Obama picks Elena Kagan as Supreme Court nominee

[Guest]

Just saw it come across the wire that Obama has picked Elena Kagan as Supreme Court nominee. The Progressives aren't too happy about this move. But we'll see what happens.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100510/pl_nm/us_usa_court_kagan_1

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2010-04-15-11-35-09-news.php

[Guest]

to hear from Obama what distinguishes her sufficiently to overwhelm that qualification. Other than political compensation for retention of a distinct voter block....political duty first remember.

We will soon hear what his speech writers have prepared for the teleprompter report this morning.

btk

[Guest]

Yes, that is what I heard this morning. This out of touch regime thinks that mainstream Harvard is a qualification to pass or interpret laws based on our Constitution? :MOJE_whot:

This is the same Harvard that will not let the military to recruit on their sacred campus? Give me a break.

Seems like a cookie-cutter, run- of- the mill progressive liberal to me.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, when she is approved, we will be saddled with her for 30 years!! This nation is in REAL trouble!

[Guest]

She's been the one representing the government in Supreme Court cases so I'd say she's got some experience for someone who's never been a judge. It'll be interesting to see how the hearings go given that she doesn't have the 'long judicial record' that previous nominees have had. The Senators are going to have to go about their research a little differently.

[Guest]

She's been the one representing the government in Supreme Court cases so I'd say she's got some experience for someone who's never been a judge. It'll be interesting to see how the hearings go given that she doesn't have the 'long judicial record' that previous nominees have had. The Senators are going to have to go about their research a little differently.

Without the various connections to the African American community though that you find with Barack Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

She did clerk for US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall too.

[Guest]

Glad to see so many of you with an open mind on the appointment. What's it been 6 hours or so. It's amazing to me how your mind is made up so quickly.

[Guest]

It is amazing, when you really look at her resume', how much she parallels Obama. It's like he appointed himself. The only difference is she does have some court experience.

Upon her nomination by Obama, Kagan said, "My professional life has been marked by great good fortune. I clerked for a judge, Abner Mikva, who represents the best in public service, and for a justice, Thurgood Marshall, who did more to promote justice over the course of his legal career than did any lawyer in his lifetime."

Speaking on the US Constitution, US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, "...the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today...

"Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights."

[Guest]

She sounds like a left wing extremist to me. I think she should be Borked!!!

[Guest]

And Donna any proof this time or just empty words again.

[Guest]

Well, Thurgood Marshall was obvious. But look deeper. The other judge Kagan clerked for, Abner J. Mikva. Mikva is a supporter and member of the advisory board of the very Progressive American Constitution Society.

From the American Constitution Society website: "ACS is engaged in a multi-year initiative, the Constitution in the 21st Century, to promote positive, much-needed change in our legal and policy landscape. The project brings together scholars and practitioners to formulate and advance a progressive vision of our Constitution and laws that is intellectually sound, practically relevant and faithful to our constitutional values and heritage. The centerpiece of the project is a series of issue groups focused on discrete areas of law and policy, through which a wide range of members will develop, communicate and popularize progressive ideas through papers, conferences and media outreach."

http://www.acslaw.org/c21

[Guest]

And Donna any proof this time or just empty words again.

Just remember folks, there have been many Justices who have not been judges- most recently Sandra Day O'Connor.

So was William Taft- the man most responsible for giving this country away to corporations.

[Guest]

I thought Sandra Day O'Conner was a judge in Arizona. And besides being President, wasn't Taft an Appeals Court Judge?

[Guest]

And Donna any proof this time or just empty words again.

Couldn't find anything to cut and paste today?

[Guest]

"We don’t know anything about her. This woman is worse than Harriet Myers. Intellectually, she’s a lightweight.”


I agree with Rush on this one. The media saying she could sway the court to the right is BS. If they thought she had any conservative values they would not nominate her.
They know exactly what she is. An elite out of touch socialist.

As a dean at Harvard, she was responsible for kicking the military off campus.

[Guest]

Because she disagreed with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" she kept the military off campus.

[Guest]

Another pin headed intellectual.

Does the POTUS have something against experience?

Yoda

[Guest]

Because she disagreed with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" she kept the military off campus.

Disagreeing on one military policy should not prevent the military from recruiting the best and brightest from any campus. It is a free country even though Harvard is located in the People's Republic of Cambridge.
Are you saying that Harvard does not enjoy their freedom? We keep our freedoms because of the soldiers who are willing to die for them.

[Guest]

and some of those soldiers are gay!!!!!!! and should be afforded the rights of all Americans. The policy is discrimination plain and simple. Discrimination by anyone including our military is against the law.

[Guest]

but lets get back to the fat pill-popping nazi...Rush...he should know an intellectual lightweight when he looks in the mirror. She was a supreme court clerk,a law prof. at Univ. of Chicago,a dean of Harvard Law,...and holds degrees from Princeton,Oxford and Harvard. Oh by the way she graduated from Princeton summa cum laude not that Rush has any idea what that means. I understand Rush and many of his listeners have a deep distrust for people smarter than them but to call her a lightweight is stupid. The man is a fool,he just says things most of the time with no factual basis.

[Guest]

It wasn't all about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Of course liberals try to turn it around to say that is the issue.

The issue was the Solomon Amendment which involved federal funding and allowing ROTC and recruiters on properties of higher education when the institution accepts federal funding.

It was unconstitutional at the time of the incident at Harvard Law School. Kagan was following the letter of the law at the time. There was a Supreme Court decision after the incident. It is now the law if you accept federal dollars, you accept ROTC and recruiters on campus. Of course, Barney Frank and other liberals opposed it and tried to push through their own agendas with federal monies without allowing ROTC and recruiters on campuses.

"The 1996 Solomon Amendment is the popular name of 10 U.S.C. § 983, a United States federal law that allows the Secretary of Defense to deny federal grants (including research grants) to institutions of higher education if they prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment on campus."



Listen to this.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4186664/obamas-supreme-court-pick


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Amendment

[Guest]

I agree with Rush on this one. The media saying she could sway the court to the right is BS. If they thought she had any conservative values they would not nominate her.
They know exactly what she is. An elite out of touch socialist.

As a dean at Harvard, she was responsible for kicking the military off campus.

OMG...In this one we all know who the intellectual lightweight is. And now another socialist....we are back to McCarthy with you all seeing them every where.

This women is NOT a lefty....the progressives are ****ed off about this appointment is it not to be believed.

When you all do this you lose credibility....

[Guest]

cologal, I started this thread by saying the Progressives aren't too happy with Obama's pick of Kagan and included an article from the Progressive Democrats of America website. After looking further at her views and such; which you know, there aren't many out there, it looks like she is pretty liberal and Progressive leaning. I wonder why the Progressives are split on supporting her. Because she isn't liberal and Progressive enough?

[Guest]

OMG...In this one we all know who the intellectual lightweight is. And now another socialist....we are back to McCarthy with you all seeing them every where.

This women is NOT a lefty....the progressives are ****ed off about this appointment is it not to be believed.

When you all do this you lose credibility....

Is this a personal attack? Should I post all the quotes from your liberal hero's about Bush's candidates? Your party is a bunch of hypocrites. This women is pro death, anti-military and anti-everything that is right and conservative. Thank goodness it is one moonbat replacing another moonbat!!!!

[Guest]

They stick up for Socialist ideals knowing they destroy societies only because conservatives are against these ideals.

This is pure lack of honesty.

[Guest]

Obama did not choose the very best person to fill the position. He chose someone he knows.
Choosing the very best people to fill the position is a mark of leadership. Some shy away from it as they are intimidated by having a better than themselves talent on the scene.
Since she would not work directly for Obama, this one of course is the same old politics.....has nothing to do with ones capability to do the job.

If she were measured against the top ten most capable candidates in the entire USA, she would not make the first cut! No matter how talented she may be, she is not the best candidate for the job, hence....a degree of mediocrity is introduced. By the person filling the job if she is annointed and most assuredly by Obama.

As we all know he is a politician and as we all know he is certainly not an executive (chief or any otherwise).

btk

[Guest]

Obama did not choose the very best person to fill the position. He chose someone he knows.
Choosing the very best people to fill the position is a mark of leadership. Some shy away from it as they are intimidated by having a better than themselves talent on the scene.
Since she would not work directly for Obama, this one of course is the same old politics.....has nothing to do with ones capability to do the job.

If she were measured against the top ten most capable candidates in the entire USA, she would not make the first cut! No matter how talented she may be, she is not the best candidate for the job, hence....a degree of mediocrity is introduced. By the person filling the job if she is annointed and most assuredly by Obama.

As we all know he is a politician and as we all know he is certainly not an executive (chief or any otherwise).

btk

Yes, a mark of leadership is selecting the most capable to fill important positions. Do you realize how illogical it is conclude that Kagan is a poor choice because the President knows her? Perhaps he should chose someone who he doesn't know anything about? How about some factual stuff to back up your incredible bias. I'll make it easy; since you know of at least ten candidates far more qualified, name just three and state the qualifications which place them head and shoulders above the nominee.

[Guest]

There are probably dozens who haven't even finished law school who are better qualified. This candidate is a Harriet Miers lightweight.

[Guest]

suit your need. If you will kindly re-read my post you will find I did not say Kagan was a "poor choice"...YOU DID!!!!!

I also did not say I knew 10 candidates better than her....YOU DID!!!

Talk about bias....I do believe you have a thing for your perception of what I say VS what you like to say I said....to suit your cause....what ever that may be.

You are off base on your statements regarding my intent....AGAIN!!!

btk

[Guest]

I'm willing to wait until those that are supposed to research Ms. Kagan's background and qualifications do their job. That'll happen soon enough.

