Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions

Big Peace

Posted by Christine Brim

Comments by Jim Campbell

To say that Elena Kagan has a very dark and once hidden past is an understatement.  During her tenure at Harvard, a.k.a “Little Moscow on the Hudson” sponsored a lecture series on PROMOTING SHARIAH IN CONSTITUTIONS WORLDWIDE.  Those voting for her approval as a Supreme Court Justice must be run from office.  Senator Lindsey the RINO Graham is up in 2014. 


The Original Doobie Brothers

You better believe we will be taken it to the streets.

You were forewarned by this site of  the truthfulness of now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Kagangate: A Coverup Of Obamacare Conflict-Of-Interest? But Wait There’s More!  Here, Hatch/McConnell: won’t filibuster Kagan: Time for All RINO’s to be voted out of Office and here, The Untold Story: Elena Kagan has been running interference on Obama eligibility hearings.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems.  To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap:  the substitution of one liberal justice for another. (We continue to elect these fools to represent us?)

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history.  A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court.  And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system – Shariah – and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her.  Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them  shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court.  Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:

1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan’s direction,  Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.”  That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.

Under Kagan’s direction, her chief staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Shariah law – fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.”  In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel  founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools (inaugural panel audio here).

2. PRO-SHARIAH MONEY: When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the middle east were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack.  Guiliani stated flatly, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.”  But – when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law.  As Newt Gingrich has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.

In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept  Talal’s blood money; In 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.

And not just at Harvard.  As reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities.  Kagan, as Obama’s Solicitor General, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.

Let’s review Kagan’s decisions so far:  she actively solicits Saudi financing to promote Shariah law in the U.S.; she actively protects Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.

3.  PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIAH CONSTITUTIONS: In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School.  On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Shariah” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” –  the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…”  The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.

On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah by honoring him with the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law.  Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair.  And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states, “Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”

So let’s review.  Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Shariah propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood,  with an endowed chair.  Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not “eschew the use of violence….against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”  Kagan’s financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East, specifically in Israel and Palestine were a cause of the 9/11 attacks .  Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Prince did not “eschew the use of violence” against the U.S.   And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 “use of violence” against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.

But wait.  There’s more.

4. PROMOTING SHARIAH IN CONSTITUTIONS WORLDWIDE: On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Shariah Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s.  There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world that she could have chosen; but she chose al-Sanhuri.

Sanhuri’s entire career was dedicated to making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Shariah-compliant.  He drafted the laws that ensured Shariah law took precedence over secular laws.  As much as any single individual, he was responsible for the legal drafting for the “Constitutionalization” of Shariah in previously secular Muslim-majority nations in the 20th century, in concert with the political pressure for Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the financial pressure for Shariah by the Saudi Royal Family.

As legal scholar Enid Hill wrote in her biography of al-Sanhuri, “The outlines of the future dialectic are thus able to be detected if al-Sanhuri’s specifications are followed: Islamic legal theory versus Western legal rules, and when the Western rules reflect a different underlying theory they are to be eliminated and new rules put in their place, rules that are reflective of Islamic legal theory.”  (h/t Andy Bostom)  Or as al-Sanhuri states himself in his book The Arab Civil Code, “The goal towards which I am striving is that there will be an Arab civil code derived primarily from the Islamic Shari’a.”

Kagan presided over four of the al-Sanhuri lectures before her departure to become Obama’s Solicitor General


Kagan consistently used her position at Harvard to promote and legitimate the introduction of Shariah provisions into national constitutions, and indeed into Supreme Courts of other nations.  In Pakistan, her influence is having dire consequences.

On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to  Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan. Chaudry had been deposed from his post in 2007 by President General Pervez Musharraf in a complex dispute that included the issue of independence of the judiciary.  Musharraf later resigned, and on March 16, 2009, the Prime Minister Gilani  re-appointed Chaudhry as Chief Justice.

