On Monday, I will have the chance to introduce Elena Kagan to the Senate Judiciary Committee as our confirmation process begins in earnest. Before I do, I wanted to clear the air about a mistruth that some are determined to keep recycling and recirculating -- I guess not surprising, but nonetheless disappointing when we're talking about a nomination for the Supreme Court where you'd think the Senate would actually insist on a debate on the merits.
Instead, misinformation, distortions and flat-out untruths about Elena Kagan's support of the military are growing predictably louder.
Specifically, I was more than a little surprised to hear some Republican Senators recycling their disproven claims that Kagan is somehow "anti-military" -- claims that other Republicans, including Sen. Scott Brown, have already -- quite admirably -- knocked down.
The simple truth is this: Dean Kagan never banned the military from Harvard Law School. Every year that she was Dean of Harvard Law, the United States military recruited on campus. And this is partly why military students at Harvard have overwhelmingly supported her -- both then and now.
Moreover, as a veteran, and as a veteran who actually opposed the ban many Ivy League schools had on ROTC and recruitment reaching back to the Vietnam era, I know personally that Elena Kagan is an ardent supporter of our service members and their families. It's who she is and it's how she's led. Just look at everything she's said and every action she's taken.
Here are the facts.
Harvard adopted a non-discrimination policy in 1979 -- decades before Dean Kagan arrived. That policy prohibited any form of discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, veteran status, or disability. So when the military adopted "Don't Ask Don't Tell" more than a decade later, Harvard's non-discrimination policy prevented the armed services from recruiting directly through the school's Office of Career Services. But that was all -- the military was still free to recruit elsewhere on campus, and student organizations continued to support this recruiting.
In 2002, the year before Kagan became dean, Harvard made an exception to its non-discrimination policy, allowing the military to use the Office of Career Services. Following an appeals court ruling in 2004, Kagan reinstated Harvard's policy precluding the military from using the Office of Career Services -- but still permitting the military access via student organizations.
Like me, Kagan has never made it a secret that she opposes "Don't Ask Don't Tell" -- so, by the way, do Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen.
But Kagan's actions as Dean don't speak to her political beliefs -- they simply reflected current law. That's why in 2005, after the Department of Defense voiced objections and the Supreme Court took the case, Kagan respected the likely outcome, kept faith with the law once again, and reversed the policy -- and so today, military recruiters once again have unfettered access to career services and students.
The facts make it clear: At no time were military recruiters barred from the campus. And even when they were not allowed to use the career center, Dean Kagan went out of her way to provide them with interview space on campus, even though other universities weren't doing this.
Elena Kagan is, in fact, a strong supporter of our men and women in uniform -- which is why she has broad support, personal support, from military students. She held annual dinners for veterans and the wives of service members while she was Dean.
Even military students who opposed Harvard's policy have confirmed Kagan's support for the military. After Kagan's nomination to Solicitor General, three former Harvard Law School students who served in the military came to her defense. In a letter to the Washington Times, they criticized Harvard's longstanding policy but also stated, "this position has not diminished our appreciation for Miss Kagan's embrace of veterans on campus. During her time as dean, she has created an environment that is highly supportive of students who have served in the military... Indeed, every year, Miss Kagan makes a point to mention the number of veterans in the first-year class during her welcome address to new students. Under her leadership, Harvard Law School has also gone out of its way to highlight our military service, publishing numerous articles on the school Web site and in alumni newsletters. These are not actions of an "anti-military zealot," and greater care should be exercised before someone is labeled as such."
Judge people by what they say and do when they're not under the political microscope. And in Kagan's case, long before she was a nominee for the Supreme Court, she went to West Point and spoke to the cadets -- and her remarks capture her personal feelings about the military. She said, "I am in awe of your courage and your dedication, especially in these times of great uncertainty and danger. I know how much my security and freedom and indeed everything else I value depend on all of you."
Bottom line: I want a Supreme Court Justice who believes what Elena believes about the courage and character of our military. And I hope we can have a new dialogue grounded in the facts of what this accomplished nominee actually has stood for and what she will bring to the Supreme Court. America deserves nothing less -- and the Senate owes much more.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
“So you're saying that the Bill Of Rights wasn't passed legally?â€
Where does this come from? The Bill of Rights were submitted for ratification to the states along with the original Constitution. Of course they were passed legally.
You REALLY need to pay attention!
They were accepted by the 13 states when they ratified the US Constitution since IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL US CONSTITUTION!!!
You really need to be a bit less condescending and a lot more knowledgeable.
Study.
"Im not saying to ignore it - Im just saying there are a ton of things that are not and never will be in it - do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment?"
It was meant to be difficult to pass amendments. The framers realized that granting powers to the federal government was dangerous since it could lead to government based upon whim instead of reason. By saying it is too difficult to pass amendments so we should just do as we please is the exact same as ignoring it.
"Just because it wasn't specifically written into the Constitution does NOT make it Unconstitutional!"
That completely and totally redefines the entire purpose of the US Constitution in that the federal government was supposed to have few and definite powers vice the unfettered and limitless one we have today.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788
You say that the feds can do anything they wish as long as the US Constitution does not say they can't.
Who is correct; you or James Madison?
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788
So enough with the "I Heart Military" promos. Does anyone really think Kagan will get to rule on whether or not to have a military? Unlikely. She will, on the other hand, have to rule again and again on the showdown between the citizens and corporations. Let's pay some attention to her position on those issues.
Look at it this way Donna: In August of 1945, it appeared that the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman, and child when we invaded their home islands. This was based on the fact that at EVERY island that we fought them on, they had fought to pretty much the last man, woman, and child. So we dropped the Atom bomb to hopefully make them decide to end the war WITHOUT us losing millions of Americans wiping the Japanese off the fact of the Earth.
In June of 2010 we have enough additional information to KNOW that the Japanese were about to give up whether we dropped the A-bomb or not, and that they CERTAINLY would not have fought to the last man, woman, and child.
So, would you say that a politician in 1945 who advocated for it, but said it was a bad idea in 2010 was a flip-flopper, or someone who actually had different information?????
But, elections have consequences. A Democratic Party President is as entitled to select candidates of his choosing as a Republican is of his own liking.
Justice Sotomayor was qualified, and rightly confirmed. So too, Ms. Kagan. Get it over with, and move on.
As President, Mr. Obama holds many views that are not my own but he has every right to appoint a judge that is as close to those views as he feels will make it through the review process. Ms Kagan admirably fits that. In looking at her position on issues from the past, I can see no reason why the President should not have appointed her.
The more important question then becomes, is she qualified? Looking over her past work, I find nothing that makes her not qualified. Her opinions are irrelevant to this question. Her opinions got her the appointment from the President. Her work and her knowledge should get her the position. From what I have found, she is very qualified for the position.
I would not have appointed her, but that is not the issue. Republicans have no grounds to oppose her and that is the issue. Get this over with. Confirm her and let the Senate move on to business more pressing.
And note that I'm NOT saying you say that, I'm saying that when I hear conservatives nowadays (as in, the politicians or media people....) they are unwilling to look beyond left/right. And of course, so are most leftwing media....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127579195â€
I can't even type that with a straight face! Good link!
Stevens is the anchor of the leftwing on the current court. Kagan is being nominated to replace stevens. If she was replaving alito, I probably wouldnt even care but the reality is she is replacing the anchor on the left. Can you tell me with a straight face that she is just as liberal if not more so than justice stevens? And if not, is obama shifting this court which is already a bastion of conservative ideology further to the right?
Certainly GWB didnt do this - shift the court to the left at all. This is the article I expect someone from congress to write to answer this very frustrating question to an EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED base who is pretty darn close to abandoning any notion that obama is on our side.
It's great disliking both parties.
Try it!