as Republicans of being called Partisan or Party of NO. All the people need a Supreme Court that is capable of non partisanship and the objectivity of looking at original intent and equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes. Judges who have been exposed to various law, various deputes and various concerns of all the country and not just the far eastern elite liberalism. Media is mostly the sensational crime, radical group complaints and government political narrative. Justices who only read liberal newspapers or even PBS and BBC, and socialize with friends and family who just “think” like them or have their financial and political leanings, are from the start limited in life experience and will have a biased or distorted view of what the “living,breathing” general public wants or is ready for.
Original Intent is pretty important when the early writers new the English Language and wrote as simple and pure and understandable as any country could desire. Something that modern Judges and Lawyers
seem incapable of doing, at the state or federal level. Even understanding documents and decisions of the last 40 years, have seemed to confuse the most asstute of lawmakers and attorneys. The recent healthcare bill is but one example of Law that is neither understood when written, nor agreed upon when passed, when Republican Lawyers see intent and specifics as one thing and the same law read by Democrats as something else.
One thing about Clarence Thomas, who has been criticized by the elite for being a “poor writer of opinion”, he is understandable to lawyers and citizens, wheather you like his decision or not.With Sotomeyers lone decent in the recent Miranda decision, her thought and writing was confusing and ideological, with little to do with the Constitution or common sense or justice for victims and the public. With Kagan and Sotomeyer making a possible majority of eastern liberal or academic swing vote thought, Republicans and Dems who vote her in are failing to exercise the power they are elected to. To try and protect the Constition and American Justice to equality and objectivity, not elitist and biased Supreme Progressive Rule, or Individuals who think they know whats best or what the people want, by reading biased newspapers and limited exposure to all American experience.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 6:21 am


Stranger here says:
Jay, you never bother to address the fact that it’s only YOUR religion that wishes to impose its rules on the rest of society.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that atheists are trying to impose THEIR “religion” on the rest of society.
Stranger here says:
I can’t ever recall a single Hindu getting to grill a nominee. Nor a prominent Buddhist. Or a Taoist. Or a Rastafarian. Or a Sikh. Or a Jain. Or a Universalist-Unitarian.
Mr. Incredible says:
You forgot Muslim. Obammy is a Muslim. He was involved in a lotta questioning.
Stranger here says:
why is it onlyl (radically) right-wing Catholics and Protestants that get this privilege?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz nobody votes a Hindu, nor a Buddhist, nor a Taoist, nor a Rastafarian, nor a Sikh, nor a Jain, nor a Universalist-Unitarian into office. If they do, they are so ineffective that even the other thing Congress keep them on a leash.
Stranger here says:
… Tony Perkins of the “Family” “Research” Council (a group recognized as a hate-group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, btw)…
Mr. Incredible says:
Feel free to provide the link.
Stranger here says:
… got to question Kagan.
Mr. Incredible asks:
When and where?
Stranger here says:
Can’t your side be happy that you get to limit the National Day of Prayer to the kind that James Dobson’s wife approves of?
Mr. Incredible says:
The National Day of Prayer is limited to no one. It includes everybody who wants to be included, and it excludes nobody who doesn’t want to be excluded.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 6:31 am


The reason we know Obammy is a Muslim is that his father is/was a Muslim, and Islam says that the son of a Muslim is a Muslim.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 6:35 am


CORRECTION
other thing Congress — — > others in Congress



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 21, 2010 at 11:30 am


Leslie,
Your post is generally incoherent but I do believe that I gleaned the fact that you don’t approve of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Apparently, you are more of a Plessey vs. Ferguson fan.
In this day and age, you just don’t hear too many people sing the praises of Plessey anymore.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm


Rich says:
Leslie,
Your post is generally incoherent …
Mr. Incredible breaks that code:

“I find anything with which I disagree to be incoherent.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 12:21 pm


DSJulian says:
Jay, you guys are just so transparent…
Mr. Incredible says:
November is gonna be transparent, too. Then, November, ’12, will be transparent.
CONSERVATIVE VICTORY is coming!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 22, 2010 at 1:30 am


I find it fairly comical that Mr. Sekulow brings up a Gallup poll that reportedly shows that Kagan is not supported by a majority of Americans. I guess Mr. Sekulow believes that legal rights should be decided by running a popularity contest.
Given Mr. Sekulow’s pathetic reasoning, given the right circumstances and if Lady Gaga is in the right place at the right time, well she can be on the Supreme Court. All you need is a majority of the American public to support you.
C’mon Jay, you really can do better than that, actually any junior high school kid can do better than that. Some unbalanced poster above came out in favor of Plessey v. Ferguson, gosh Jay, you really have some enlightened supporters. You must be so proud. Indeed, I suppose that Plessey was a popular ruling among a majority of Americans at the time but that never made it right.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 22, 2010 at 9:25 am


Rich says:
I find it fairly comical that Mr. Sekulow brings up a Gallup poll that reportedly shows that Kagan is not supported by a majority of Americans. I guess Mr. Sekulow believes that legal rights should be decided by running a popularity contest.
Mr. Incredibleasks:
What legal “Rights” of Kagan’s are you talking about?
The confirmation process of Supreme Court candidates is a popularity contest, even if you don’t take into account the fact that, during the past decade+, Democrats politicized the Court to the point that, now, nobody can think of the Court as anything but a political body. So be it.
Rich says:
Given Mr. Sekulow’s pathetic reasoning…
Mr. Incredibletranslates:

“Mr. Sekulow should think like me!”

Rich says:
…given the right circumstances and if Lady Gaga is in the right place the right time, well she can be on the Supreme Court.
Mr. Incrediblesays:
Since the Democrats politicized the Court, anything is possible.
Rich says:
All you need is a majority of the American public to support you.
Mr. Incrediblesays:
Well, the People elect those who confirm.
Rich says:
Some unbalanced poster…
Mr. Incrediblebreaks that code:

“Somebody who doesn’t think like me…”

Rich says:
…I suppose that Plessey was a popular ruling among a majority of Americans at the time but that never made it right.
Mr. Incrediblesays:
However, more people than not, at the time, thought it was correct. If the majority like the Rambler, that, in itself, doesn’t make it a good car, though I have-ta asked myself what they see that I don’t see.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 22, 2010 at 9:50 am


Rich says:
All you need is a majority of the American public to support you.
Mr. Incredible says:
The American People are not in the confirmation loop. We’re surprised I have-ta tell you that. Well, maybe not surprised.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 22, 2010 at 10:14 am


Gee, I miss layin’ the beatdown on Boris. Smackin’ Rich and HG around is ok, though.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 22, 2010 at 1:40 pm


Mr. I Am In Love With Myself,
Geez dude, I just checked with myself and don’t feel like I have been smacked around. You know, and I am just blue-skying it here, but wouldn’t your “smackin’ us around” be far more effective if we felt that we had been taught a lesson by the mighty Mr. I, cult member extraordinaire?



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 22, 2010 at 2:36 pm


I think Boris got tired of giving the same lessons over and over to an unreceptive mind, as Mr. I Believe in Spooks doesn’t seem to process information well. I agree with you Rich, Mr. I’s responses have been more blithering than withering.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 22, 2010 at 4:41 pm


HG,
Yep, blathering, blithering or just plain nutty, Mr. I Am Incredible, Really I Am doesn’t seem much interested in anything other than masturbating his own ego.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:20 am


Rich says:
Mr. I Am In Love With Myself…
Mr. Incredible asks:
And is your imaginary, five-fingered “girlfriend” in love with you, too?
Rich says:
…Geez dude, I just checked with myself and don’t feel like I have been smacked around.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I can’t admit that I’ve been smacked around says that would make me look like a wuss…er… even more like a wuss.”

Rich asks:
You know, and I am just blue-skying it here, but wouldn’t your “smackin’ us around” be far more effective if we felt that we had been taught a lesson…
Mr. Incredible says:
Not necessarily.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:29 am


HG says:
I think Boris got tired of giving the same lessons over and over to an unreceptive mind…
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God shut him up. Then he went runnin’ away like a scared, old woman.
HG says:
…as Mr. I Believe in Spooks…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s a good thing that you admit you believe in spooks. I’m glad I don’t.
HG says:
… doesn’t seem to process information well.
Mr. Incredible says:
Scoffers don’t have any useful information to process.
HG says:
…I agree with you Rich…
Mr. Incredible breaks that code:

“Wuddyou say we get a room together!”

HG says:
…Mr. I’s responses have been more blithering than withering.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Not only are they more blithering than withering cuz we don’t agree with him, we don’t have anything intelligent to counter what he says. “



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:35 am


Rich says:
HG,
Yep, blathering, blithering or just plain nutty…
Mr. Incredible translates:

” I wouldn’t be saying those things, if he agreed with me.”

