Elena Kagan: Anti-Anti-Discriminationist

In short, if the position she took in a 1996 memo is her position, then she might as well be a hand-picked candidate of the christianist dominionists.

Duncan Osborne turned up a 1996 memo from Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan arguing that religious freedom should trump compliance with state anti-discrimination laws.

A case involved a straight couple in California that wanted to rent an apartment so they lied and said they were married until they signed the lease. Afterwards, they admitted that they weren’t and the landlord broke the contract, saying her religion meant hat she couldn’t rent to an unmarried couple. The state of California found in favor of the couple, and the landlord took the case to the Supreme Court to overturn the California court’s decision. She was represented by the Concerned Women for America[], and here’s Elena Kagan, in 1996, arguing that the Clinton Administration should file a brief on her behalf:

“The plurality’s reasoning seems to me quite outrageous almost as if a court were to hold that a state law does not impose a substantial burden on religion because the complainant is free to move to another state,” wrote Kagan, who has been nominated to serve on the US Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, in an August 4, 1996 memo. “[G]iven the importance of this issue to the President and the danger this decision poses to [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s] guarantee of religious freedom in the State of California, I think there is an argument to be made for urging the Court to review and reverse the decision.”[…]

In her 1996 memo, Kagan said she was told that the Solicitor General, the office that handles government litigation before the US Supreme Court, was not joining the application.

“The deadline for filing is next week (though the SG’s office can of course ask for an extension), so if we want the SG’s office to reverse its decision, we will have to act very quickly,” Kagan wrote. Quinn’s handwritten response on the memo is indecipherable. It is not clear that the Clinton administration joined the petition.

How many Americans are tired of people getting away with anything just because they say that their religion compels them to do something?

We all know that ‘religious freedom’ means ‘freedom to live the way that christianist dominionists demand that you live – or else.’

Looks like the anti-constitutionist bloc on the SCOTUS is about to get its fifth vote.

So much for believing  that McCain lost in 2008, eh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: