… said the role of a judge was to "create [a] new understanding of law."
See link: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=68448
Interesting last name of this judge–BARAK. Barak in Hebrew: BARAK – baw-rak – To kneel or to bow. To give reverence to God as an act of adoration. It implies to continual conscious giving place to God. Blessing the Lord, extolling virtue. There is a sense of kneeling and blessing God as an act of adoration in the word BARAK. Physical application – To bow, kneel or to do this with the intent in my heart that He is my KING and I yield to HIM. I am acknowledging Him as KING and GOD. SONG: BLESS THE LORD Scripture: Psalm 103 tells us how to bless the Lord and then goes on to enumerate those blessings: loving kindness, satisfaction redemption, honor, renewal. We bless the Lord by remembering all of these things.
Then there is this definition: 1288 barak (baw-rak'); a primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason). Also, in Hebrew, Rahm (as inObama's Chief ofStaff, Rahm Emmanuel)( )* means "thunder" and Barack ( ) means "lightning." "If you are near…lightning you�ll hear thunder as one sharp crack"
Kagan made her "judicial hero" comment at a September 2006 ceremony at Harvard Law School where Barak was presented with a judicial prize. Kagan, dean of the law school at the time, praised Barak.
"The Harvard Law School association of which I'm most proud is the one we have with President Barak," Kagan said. "I told President Barak, and I want to repeat in public, that he is my judicial hero.""He is the judge or justice in my lifetime whom I think best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law and of justice," said Kagan.
Harvard has been associated with several U.S. Supreme Court justices, including Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and William Brennan, all of whom were named by Kagan in her brief comments.Former federal judge and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork called Kagan's admiration of Barak "disqualifying in and of itself," in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Barak "perhaps the most activist judge on Earth," and called Kagan's views "troubling.""[T]he judge Ms. Kagan praises the most, happens to be perhaps the most activist judge on Earth," Sessions said June 21, 2010on the Senate floor. "Her comments are troubling to anyone who believes in limited government and democracy and a limited role for judges."
Barak, who served as a judge from 1978 until 2006, was president of the Israeli Supreme Court from 1995 until 2006- a position roughly equivalent to that of chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.During his tenure on the Israeli high court, Barak expanded its power, declaring that the court had the power of judicial review over any law passed by the Israeli legislature [Knesset], saying that the court could strike down any law that it felt conflicted with basic Israeli laws. Barak declared that Israel's "Basic Laws" amounted to a formal constitution and that any law violating them would be overturned.
In his speech at Harvard, Barak outlined his view of the judicial role, saying that judges must balance society's need for change with its need for legal stability."The law regulates relationships between people," Barak said. "It proscribes patterns of behavior. It reflects the values of society. The role of the judge is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the law achieve its purpose.""The history of the law is the history of adapting law to life's changing needs," he said. (Note: Just like the leftists argument that the U.S. Constitutionis a "living, changing" document).
Barak also said that judges face a "dilemma- brought on by the 'need for change,'" arguing that a judge's task in a democracy was to control the pace of societal change."The need for change presents the judge with a difficult dilemma," he said. "Because changes sometimes harms (sic) security, certainty, [and] stability, the judge must balance the need for change with the need for stability.""Stability without change is degeneration, change without stability is anarchy", said Barak. "The role of the judge is to help bridge the gap between the needs of society and law, without allowing the legal system to degenerate or collapse into anarchy. The judge must ensure stability with change, change with stability." (Note: All one has to do is look at U.S. family courts and how they destroy families and children, causing negative societal upheaval, to see that this aspect of the judiciary is a fraud and dangerous to society as a whole).
Barak said that judges must manage the pace of this change, saying "the decision is not between change and stability, but the speed of change," and "it is not a question of [legal] rigidity or flexibility, but a question of the degree of flexibility."
Kagan's "judicial hero" also has expressed his views on how judges should interpret a constitution or a law. In a January 2006 Fulbright Symposium debate with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Barak outlined his theory of "purposivism," in which a judge interprets a constitution or law according to his determination of the modern meaning of the statute.
"According to purposivism, the judge is the mouth of the legislature in many cases, but not in all cases," Barak said. "When a judge has discretion, he does not merely declare what has been determined by the creator of the text. Alongside with declaration of the law, judges create new understanding of law."
"The meaning of the constitution- though not its language- or the statutes, though not its language 'prior to the judgment, and after it, are not identical,'" he said. "Prior to the judgment there were, in hard cases, a number of possible solutions. After the judgment, the law is as has been handed down in the judgment." "The text was not changed," he said. "The understanding of the constitution and of the statute has been changed. New understanding of the unchanged text has been created." (Note: So in other words, judges can change the constitution by discretion and personal opinion; not by amendment).
Sessions, in the same Senate floor speech, questioned whether Kagan shared the views of her "judicial hero." "Does she agree with her heroes? Does she agree with her president? Does she see her lifetime appointment to the court as an opportunity to promote ideas she desires and then let the law catch up?"
THE ROLAND FREISLER–HITLER'S 'BLOOD JUDGE' CONNECTION
Kagan says Aharon Barak is her hero judge. Kagan claims to be a "Progressive" (a euphemistic term for radical Socialist). Socialist? Nationlist-Socialist (Nazi)? They are one in the same. Only Nazis are further to the LEFT! Kagan is nothing more than a fascist Communi-Nazi!
Her favorite judge should have been "Raving Roland" Freisler, who was the bombastic Nazi judge who presided over the Third Reich's Nazi Kangaroo Court/Star-Chamber courts known as the Volksgerichtshof (The "Peoples Court"). He was known as Hitler's "Blood Judge" and mostly issued death or lifetime prison sentences, having reached his verdict before the trial actually began. (Got to see the videos on Roland. He acts and looks like today's state court judges.–Here are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi5256dhvM; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9z4wG43rXY). One of his favorite quotes was: "If you have nothing to say for yourself then kindly keep your mouth shut!" Sounds a lot like today's family court judges and state court judges.
Kagan is no better. She has already reached Star-Chamber/Kangaroo Court verdicts by virtue of her radical leftist-fascist Nazi ideology.