Kagan And Arizona: Leading The Charge Against Enforcement Of The Law

A little bit of digging and surfing, and here we have a nugget of news about Supreme Court nominee Kagan:

Reps. Lamar Smith and Todd Tiahrt think Miss Elena's got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.

In 2007, the state of Arizona passed an immigration law that allowed it to revoke the business licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. This provision was challenged but upheld in both the district court and even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Most recently, the Obama administration decided to challenge the 2007 Arizona immigration law and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the provision. But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The administration argued that Arizona’s law revoking the business licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants is unconstitutional. But this argument is completely baseless as the two lower courts already confirmed.

Furthermore, still on the books today is a 1986 federal statute that created penalties for employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. This law specifically addresses the question at issue in the Kagan-backed litigation. Congress authorized states to revoke the business licenses of employers that intentionally hire illegal immigrants. So why has Kagan pursued such an aggressive, unconstitutional political agenda?

The views expressed in the court brief are troubling given the Obama administration’s weak record on enforcing federal immigration laws. Compared to fiscal year 2008, the number of administrative arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in employer-sanctions cases has fallen by 80 percent, the number of criminal arrests has fallen by 68 percent, the number of indictments has fallen by 74 percent, and the number of criminal convictions has fallen by 75 percent.

Hmmm...so that's what The One means when he claims that he's got things well in hand on the border? That the crime rate is dropping?

And further questions come to mind, such as: As this case comes before the Court, assuming she is confirmed, is it proper for her be involved in the deliberations? Do judges get to rule on briefs they once wrote for one side of a dispute or another?

Given the fact that this suit continues to lose at every turn, isn't it a bit excessive to pursue it to the Supremes? What of that 'restraint' she so carefully referred in her profoundly rehearsed speeh?

Is anyone in the Senate, outside of people like Shelby and Coburn, really paying attention? Lindsay Graham certainly isn't, but he did a pretty good job playing the straight man, feeding Ms. Kagan her opportunity for the one-liner that made it to every evening news show.

The Kagan Nomination: Public Policy Polling Asks The Correct Question

Does anyone care, is anyone paying attention?

As Elena Kagan begins her second day of testifying, gallons of oil continue to flow into the Gulf, General Petraeus prepares to go before the Senate to be confirmed to redirect a messy war, immigration laws are being written in state capitals and the economy, well… So it’s no surprise that Americans are unusually uninterested in Elena Kagan’s nomination. According to a Gallup poll Americans are not tuning into this nomination at the same rate they did for the past four Supreme Court nominations. 24% of Americans have no opinion of Obama’s nomination for the highest court.

Well, we should. OS tuned in for the opening statement, a well-crafted piece of lawyer-speak designed to fill time, evoke nostalgia, create sympathy, soothe doubts, say very little, and mean precisely nothing. It was an example of how the Left views language, e.g., 'an organized series of intrinsically meaningless sounds emitted with the goal of getting one's way'.

After a lifetime of aggressively shilling for the Left, in Clinton's White House, and later at Harvard, the language offered about 'restraint','respect', 'a trustee of that inheritance', delivered in well-rehearsed humble tones seems a bit, shall we say, suspect.

So, we don't know much about this lady, but we do know this: One way or another, over the next ten years, the BP oil spill will be capped and the Gulf cleaned up. Fifteen years from now, we will have been out of Afghanistan for several years, and our military focus will be elsewhere. (OS ate shrimp farmed in Vietnam for supper last night!) Twenty years from now, the economy will have sorted itself in some fashion. Obama will be holding forth from some created academic post at Harvard, still spewing his poison, overseeing the rewriting of history, blaming George Bush for his shameful failures as a leader and person.

Thirty years from now, Kagan will likely be on the Court, Obama's longest legacy.

We had best be paying attention.