Rich says:
…Mr. I Am Incredible, Really I Am…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, I am.
Rich says:
… doesn’t seem much interested in anything other than masturbating his own ego.
Mr. Incredible breaks that code:

“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:21 am


HG says:
I think Boris got tired of giving the same lessons over and over to an unreceptive mind…
Mr. Incredible says:
So, he wuss’d and puss’d out. He turned girly and ran. We get it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:28 am


HG says:
…Boris got tired of giving the same lessons over and over to an unreceptive mind…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Boris got tired of trying and failing to deceive and indoctrinate you to his way of thinkin’.”

GOOD! GLORY TO GOD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:50 am


HG says:
…I agree with you Rich…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I can’t disagree with you cuz I need for you to like me and approve of me.”



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:04 pm


Here are two quotes from Mr. I Believe in Spooks. He says it all, no need to add anything (but I’m pretty sure he’ll tack on a page or two anyway).
Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “…my eyes see only what I want them to see, and my ears hear only what I want them to hear. So, there can be no proof where I want no proof. Such proof would interfere with my projection on the world of what I want the world to be like…”



report abuse
 

Daniel Moe

posted July 23, 2010 at 6:30 pm


It just is so obvious that we are seeing this administration and liberal members of congress causing this great country to be manipulated, controlled and causing America to be almost unrecognizable with the bad policy decison and legislation that occurs on an on-going basis. When is it going to stop? I pray that in November 2010 that we shatter the democratic stronghold in Congress and get some much needed balance that is lacking. From defense of this country, to apologizing to arab leaders as well as other leaders like the president of Mexico is nothing short of offensive. The economic policies of Obama and Congress only create government jobs. The list goes on and on but it needs to stop! The icing on the cake is the building of an arab mosque in New York at ground zero. What an insult to Americans! The mainstream media as usual is complicit with failing to report the news objectively(Whatever happened to journalism with integrity?) The media as usual reports whatever is pro-Obama. Thank God the american poeple by a large majority see things for what they are. God help this country with its offensive policies in this current administration.



report abuse
 

Bright Bart

posted July 23, 2010 at 8:48 pm


Totally agree with Moe, (and Larry and Curly).



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 23, 2010 at 9:21 pm


Daniel Moe,
re: “(Whatever happened to journalism with integrity?)”
I don’t know. Perhaps you could ask FOX.



report abuse
 

RAB

posted July 25, 2010 at 8:36 am


Nothing happened to the Kagan standard, Jay. It is still there. The real Kagan standard is the modern liberal standard, which is much like the Muslim standard: if it helps your cause, then say it. If it does not help your cause, then don’t say it. It matters not whether it is true. And if later it becomes inconvenient, then rationalize it away.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 26, 2010 at 2:38 pm


Who cares?
…………….
When people stab you in the back and do whatever the please for their own agenda, it’s just plain rediculous to try and get them to behave in a respectful manner with intentions of treating you with dignity and respect…
And you hear, she has a screw loose. And who was giving her the screw, no pun intended? Just maybe she got a bit tired of you deceving her and giving her less then what she truely deserves……
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 26, 2010 at 2:41 pm


She’s a bit tired of the manipulating people walking and working around who are so insecure that they put up a front of artificial, superficial gossip which promotes uneducated, deceived individuals which are only in it for themselves…
So this is where we are to give equal rights and not to put others down….cc



report abuse
 

payday loans toronto

posted July 26, 2010 at 10:02 pm


blog.beliefnet.com is great! No Credit Check Payday Loans What You Need to Know If all of your answers are yes then you will definitely benefit from no credit check payday loans



report abuse
 

Jay Stewart

posted July 28, 2010 at 12:22 am


Jay you are a Nazi and a self-hating Jew. You would sell out your own to kind to the gas chambers.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 28, 2010 at 7:37 pm


I don’t know, maybe people do things they want with their money to give themselves more material wealth, meanwhile turning their backs on the needy…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 28, 2010 at 8:00 pm


…………………….hence, selfishness and lack of equality…cc



report abuse
 

Scott Cove

posted July 30, 2010 at 7:56 pm


Wow Jay:
I am guessing this late in the game you are used to ad hominem attacks.
Your mama is a ……
You are a …..
You are lower than a ……
And your whole family is a ……. and anyone who would consider what you have to argue is a …….
And therefore any position, carefully reasoned based on FACTS, “Do’n mean —-“.
I have at this very moment 2 dozen just hatched wild turkeys wandering out of the
By the way, any and all hate mail from commenters with unique ISP numbers in the 94595 94563 94507 94549 and 94523.
Please forward them to us won’t you. We’d like to have them. We’re actively cataloging the anarchists, malicious mal-contents and bomb throwers pre-identified for when the Big Earthquake on the Hayward fault hits, and all rule of law is removed from the area for the weeks preceding the arrival of armed assistance from Camp Pendleton.



report abuse
 

Brianroy

posted August 1, 2010 at 10:17 am


When Obama isn’t even a Constitutionally qualified US President under US Supreme Court Law and US Code (not having a United States Citizen Father required for a United States Natural Born Status), why should he appoint anything else than unqualified Communist-Socialists and Liberal activists with anti-Constitutional agendas to various offices.
I dare the Communist-Socialist Barry Lynn or even Jay to debate the facts of Obama’s unconstitutionality on the NBC Clause of Article 2.1 of the US Constitution. Jay has ben asleep at the switch on this one. I posted 60 pages on scribd, including reference to 40 US Supreme Court Cases et al. at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29761732/Barack-Hussein-Obama-II-Usurper-of-the-United-States-Presidency
In US Law, the burden of proving you have a right to delegate power to the United States or prohibit the States and the exercise of their powers, such as being President of the US, is upon those who wish to exercise the aforesaid powers (333 US 640 @ 653, Bute v. Illinois, from 1948).
From the Constitution’s inception, until 1934, when only the US Citizen father (or the presumption of one) passed on US Citizenship, and not the mother (including under the 14th Amendment for some 66 years) …Justice Bader-Ginsburg called these “the bad old days” in the 2001 oral arguments of Nguyen v. INS
In that decision, in 2001, the Court has already ruled what Obama or any other US Presidential candidate must present starting with the 2004 Presidential election onwards:
Documents of a birth certificate and witnesses to the birth
Documents of hospital records and witnesses to the birth
Obama has NO United States citizen father, NOR the presumption of one at birth. Legally he is disqualified by the US Constitution.
Obama has never present authenticated birth records of any kind having “witnesses to the birth” as prescribed @ 54 and 52 of Nguyen v. INS.
Legally, Obama is disqualified by the qualifiers left us in the very decisions of the US Supreme Court regarding both the US Constitution and existing US Law.
In effect, the putative (presumed) President is de facto (in reality) a usurper to the US Presidency.
Jay needs to get off the sideshow, and sue Obama out of the Presidency he has usurped.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible aks

posted August 1, 2010 at 3:28 pm


So, Obammy is an illegal alien????
If he is, the 9th Circuit [yes, the same one The Great State of Arizona is headed to], in a case in ’83 [Gonzales v City of Peoria], says that states may enforce immigration laws [Gee, that's already been decided!]. I say that somebody oughta arrest him. I’d make a citizen’s arrest, if I could get close enough.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 1, 2010 at 3:31 pm


By the way, in 2005, SCOTUS also ruled, in Muehler, that law enforcement officers may question suspects about their immigration status and that the officers need no “reasonable suspicion” to do so.
Sounds as though Arizona’s case has already been answered in Arizona’s favor!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 1, 2010 at 4:57 pm


Re: Jay
Well, I don’t think we are supposed to cut others down and the like..
They are entitled to their opinion and belief..
Here is where the difference lies between pro-choice and pro-lifers..:
The pro-choice( meaning giving others the right to murder their children while developing)
Believe it is up to them and if they want to based on their belief systems…
The argument I have read and heard from the Democratic party is that somehow by lableing the developing children in stages and giving them less then citizenship makes them less then a person and less then a human being, seeing how they are not fully developed in breathing and living outside of the womb…
The argument to this theory of theirs is.., who gives them the right to downgrade them into being less then people… , and then by their standards defined by them, giving them the ability to kill them before they are born.
Are we to believe that by giving them the ability to define a person in developing stages makes them less then people developing…?
The answer to this question is no…
So the other argument to their theory is that we can not force them to carry the human being in their womb because it is not their body..
Well, it was their choice to have sex and that is where the pro-choice stops in the pregnancy…..cc
Re: Rich
I don’t know, sometimes your blogs come off a bit condescending in nature, although we have covered that subject before, and yet it is your choice to keep putting others down, instead of sticking to the topic…, you must have learned that in your childhood or something. Maybe you could just state your opinion, without going about giving personal attacks…cc
Re: Mr. Incredible
You seem to know alot about the law and religion, and I feel the reason why you go about with comebacks the way you do, is to make a statement in the fact, who gives you the right to not give others rights….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm


