Does Elena Kagan have a $20 million commitment to destroying the American Republic? What would you say if you learned that a member of the highest court in the land has spent the last 30 years openly advocating for the destruction of the US Constitution and even went so far as to accept $20 million from Shariah Law proponents to accomplish her goal? That Supreme Court Justice is Elena Kagan. The year after Ronald Reagan entered the Oval Office with the goal of restoring America to greatness; Elena Kagan penned a telling and disturbing senior thesis titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In that body of work, Kagan lamented that "a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States"; and that," no "radical party" had yet "attained the status of a major political force." Kagan went on to sound a rally cry for "those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Apparently, this was no mere college dalliance, as the Elena Kagan has spent the rest of her career working to remove the underpinnings of freedom and destroy the American Constitution from within. And Kagan's grand plan has worked very well indeed. After graduate school Kagan went on to become Dean of Harvard Law, where she removed Constitutional Law classes from the curriculum, and replaced those necessary and time honored classes with required studies of international law. And in what appears to be a game of using a mutual enemy's resources to accomplish ones' true objective, Kagan also accepted a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal - a noted Shariah Law proponent - to implement an "Islamic Studies" program. Source
There was one in the OP, but here is another: http://www.creators.com/opinion/dick-morris/-kagan-promoted-shariah-law-at-harvard.html.
The 20m$ Grant, I assume was to Harvard and it's unlikely anyone could prove what written demands were made, if any. I'd further question if acceptance was her idea, the School or some combination. In any event to remove people in certain Federal positions, requires the "Impeachment Process" which must be used. I can't find anything during her "Confirmation Hearings" (on this issue), but for instance if this was mentioned and she lied to Congress under oath, it could be used for grounds. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office Off topic, but wouldn't it be interesting to have every Candidate for P/VP be question (pick a reason) by Congress, under oath prior to the National Elections.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/05/critics-allege-elena-kagan-is-sympathetic-to-sharia-law/ Considering all of these claims were made prior to Elena's Supreme Court confirmation- exactly what of the provisions of impeachment has Elena Kagan violated as Justice? Has she committed treason? No. Has she committed a high misdemeanor or felony? You failed to mention that. Or are you just suggesting that Congress should ignore the Constitution and impeach her because you don't approve of her?
And as an alternative to hysterical cries of doom, I thought I would post some information for those who cared to actually read about Kagan's thesis.... http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/12/clues-from-princeton.html http://hnn.us/articles/126906.html
The source quoted in the OP was Ib Jensen who, except for his own online self-description (of dubious accuracy) is a completely unknown blogger. No sources for the claims being made are provided and this appears to be nothing by political hyperbole which is not at all surprising these days. One blogger makes a claim and then other cite it as if it's a ligitmate source of information. Rarely as in this case of Kagen, is there any attempt at accuracy by the initial blogger. A nice try though but there is obviously nothing impeachable about Kagen's actions on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions are not based upon political philosophy anyway. Supreme Court decisions are based upon interpreting the US Constitution and applying it to the laws and actions of government in the United States. We do have Supreme Court justices that have a broad interpretation of the US Constitution as well as justices that have a narrow interpretation of the US Constitution but that has absolutely nothing to do with political ideology or philosophy.
Even better: it's a freeper thread based on an answers.yahoo.com question...lol. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120425120055AAXn18w
Why haven't the forum's RepubliCONs demanded that sexual deviant and pornography lover Clarence Thomas be removed from he Supreme Court???
I'm so impressed. First the "Average College Idiot" asks a stupid question and then "Ginger" copies and pastes BS as a response. We must all be really impressed by these "unquestionable" sources being used by brain dead individuals.