If you watched the questioning of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) of Elana Kagan, in a jolly exchange we learned that Elana Kagan cheated at Harvard law, may have had a lover, and believes that the President and Congress should make policy in smoke-filled rooms. You might be aware Lindsey Grahams single status has raised questions on the Internet.
“Let’s try to go back in time, and say that you are critical of the Senate and you are critical of the way the Senate conducted these hearings,” he began getting a jolly laugh. “Are we improving or going backwards. And are you doing your part?”
“I think you’ve been conducting your constitutional duties extremely well.”
“So it’s all those other guys that suck, not us, right? It was all those other witnesses that were too cakey, huh?
“All right. Fair enough. Now. Do you know Gregg Craig?”
Kagan tried to steer away from the question by answering, “I will say one thing, Senator Graham, which is that it just feels a lot different from here than it felt from that side.”
“Do you know Gregg Craig?”
“Who is he?”
“He was previously counsel to the President.”
“Do you know him well?” Kagan shrugs. “Pretty well? Well, he’s a good guy, I’m not trying to trick you. I’ve don’t have anything on Gregg, I like him fine.
“He said, on May 16th, that you… You’re largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself. Do you agree with that?”
“Senator Graham, you know, in terms of my political views, I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I’ve worked for two Democratic presidents. And those are, uh, you know, that’s what my political views are.”
He goes on to point out that Obama would be expected to nominate a progressive. He grilled from her that she would expect a conservative president to select a conservative judge. I beg the courts indulgence. I will show significance. We should remember that progressive is the new term for Socialism which was the new term for Communism.
“Do you know Miguel Estrada?”
I do? Keep that phrase in mind.
“How do you know him?”
“Uh,” Kagan gives a sly little smirk. The kind of smirk that giddy girls give in the girl’s restroom when they talk about the Debate hunk seen without his jersey. Not, mind you, that I know what goes on in the girl’s restroom, you understand. I mean…. Well, let’s go on. “So Miguel and I were classmates at Harvard law school. But, we were more than classmates at Harvard law school.”
There it is! Now we know. She continues.
“Harvard law school has a way of, uhm… Has required seating in the first year.” [Note how she uhmed her way into changing the statement? I did not have sex with that woman… She learned that from Clinton.] “And Miguel and I were required to sit next to each other in every single class in the first year.
“And, uhm, I can tell you that Miguel takes extraordinary notes. So it’s great. Every time you miss something in class you could just sort of look over, and uhm,… So that’s how I know Miguel. We’ve been good friends ever since.”
Just good friends? And you cheated on notes taking! Or was that during testing? I remind you that you are under oath!
Senator Graham goes on to read a glowing letter from Miguel Estrada encouraging Kagan’s confirmation. As it turns out, Miguel (no relation to the Chips actor, that I know of. So there goes the La-La Land conspiracy) Estrada was rejected by the Senate for an Appellate court position because of his conservative views. But Kagan says she would recommend him to the Supreme Court, so let’s see if Obama takes that advise from his “trusted” Solicitor General in the next round.
They move on to other assuring the American People that it is necessary that we are spending trillions of dollars fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. One of the things that disturbed me about this he-said, she-said was the following…
Kagan, answering a question, said, “Well, we’re at war with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And under the AMUF the President has a wide range of authority with respect to those groups.”
“Under the law of armed conflict, is it permissible to hold an enemy combatant as long as the holding force deems them to be dangerous?”
“Under the traditional law of war,” she answers, “it is permissible to hold an enemy combatant until the end of hostilities and the idea behind that is that the enemy combatant will not be able to return to the battlefield.”
Graham points out that there will never be a definable end to hostilities in this war.
“That is exactly the problem. And Hamdi, very briefly, discussed the problem The Court, in Hamdi, suggesting that, perhaps, if this war was so different from the traditional law of war that there might need to be alternative procedures to put in place. For example, one could imagine a system in which, because of the duration of this war, it was necessary to ensure the enemy combatant continuing dangerous. That is a question, I think, that has not been answered by the Court.”
“Do you think it would serve this country well if the Congress tried to wok with the Executive branch to provide answers to that question and others?”
“Well, Senator Graham, let me take the question and make it into a legal question. Because I think its directly relative under the Youngstown analysis whether Congress and the President do work together.”
“When the two are together, the courts find more power, not less, right?” Graham explained the principle.
“That is correct.”
“Okay, you’re still Solicitor General of the United States. From that point of view, would you urge the Congress to work with the Executive branch to find… To create statutes that helps the courts better answer these questions?”
“Senator Graham, I don’t think I want to talk as Solicitor General as to legal policy here. But I will say—as to the legal matter—that it makes a difference. And whether Congress and the President work together that courts should take note of that. That courts should—when that occurs—the action is at…. Ought to be given the most deference and that there’s a reason for that. It’s because the courts are saying that Congress and the President have come together. Congress and the President have agreed on a policy jointly. And there should be deference in those circumstance.”
This brings to mind, of course, the “Kitchen Cabinet” and the days of smoke-filled rooms. After all, that is what brought us Health Care reform. According to that statement, the Constitution, Ninth Amendment should be swept away in deference to the “Commander-in-Chief” and his croonies. Monopolies are NOT OKAY. Except government monopolies, of course. Congress didn’t like it when Andrew Jackson did that! The government is, obviously, exempt from the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
Who are we in reference to those cases decided by the “Congress and the President?” Are we the Angels, that she references in her notes to Thurgood Marshall? Or are we the baaaad [Tea Party] Guys because we object to throwing away the Constitution and submitting to the will of Communist?
Senator Lindsey Graham may have participated in this film! Watch the movie, check the picture above, you decide!