Based on a comment in another forum...

THE WHITE SUPREMES

Elena Kagan

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Secrecy

Today is Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan. Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. A Yahoo News story carries the headline "On Day 2 of hearings, Kagan employs artful dodge."

.
Kagan wrote in 1995 that Senators should pursue more "substantive inquiry" and push nominees to be more open about their views during confirmation hearings.

.

Now, of course, she's the one being questioned, and she said today that there are limits to the amount of openness that potential Supreme Court justices should be expected to show during nomination hearings.

.

Since she has never held a court position as a judge, her writings and her testimony are the only indications that Senators have of whether she should be a justice or not. With her testimony today, she has effectively cancelled both of those out.

.

The opposite of openness is secrecy. "Limits to openness" means that there should be more secrecy. Not a very reassuring philosophy from someone who is applying for a job which she will likely hold for the next 30-40 years.
.
These are the people who are in charge of our country. Start stocking up food and ammo.

The Church, The State and Common Sense

Sometimes you have to go back a few years to get the right perspective on what's happening in America today.

" The First Amendment does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

"That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

"Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.

"Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.

"A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, expressing the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

The modern court's hostility to Christianity is a very recent (and un-Constitutional) invention.