As for the people who anonymously go about their day trying to say that I am less then them, are trying to point out what?
Nice dress, I wonder where you got that idea?
As for meds., I think that everybody could benefit from meds. from time to time…., whatever that is to benefit the body… And no sorry your not my doctor, and that was years ago.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 1, 2010 at 5:05 pm


I may need something for the people who come around me to try and take something away. You know, something to cut the edge off of me when people are out to get my job or stab me in the back…
You can’t carry around a bottle of wine all day to keep me in a sedative mood…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 1, 2010 at 7:49 pm


cc: “They are entitled to their opinion and belief..”
Agreed, and like wise; as well, we are entitled to a government which does not promote or finance religious belief.
cc: “The pro-choice( meaning giving others the right to murder their children while developing)”
Wrong, you improperly use the word murder AGAIN.
cc: “Believe it is up to them and if they want to based on their belief systems…”
According to our law, it is; so they have good reason to believe that.
cc: “The argument to this theory of theirs is.., who gives them the right to downgrade them into being less then people… , and then by their standards defined by them, giving them the ability to kill them before they are born.”
Mankind, whether under God or not, is left here to his own devices. Self government, law, is an imperative to human society. We the People fought, and continue to fight, for our rights.
cc: “Are we to believe that by giving them the ability to define a person in developing stages makes them less then people developing…?
The answer to this question is no…”
No one is given power over you to define a fetus growing in you as less than a full person, nor is anyone given power over others to define a fetus inside them as a legal person. We are here with only ourselves to govern, and so we have. One might claim to know that God doesn’t like abortion, but, if He exists at all, He has obviously tolerated it.
cc: “Well, it was their choice to have sex and that is where the pro-choice stops in the pregnancy…..”
No. Having sex isn’t at all the same as having a baby, nor is the decision to have sex the same as the decision to have a baby. For you personally, they could equate; but you should not, and do not, have the legal right to force your view upon others. Abortion will remain legally available for those who don’t see things the way you do.
cc: “Re: Mr. Incredible… who gives you the right to not give others rights….”
I agree, but I’m struck by the fact that you would force parenthood on people due to a sex act, and (wrongly) call them murderers who choose to abort.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2010 at 11:03 pm


cc asks:
who gives you the right to not give others rights…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Is that a question, or a statement? And, do you want an answer, or just having a tantrum and venting?
Just to whom am I not giving Rights?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 1, 2010 at 11:22 pm


It’s hard to tell, but I think that, where cc asks who I think I am to say somebody else [who, I dunno] has no Rights [of course, I never said that others have no Rights], she’s referring to my recent statements about the immigration debate. Maybe she’s not. I dunno.
Anyway, goin’ on what little there is:
In 1983, in Gonzales v City of Peoria, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that states may enforce immigration law. This is the court to which the Great State of Arizona is headed right now, appealing a temporary injunction that says states do not have the power to enforce immigration law. So, it appears that the 9th has already decided in Arizona’s favor. I’ll be interesting to see whether the court agrees with itself, or not.
In Muehler v Mena, in 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that law enforcement officers are not required to have “resonable suspicion” to question suspects about their immigration status. Chalk another one up for Arizona.
And, so, the two main objections to SB-1070 have already been decided, in Arizona’s favor, by the courts to which the Great State of Arizona is already headed. Jay may also wanna take note cuz he is involved as a friend of the court in this case.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2010 at 11:29 pm


cc:
Re: Mr. Incredible… who gives you the right to not give others rights….
Mr. Incredible aks:
What “others”? If you wanna answer, you gotta ask a clear question.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 2, 2010 at 6:08 pm


Re: No Name
Force parenthood, your parenthood is forced upon you when you decide when and if you want to have sex….
As far as murder….
Who defined a developing person as less then a person…, all the DNA is there for development, thus meaning the organs are there, just in primative form….
And you miss, mr, or mrs pro-choice, are in fact enforcing others to believe in the selfish aproach of thinking that your form of a person, as yourself, is in fact that more important as a person…
Thus contaminating society at large with the belief system that your are greater…
And yes, I don’t care where you find your mixed up definition of a person in the womb as being less then a person, it is in fact that, a mixed up person who wrote it…for they are people primative, yes, and not able to survive without a support system of another, thus children…..
Murder she wrote…..yes, murder……cc
So don’t give me your crap of nature of pro-choice acitivist, because you are in fact that, a pro-murder choice acitivist….cc
Let us protect our Posterity as the Constitution states,,,,,,to defend……….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for religious beliefs, well it is your choice to choose what you believe in…., free country, free religion…..cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 2, 2010 at 6:12 pm


Re: Mr. Incredible….
What are you referring to……?
Clear question,??
Meaning do you believe in giving others favorable rights over another, while taking away anothers…..? when no criminal offence has taken place?
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 2, 2010 at 6:19 pm


Re: Mr. Incredible…
Meaning, I feel that you have been sticking up for people to have equal rights in this country, when in fact that they are legal…
Meaning,,,,,
When others are not giving equal rights, then you point it out to them…….,,, it was not a question, persay,,,, it was a statement that I was writing, meaning, if you were writing, “how dare you give others rights over another,,,”””
Get it?????
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 2, 2010 at 6:21 pm


Thus the whole act of abortion is in fact unequal right in operational form….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 2, 2010 at 6:31 pm


perception-
the process, act, or facultyof perceiving.
perceivable-(meaning persay?)
perse-Of, in, or by itself or oneself; intrinsically. cc
So you can conclude by DNA that these are developing people in primitive form in the womb or elsewhere…..thus murder she wrote….
cc Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 2, 2010 at 6:33 pm


Sorry your confused definitions of personhood defined people as anything less……cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

David Shrum

posted August 3, 2010 at 8:39 am


Separation of church and state. Whose church? The definition of religion is that it is a belief system about how this world began and how we are to behave in it. By that definition, no one is exempt from expressing a religious viewpoint. Without a religious viewpoint, people would have no consistency in thought and beliefs. The fact that people hold strong views of right and wrong, springs from a basis of why something is right and something else is wrong. A codified set of beliefs or values helps people to unify a set of beliefs about right and wrong upon which we can achieve consistent and safe societal behaviors. Codified beliefs are found in major world religions and can be evaluated in the light of day. Other religious beliefs are uncodified and provide no consistency. Two codified documents which have served this nation well are the Christian Bible and the US Constitution. The latter being based upon the codified standards of the former. Do away with these baselines and we are left to return to 1776 and do it all over again. Upon what religious perspective(s) will we agree?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm


The unborn, beginning at conception, have their own DNA and growth schedules. These things are independent of the mother and her Will. She has no natural control over them.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 3, 2010 at 12:31 pm


David Shrum says:
Separation of church and state. Whose church?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Does it include mosques?
David Shrum says:
The definition of religion is that it is a belief system about how this world began and how we are to behave in it.
G2356 and G2357 say that “religion” is “ceremonial observance” which, most certainly, Christianity is not.
David Shrum says:
By that definition, no one is exempt from expressing a religious viewpoint.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, given that the First Amendment begins with the Freedom of “religion.”
David Shrum says:
Without a religious viewpoint, people would have no consistency in thought and beliefs.
Mr. Incredible says:
In fact, people would be saying that everybody has his own idea of what is truth and a lie, good and bad, right and wrong. HEY! That’s already happening!
David Shrum says:
Two codified documents which have served this nation well are the Christian Bible and the US Constitution. The latter being based upon the codified standards of the former.
Mr. Incredible says:
Absolutely!
David Shrum says:
Upon what religious perspective(s) will we agree?
Mr. Incredible says:
As we can plainly see, none. The result, as you say, is confusion, and those of us who are born again, not ignorant of the devices of the Devil, know that the Devil is the father of lies and confusion. The atheists are also happy with all the confusion.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 3, 2010 at 3:20 pm


And, let us not forget to mention the blood type of the child, which could be different from the mother…., thus indicating a different individual….., a living being….., remember…..cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 3, 2010 at 3:24 pm


Children still need nutrition, no matter where they are growing and the parent is liable…..cc
Sorry, you can’t skip town on the child and go and kill it, so you don’t have to give it nutrition through your body…
Try birth control if you have a problem with parenting…. Like I mentioned before double up on your methods which don’t kill children…
That would be beneficial to thoughs who do not want their body to give nutrition to the growing child within…..cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 3, 2010 at 4:48 pm


In any case, the blood of the unborn child is not the mother’s blood.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 3, 2010 at 4:50 pm


If you stick an unborn child with a pin, the mother wouldn’t feel it, but the unborn child would flinch.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 6:59 am


I guess those who are said to control this blog are not gonna control the commerical spam that has infected it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 4, 2010 at 8:14 am


At least it displaces the Boris/Rich/HG trash.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:40 pm


It comes down to others who control money and what they get out of te deal…even if it means lieing to the rest of the public about people being people…cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:42 pm


the
and yes this is a type-o
not a handycap….cc
I am not so insecure that I want everything written perfectly all the time so that others think on bright based on that..
For if you are trying to convince the public that you are perfect, you would in fact be a liar….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 7, 2010 at 3:39 pm


handicap-
A physical or mantal disability.
————-
So one can have migraines impairing their mental efficiency, eh?
Not to mention, have been through so much emotional and physical trauma causing mental confusion and loss of conscience…
Thus a disability, impairing mental acuity…
—————-
There you have it folks…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 7, 2010 at 3:47 pm


And you the cause of the emotional handicap, well, I suppose that you enjoyed screwing her over and over again for what?
So you could feel powerful and then to boot, try and hurt her the way you did taking all her ideas and giving her nothing…
And of course, screwing can be a form of speech meaning, not only giving her the short end of the stick, but trying to take from her, her dignity and her self-worth, not to mention putting in front of her face the people you were doing the complete opposite to…
So that would be, abusive and quite destructive in nature..
I don’t care what type of car you give them, house, or how you style their hair, they were purely just an attempt to hurt me.
So your a dispicable human being of a man..
If you call yourself that, a man would have given flowers and said, I am really sorry for the pain which I caused you…, instead of bringing more and more people you were having some sort of relations with, if you get my drift…
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 9, 2010 at 2:21 pm


What is the matter, you don’t want the truth and you censor people who truely look at the matter whole heartedly….
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm


Of course you didn’t want me to confront you on your behavior, you just wanted to turn and walk away…..
And of course come back for seconds, when I was clearly upset and sick at the time….
Creep!
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 9, 2010 at 9:04 pm


And yes people can heal from handicaps….
First part is admitting that there is a problem and doing something about it…
It is not my part to stop the abuser, for that is their choice, I can only say what they did and what I remember…as for them, it is their choice…not mine to rectify the situation, and I for one am not going to be a part of it anylonger………….C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 9, 2010 at 9:12 pm


any longer….
People who love you don’t cheat in public in front of your face..
Drinking only perpetuates the problem…………C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 10, 2010 at 3:20 pm


That would be abusive in the fact that you wanted anything less then the very best for your loved one…
And of course they don’t ask you for more money, when you have none to give, they give you it with no strings attached…
They certainly don’t let you go down the tubes with cancer and without a phone and a home and the support to watch your children..
So, the BMW’s and all the fancy trimmings mean nothing when you leave others in that kind of condition, when your spouting at the mouth that you are a Christian.., like the old sang goes, talk is cheap…
You had the address, you must have expected something in return…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 10, 2010 at 3:24 pm


And like I wrote before sending me envelopes for more money after what you did to me, is not only an insult but a lack of respect for what I am going through and what you did to me….., were you trying to hurt me sending the Miss envelopes after what I had been through…, you can have your barbies…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 13, 2010 at 4:59 pm


So if your going to be the church don’t drive by and shake your head at me…, for I did not commit adultry with your husband…, and you don’t know what your talking about regarding my history, you only care if your reputation is in tact, even if it means keeping your part held back in a comprimising circumstance, when obviously I was sick and I told everybody that, and was passing out…
Then I had the church call me a whore, and then a well known world wide minister came back several weeks later in front of the congregation, said I had the spirit of jezabel upon me…and he was the perpetrator, when I was passing out, at least one of him…
Meaning, I can step back from the situation know and see what they really did to me, and they didn’t give me a dime…
So the whole prostitute thing they were trying to cook up, is a lie..
I was trying to get a job in acting, modeling, and singing…, I don’t know what they were after…
I do know , that is what is so pathetic…
SO………you are what you are, and I can forgive, but I certainly don’t want you to think that what you did to me was right in any circumstance, although there were some who genuinely cared and wanted to marry me…Loves,C



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.