Toomey Sides with Glenn Beck, Far Right

By SESTAK FOR SENATE

MEDIA, Pa. – Yesterday, in an op-ed that appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Congressman Pat Toomey echoed controversial Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and other figures on the far right in announcing his opposition to Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It’s disappointing to see Congressman Toomey parroting the likes of Glenn Beck as he even turns his negative, deceptive campaign to attacking Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” said Sestak campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. “Toomey deliberately mischaracterizes Solicitor General Kagan’s views in order to score political points with the extreme right. He invokes alarmist rhetoric to propagate the worst kind of partisan fear mongering, and his claims have absolutely no basis in reality.”

In context, it’s quite clear that Kagan is not threatening political speech or any other right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Today, mainstream Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, the Illinois Republican nominee for Senate, will reportedly announce his support for Kagan.

Admiral Sestak would evaluate any presidential nominee based on his or her individual merits, rather than any preconceived political or ideological disposition, and would not expect her to always agree with him. It is clear that Solicitor General Kagan is an accomplished legal mind who would lend diversity of background and experience to the Court – essential ingredients in building vigorous debate. Joe supports a full and substantive discussion of the nomination and believes it would be a grave mistake to allow Congressman Toomey’s rigid ideology to distort a debate with such far-reaching implications for the American people.

BACKGROUND ON CONGRESSMAN TOOMEY’S CLAIMS

TOOMEY’S CLAIM: Elena Kagan would support a law allowing the government to “force citizens to eat three helpings of fruits and vegetables each day,” which would represent judicial activism of a drastic nature: “That view turns the notion of a government of enumerated powers on its head, substituting the anti-constitutional notion that of which is not expressly forbidden to Congress is therefore permitted.”

REALITY CHECK: In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan called the hypothetical fruit-and-vegetable statute “a dumb law.” She went on to make the point that laws should only be struck down on constitutional grounds, not simply because “they [Supreme Court justices] think they’re senseless.” This represents a strong stance against judicial activism, and in favor of firm constitutional principles [Los Angeles Times, 07/01/10].

TOOMEY’S CLAIM: Parroting Glenn Beck’s distortion of the facts, Toomey alleged that Elena Kagan would restrict the first amendment, and “expressed the view that it was within Congress’ power to pass a law that banned a pamphlet or book because of its advocacy of a political viewpoint.”

REALITY CHECK: As Solicitor General, Kagan argued that major corporations and big labor unions should not be permitted to directly fund political ads immediately before an election, as they represented a “corrupting influence” that could drown out an individual’s First Amendment rights. These entities would still be allowed to express themselves via Political Action Committees, and individual rights of expression would not be affected. [PolitiFact, 06/29/10].

###

pa2010.com publishes press releases, statements and other information from campaigns and political committees. We also publish legislative releases from candidates considering higher office in 2010 and from incumbents holding those offices. E-mail releases to press@pa2010.com.