Surprise, Surprise: O'Connor Favorably Vets Kagan

Well surprise, surprise.

It was reported in the mainstream press that retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor supports Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to become the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Ms. O'Connor is in her 80's, and became progressively more "liberal" in her opinions and interpretations of the Constitution as she winded down her tenure on the bench.

The highlight, of course, was in the fiasco surrounding George Bush's win in the U.S. Presidential election in which Ms. O'Connor stopped the ballot counting and declared Mr. Bush the winner.

Her comments reflected her attitudes as another of the "globalist" minded Supreme Court justices, stating that she felt Ms. Kagan had an adequate education, although never having served on a federal bench.

She was, however, the Dean of Harvard's Law School in which during her tenure she suspended mandatory Constitutional Law classes in favor of a more "progressive" globally based curriculum.

I wonder if she was Dean when Mr. Obama attended, before or after Constitutional law was removed as a mandatory requirement in Harvard's law school curriculum.

No matter, it is clear that it has was removed long, long before it was "officially" replaced by the globally focused curriculum in most law schools throughout the nation today post the 1960's, especially those on the East and West coast in those primarily blue states of the past.

Another Harvard elitist, and they are turning out a bunch of these globally educated lawyers who are dedicated to wiping the U.S. Constitution off the map, come hell or high water.

Such as the recent games that are now being played over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, where various factions and special interests, including the judiciary itself, are attempting to circumvent the Constitution with respect to the redress for those victims of the Gulf disaster by moving the venues around from Louisiana to other nearby states, or consolidating those cases.

Hail, Caeser. Another justice that believes in the "sovereignty" of the government as above the people, and not accountable to them.

And that the Constitution is a "thing of wax" or "living document" that can be bended and shaped at will by the mere strokes of a Supreme Court decision throughout the land.

Sad day for America.

And appears that Ms. O'Connor has not retired to private life at all, but still has her hands in the political high jinx in Washington, as one of the participants in this treason.

She now appears to be also focusing on promoting civics and government classes throughout the country.

Her brand it appears, which bears no relevance to history, or our intended form of government in any manner whatsoever as being one which was meant to insure the sovereignty of this country, and break from British rule and dominion.

By the way, part of Ms. Kagan's undergraduate study was gained at a British school of higher learning.

I wonder if Ms. O'Connor is aware of that?

Somehow it has been these Rhodes scholars, and British trained lawyers that are gaining seats in high levels of government at a remarkable rate.

Maybe this appointment came from the country who is really ruling the Hill as as is apparent in the Deepwater Horizon disaster which now has claimed another 11 American lives.

I wonder whether Ms. Kagan, if confirmed, as the British trained Globalist she clearly is, will take the usual oath of office, or instead simply kneel before the Chief Justice so that he can simply tap her on the shoulders instead with the royal gavel?

In any event, it appears that the status quo is remaining, and that Ms. Kagan, all political appearances to the contrary, is really replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the other Jewish woman on the bench so that the "living Constitution" global socialism agenda can continue unabated under this, and the next several Administrations.

One who also condones the abolishment progressively of the document that even gives those Justices their lofty positions to begin with, and was meant to constrain them, and not expanded their interpretative power to include foreign jurisdictions at all, especially monarchial, socialistic or communist based dictatorships, with the Bill of Rights meant to insure the people's rights and protection from the corporate, be it domestic, municipal or global.

Those "inalienable" God given rights those founders acknowledged as denied them in Europe, and which is purposely stated cannot be removed in the interests of "public policy" or "public safety" or "state interests" political legalese without the calling of a new Constitutional Convention and with the express consent of the American people, the governed.

Not polls, or political party agendas.

And definitely not because Germany, Britain, China or Russia does it.