As noted by Department of Defense attorneys from the Clinton and Reagan eras, Kagan’s honoree has mounted a Shariah judicial coup:

“Contrary to the constitution of Pakistan, Chaudhry usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president…In a previous ruling, Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of Parliament, the president and all ministers of the cabinet from serving if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” or do not engage in ‘teaching and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam. “

The U.S. Senate has the evidence it needs to vote NOT to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  A vote for Kagan is a vote to bring Shariah to the highest court of the land.

Elena Kagan is fifty years old.  She could easily serve to the age of eighty or longer.  Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will begin a thirty-years legal war to protect the Constitution against Shariah.

About these ads

13 thoughts on “Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions

  1. 3 hu…………..Did you ever read Mao and his fixation with 3
    and how the Commienest cell functions?
    and your utube thing aint u-tubin

  2. Not to worrie , we start a roomer that Minerates are monuments to the Klan

  3. Does this mean she hasn’t been confirmed yet? I figured that had already been done. Does anyone think Congress will do anything to stop this (confirmation and Sharia Law) once the public finds out?
    Obama planned to turn us into a Muslim nation from the beginning and so many American citizens go along with it that it’s shocking. European countries are all sending us warnings about Sharia Law and how it’s taken over. It means returning to the dark ages where men could kill their wives, daughters, etc for offending them.
    Does America really want to go back to that time & brutality just because some people are stuck there. Of course the men love it because it gives them unlimited power.
    There would be a whole lot of murdered American women married to Muslims.

    • Oh no the article was written before she was confirmed. Lefties and Muslims have much in common. The love the idea of totalitarian law of course only when they get to reign like the mullahs.

  4. Isn’t it odd this is the first I have heard of Kagen and her Sharia ties and beleifs. I would think more of this activity wasn’t brought out during the confirmation questioning. This is just like Islam, ok to lie for years as long as you achieve the ultimate goal. This is just one lie after another and ths is just wrong. she should be thrown out just for lying. how can a judge of supreme court even consider lying let alone live by it. Evil and more evil

    • Great cover up by the Dem’s and the RINO who voted for her approval. Any question who that would be? The RINO Ms. Lindsey Graham. He will be cast adrift in 2014 bet on it. Jim

  5. I knew she was trouble when he picked her because she has been his personal attorney in actions over the years. Has she been confirmed.? I think she has but am not sure.

  6. I am so confused. Doesn’t Islam condemn homosexuality to the greatest degree… hanging in the streets? And Kagan is both a homosexual AND a woman. that has to have two marks against her… so inconsistent with her support. we are well on our way to becoming a dhimmitude.

    • Factually the dirty little secret in sharia is that older men who “don’t consider themselves” to be homosexual may take a young boy between the age of 7-17 have his way with him. The boy is then returned before he is 18 where he is outed and subsequently hung from a crane, beheaded, or covered with gasoline lit on fire and pushed into a ditch as they die. Kagan is an alleged homosexual, but since she has lied about most everything of importance, who can say here. Factually she’s a socialist, and pro sharia that has been proven by her anti-American past. It is my hope that she will be impeached as perjury under oath in a Senate Confirmation Hearing must disqualify her, she must also be disbarred. The standard for this was Slick Willey’s Impeachment. Not convicted by the senate non the less he was found to have perjured himself during his testimony and thus disbarred. Hope that sorts it out for you, I also run another site, http://www.dangersofallah. com I’m Jim

  7. Yes we can vote the rhinos out, but only to replace them with more Rich incompetent elitist. They’ve protected themselves when they voted to receive a retirement for just serving one term. So to them they can shift with the wind and do what they want, minus the support of the people. They knew that the constitution was written up to protect the will of the people, so they had to take drastic measures to protect themselves.
    There is no more fear of losing your job now in congress, because even if you get booted out you’ll most likely make the same amount while you were in office. If we the people could change this to three terms, then you would truly see the congressmen squirm when their jobs are on the line.
    This needs to be changed, congress needs to work hard for their retirements just like the people have to.
    They’ve handed themselves a silver platter full of goodies

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s