Tags: Barack Obama | Elena Kagan | Supreme Court | nomination | Senate

Senators Should Reject Kagan

Wednesday, 04 August 2010 05:58 PM Current | Bio | Archive

This column is an abridged version of one on the Center for Security Policy’s website.

As the Senate moves toward a vote, possibly Thursday, on Elena Kagan’s nomination to be a Supreme Court justice, the Center for Security Policy's Christine Brim argues against the nomination:

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan because her views would render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah into national constitutions and legal systems.

To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, senators of both parties have told themselves this would result in a harmless swap of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history. A vote to confirm Kagan will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest court. And if she is confirmed, her behavior as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimize Shariah in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan because she has no judicial experience beyond her work as solicitor general.

But she has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system — Shariah — and senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her. Her 2003-2009 career as dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah.

Here are several reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:
  • Pro-Shariah mission: With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” Her chief staff at the program aggressively expanded noncritical studies of Shariah, fulfilling her mission.
  • Arguing against 9/11 families: As reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations, and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama’s solicitor general, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.
  • Promoting the Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah constitutions: In December 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Shariah” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” — the Muslim Brotherhood — as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world.”
  • Promoting Shariah in constitutions globally: On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Shariah, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s. There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world she could have chosen, but she chose al-Sanhuri. Sanhuri’s entire career was dedicated to making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Shariah-compliant. He drafted the laws that ensured Shariah took precedence over secular laws.
  • Promoting Shariah in the judicial coup in Pakistan. Kagan consistently used her position at Harvard to promote and legitimate the introduction of Shariah provisions into national constitutions, and indeed into Supreme Courts of other nations. In Pakistan, her influence is having dire consequences.
The U.S. Senate has the evidence it needs to vote NOT to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. A vote for Kagan is a vote to bring Shariah to the highest court of the land.

Elena Kagan is 50 and easily could serve to the age of 80 or longer. Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will begin a 30-year legal war to protect the Constitution against Shariah.

Please tell your senators to keep Shariah out of the Supreme Court, and to vote against confirming Kagan. For their names and phone numbers — Go Here Now.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
This column is an abridged version of one on the Center for Security Policy s website. As the Senate moves toward a vote, possibly Thursday, on Elena Kagan s nomination to be a Supreme Court justice, the Center for Security Policy's Christine Brim argues against the...
Elena Kagan,Supreme Court,nomination,Senate
Wednesday, 04 August 2010 05:58 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved