Kagan: Yes-Woman

J.C. Arenas
In the month following Barack Obama's infamous bow to Saudi King Abdullah, Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagan followed suit when she agreed with the Obama Administration's position that the Saudi royal family could not be held liable by the families of 9/11 victims in an American court over allegations that it provided financial resources for Al-Qaeda.

The New York Times reported:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the brief to the Supreme Court that her office agreed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "that the princes are immune from petitioners' claims," although she pointed to somewhat different legal rationales in reaching that conclusion.

Ms. Kagan noted that the Supreme Court had historically looked to the executive branch to take the lead on such international matters because of "the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit."

Unfortunately for her and the administration, their collective position suffered a major setback when a month later the Times reported that the attorneys of the families provided detailed evidence that substantiated their claim and revealed that not only had the royal family financed Al-Qaeda, but other terrorist groups as well.

Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers' copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity.

Allegations of Saudi links to terrorism have been the subject of years of government investigations and furious debate. Critics have said that some members of the Saudi ruling class pay off terrorist groups in part to keep them from being more active in their own country.

Elena Kagan has been sold to the American people as a "brilliant" and "intellectually independent" individual, but this case in particular suggests that Kagan, was just acting as a yes-woman for the administration.

Who's to say she won't do the same as a Supreme Court Justice?

J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com
In the month following Barack Obama's infamous bow to Saudi King Abdullah, Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagan followed suit when she agreed with the Obama Administration's position that the Saudi royal family could not be held liable by the families of 9/11 victims in an American court over allegations that it provided financial resources for Al-Qaeda.

The New York Times reported:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the brief to the Supreme Court that her office agreed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "that the princes are immune from petitioners' claims," although she pointed to somewhat different legal rationales in reaching that conclusion.

Ms. Kagan noted that the Supreme Court had historically looked to the executive branch to take the lead on such international matters because of "the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit."

Unfortunately for her and the administration, their collective position suffered a major setback when a month later the Times reported that the attorneys of the families provided detailed evidence that substantiated their claim and revealed that not only had the royal family financed Al-Qaeda, but other terrorist groups as well.

Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers' copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity.

Allegations of Saudi links to terrorism have been the subject of years of government investigations and furious debate. Critics have said that some members of the Saudi ruling class pay off terrorist groups in part to keep them from being more active in their own country.

Elena Kagan has been sold to the American people as a "brilliant" and "intellectually independent" individual, but this case in particular suggests that Kagan, was just acting as a yes-woman for the administration.

Who's to say she won't do the same as a Supreme Court Justice?

J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com