Anti Kagan video from Right Leaning "JAG" Targets Three Senate Votes

by: villagernyc

Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 20:57

Now that Alabama Senate Republican Jeff Sessions has won a weeklong delay on the final vote to confirm Soliciter General Elena Kagan as a supreme court justice, a right leaning. tea party affiliated organization called Judicial Action Group or Jag, also based in Session's home state, is reportedly buying up commercial time for a new video ad aimed at swaying three important senate votes to 'no on Kagan.'

VIDEO LINK- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

It was just over a year ago in June 2009 that Sessions, the Judiciary Committee's Ranking member vigorously questioned the record of then Supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, focusing attention on Sotomayor's affiliation with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. After Sessions raised those concerns, another right leaning organization called "Judicial Watch" released a report on Sotomayor's record it said shows PRLDEF supports a "radical legal agenda. That campaign failed and Sotomayor went on to see confirmation.

The more recent video campaign is more specific and aimed at two Democrats, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, as well as Republican Senator Lindsay Grahm of South Carolina.  Each video has basically the same script, however, each is tailored to either one of the the three Senators, for example, viewers are urged to call and tell Senator Ben Nelosn to vote no on Elena Kagan.

Produced by the "Judical Action Group", the ads features an urgent toned voice claiming that Kagan, as a professor and Dean at Harvard Law School, 'advocates judicial activism and favors foreign law over our constitution." The ad also says Kagan "welcomed law firms representing terrorists" and "banned our military recruiters" from the school's campus. Kagan also "welcomed law firms representing terrorists' and "took $20 million in Saudi Money to establish a center for Islamic Studies and Sharia Law."  The video, set against still photos of Kagan and hightlighted text of the charges leveled in the video, does no offer any spefic context or sources as to where the charges extend from.

In a July 12 press release, the Birmingham based JAG said it was launching a "Nelson & Kagan" ad campaign by co-hosting a

press conference that day in Omaha, NE. The group confirms the effort is meant "to put pressure on Sen. Nelson to vote "No" on Kagan."  JAG said it was co-hosting the July 12 event with Jennifer Hulsey of Tea Party Express, Doug Kagan of Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, and Benjamin Smith (former Navy seal) of Move America Forward.  They say similar Pressers and TV ad buys will occur Tues in Little Rock, AR and Thurs in Columbia, SC.

Judicial Action Group is a 501(c)4 non-profit corporation with offices in Washington, D.C. and Birmingham, Alabama. Founded in 2006, the 501(c)4 status (unlike a tax-deductible 501(c)3 status) allows JAG to engage in unlimited lobbying, 'maximizing its influence.' The group is part of a larger coalition of right leaning groups including the web umbrella, Freedom Federation.'  That particular coalition of activists calls itself "a federation of multiracial, multiethnic and multigenerational faith-based and policy organizations and leaders committed to plan, strategize, and mobilize to advance shared core values to preserve freedom and promote justice"  Featured along with Judicial Action Group on the Freedom Federation website, several other widely known Right Wing groups including better known groups like Family Research Council, American Family Association, Eagle Forum and The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

Leading JAG is president Phillip Jauregu,a partner at Birmingham law firm Jauregu & Lindsey who Jauregu's biography says represents various clients ranging from small business, to corporate entities, to individuals, such as former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. Judge Roy Moore, a hero in right wing circles gained national attention when as Chief Justice, he placed a washing machine sized replica of the biblical ten commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court. When challenged and eventually court ordered to remove the replica, hordes of fundamentalist Christian groups from around the nation descended onto the capital Montgomery to pray, protest and hold vigils.  

Moore was eventually ordered out of office and Jauregui led the legal team that eventually lost an appeal that resulted in the removal of then Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore from office, over his refusal to remove the granite replica.

Jauregui's JAG says it believes that the present state of the culture war created the need for a Special Forces unit that single-mindedly devotes itself to one mission: "defeating judicial activism." On its website, JAG says it serves this vital niche.

But, some saw Jauregui client Roy Moore as an activist judge.  In a November 2003 Court of the Judiciary hearing, Alabama's Assistant Attorney General said Moore's defiance, left unchecked, "undercuts the entire workings of the judicial system. He said what message does that send to the public, to other litigants? The message it sends is: If you don't like a court order, you don't have to follow it."

Recently, Moore made a run in the 2010 Republican primary for Governor.  Winning just 19% of state votes, he placed fourth.

The 40 year old Jauregu also served as Assistant Legal Advisor to Alabama Governor Fob James, the Alabama governor who gained attention by opposing the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools.  James' son, Tim James recently also recently made a run for Governor in the same race as Moore. He gained national attention of his own through television ads decryiny multi-linguil drivers license exams.   James, like Moore, lost in the election, placing third in the primary.  

As the Sotomayor nomination came closer to vote, in June 2009, JAG's Jauregu as President of JAG, joined a large group of conservative activists who wrote and signed a letter to Republican Senators urging that they fillibuster then nominee Sotomayer. But, many in that same group of activists had signed a similar letter a few years earlier during the Bush Administration "opposing" the use of filibusters during Supreme Court nominations.

That said, more recently, Jauregu's JAG has made the opposition of Kagan as a supreme court justice a priority.  JAG's website points visitors to research and analysis by Alliance Defense Fund, American United For Life, Family Research Council and the Aiken ScotusBlog.

Perhaps more telling, an article detailing Jauregui and apparently the worry of many Right Leaning groups titled 'Do Ask, Do Tell - Whether Kagan's Public Policies are Improperly Dictated by Her Private Affairs.'

Here, Jauregui worries that "Kagan's decision to bar military recruiters from Harvard was either a horrible legal decision, or a use of her office to impose her personal views on the military."

Then, Jauregui writes "if media reports that Kagan is a lesbian are true, then her decision to bar military recruiters from Harvard has every appearance of growing from her personal preferences and practices.  Obama says that he wants justices who have empathy and know what it is like to be gay.  Well, it is relevant for Americans to know whether such a preoccupation of knowing how it feels to be gay, led Elena Kagan to ignore the law and ban the heterosexual military from Harvard because it conflicted with her own personal feelings and practices."

No word as to whether or not, Jauregui wondered if he thought Judge Roy Moore's defiance over a large replica of the Ten Commandments in the state Supreme Court building might indicate that the the former chief justice intended to impose "his" personal views on the state's highest court.  

Meanwhile, all that said, the video aimed at Senators from Nebraska, Arkansas and South Carolina does not speak to Kagan's rumored sexuality.
(CROSSPOSTED AT my blogs at TPM/Political Cortex)

Dems Urge Holder to Stay Strong on 9/11 Trial

by: Daphne Eviatar Human Rights 1st

Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 15:24

Neo-Confederates And Hegemonic Ignorance

by: Paul Rosenberg

Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 00:00

The Sotomayor Hearings - Branding the Neo-Confederates

If you read the liberal blogosphere, you know about Senator Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions's history of dubious racial statements. If you're following on most of the mainstream media, you don't. You might even buy the Alabama Republican's not-so-subtle assertion that Sotomayor is a "racist" -- discriminating against whites -- while Sessions is above any considerations of color. This will change only if some Democratic Senator on the judicial committee (though probably not Al Franken) calls Session on his game, and calls him on his history.

Sessions, as you may know, was rejected for a federal court seat after calling the NAACP "un-American" because it "forced civil rights down the throats of people." He also called a white attorney a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans. And during a murder investigation of the Ku Klux Klan, he joked, as black former assistant US Attorney Thomas Figures testified in Sessions's original hearings, about how he had no problems with the Klan until he discovered they were pot smokers. He also warned Figures to "be careful what you say to white folks."  It's ugly stuff, and consistent with his racially charged questioning of Judge Sotomayor:  He said she should have voted with a fellow Puerto Rican judge whose opinions he endorsed, asking, "Is there any instance in which you'd let your prejudice impact your decisions?

Salon War Room's Alex Koppelman? Not so much:

Why Is A White Supremacist Leading The Charge Against Sotomayor IN THE SENATE?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:00

Answer to the question I asked: Because that's the way the GOP wants it.

[Update on the Flip:] Some detail on his record prosecuting black voter registration activists for "voter fraud" in the 1980s.

Sen. Jeff Sessions: Americans Have a Monopoly on Good Ideas

by: Judith E Schaeffer

Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 15:53

As we explained last month following a previous routine by Sen. Sessions on this subject, his assertion that the "idea that foreign law has a place in the interpretation of American law creates numerous dangers" is wildly off-the-mark.

Let's set aside for a moment the fact that no judge we've heard of has ever asserted that the rulings of foreign courts should dictate how American judges interpret the U.S. Constitution, or be considered precedent that must be followed.  Let's also set aside the fact that a number of the Supreme Court's current Justices, most notably Reagan-appointee Anthony Kennedy, and also, at times, Justice Antonin Scalia, have cited foreign courts and international treaties in their opinions and dissents, or in the course of oral arguments.

Even if this were not the case, there is nothing wrong, or even particularly controversial, with a judge referring to foreign law or foreign judges for guidance on how to decide a particular legal controversy.  (After all, plenty of legal concepts have originated or been nurtured outside our borders; everything from women's suffrage and the anti-slavery movement, to....well, the English common law system upon which our legal system is based.)  As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said,  "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of the judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would review a law review article written by a professor?"

Justice Ginsburg was merely echoing James Madison, who wrote about the importance of "attention to the judgment of other nations," in Federalist 63 in 1788, explaining that "in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed."

Yet yesterday, Sen. Sessions specifically targeted Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for her past statements regarding foreign law that are hard to distinguish from either Ginsburg's or Madison's.  According to the New York Times, Sen. Sessions had a particular concern about a recent speech by Judge Sotomayor in which she stated:

To suggest to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.  What you would be asking American judges to do is close their minds to good ideas.

Originally posted at Text & History. Judith E. Schaeffer is Vice President of the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), a law firm and think tank dedicated to demonstrating how the text and history of the Constitution uphold progressive outcomes.

Nails on a Chalkboard: Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 16:41