In the meantime, I've watched the back and forth on this thread. Quite amusing, actually. I was particularly struck by Donna quoting Rush Limbaugh, who said that Kagan is an intellectual lightweight.

Now there's an example of the kettle calling the pot black, if I ever heard one. I actually laughed out loud.

[Guest]

I'm willing to wait until those that are supposed to research Ms. Kagan's background and qualifications do their job. That'll happen soon enough.

In the meantime, I've watched the back and forth on this thread. Quite amusing, actually. I was particularly struck by Donna quoting Rush Limbaugh, who said that Kagan is an intellectual lightweight.

Now there's an example of the kettle calling the pot black, if I ever heard one. I actually laughed out loud.

So you think Rush is an intellectual lightweight?

Who do consider an intellectual heavyweight? You liberals probably consider Bill Maher a genius. Now that is funny.;)

Actually I like the Harriet Miers lightweight comparison much better.

[Guest]

VK said, "I'm willing to wait until those that are supposed to research Ms. Kagan's background and qualifications do their job."

I don't think any of us on the forum pretend to be qualified to vet a Supreme Court Justice. (Although if vetting is the job of the "clearly dysfunctional" government incumbents you want out of office, it makes me question how qualified they are to ask intelligent questions and research a Supreme Court Justice.) I am not going to wait on the main stream media to spoon feed me tidbit of information like Kagan plays poker and softball, is well liked and is 5'3" tall.

And unlike President Obama, I believe information is a good thing. I also believe most of us are wise enough to study and discern what is wise and what isn't. I like to use the Internet, books, newspapers, magazines, television et al, to study and read. Do I believe everything I read? Absolutely not. I always research sources and sources of sources.

(From Obama's graduation commencement speech on Mother's Day at Hampton University, "And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

I certainly hope those questioning Kagan take her advise and ask tough questions. During her days as a law professor at the University of Chicago, Kagan said the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices had become "“vapid and hollow charade,” little more than “official lovefests.”

“Senators today do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues,” Kagan wrote in the spring 1995 issue of the University of Chicago Law Review.

“The Senate’s consideration of a nominee, and particularly the Senate’s confirmation hearings, ought to focus on substantive issues. The Senate ought to view the hearings as an opportunity to gain knowledge and promote public understanding of what the nominee believes the court should do and how she would affect its conduct.”

The Confirmation Mess: Cleaning up the Federal Appointment Process.
University of Chicago Law Review
Elena Kagan. 62.n2 (Spring 1995): p919-942.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Confirmation-Messes.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0511/Supreme-Court-confirmations-as-Elena-Kagan-saw-them

[Guest]

Saying that Rush is an intellectual lightweight suggests that you are intellectual heavyweights.

When reviewing your postings it is very clear that your bashing of Rush
has no intellectual merit.

[Guest]

Just what we want for a Supreme Court Justice who will "interpret" the Constitution for maybe the next 30 or 40 years (meaning in today's world; "rewriting" the Constitution and making law which is really Congress' role). A person who has no prior judicial experience and little in the way of writings to evaluate how she would view an issue.
So, all we can go by is that she has the trust of the most politically leftist progressive president in the history of our once great nation. That pretty much seals the deal for me on her leanings and character, but of course she will be confirmed because this same president has the majority he needs in the houses, bolstered by the rhinos to gain confirmation.
The only solace we can take from this appointment is, like Donna says, it replaces one judicial activist with probably another one; albeit one who will impact the lives of American citizens for an awful long time.

[Guest]

...I certainly hope those questioning Kagan take her advise and ask tough questions. During her days as a law professor at the University of Chicago, Kagan said the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices had become "“vapid and hollow charade,” little more than “official lovefests.”

“Senators today do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues,” Kagan wrote in the spring 1995 issue of the University of Chicago Law Review.

“The Senate’s consideration of a nominee, and particularly the Senate’s confirmation hearings, ought to focus on substantive issues. The Senate ought to view the hearings as an opportunity to gain knowledge and promote public understanding of what the nominee believes the court should do and how she would affect its conduct.”...

Me too.

...So you think Rush is an intellectual lightweight?...

Yeah, I do. He says, "We don’t know anything about her. This woman is worse than Harriet Myers. Intellectually, she’s a lightweight.”, then bashes her nomination. That's before he knows anything about her by his own admission. He's not only an intellectual lightweight himself, but a laughable buffoon.

I'm willing to wait for the serious vetting of the nominee and questioning by the Senate, some of whom can be expected to ask really hard questions. Then we'll be able to form an opinion on the legitimacy of her nomination--something Rush has somehow been able to do with no research whatsoever.

[Guest]

Me too.


He's not only an intellectual lightweight himself, but a laughable buffoon.



It is statements like this where you lose all credibility of claiming your not a liberal. At least I now know for sure where you stand, as if I didn't before.

[Guest]

Donna,I must disagree with you yet again. Anyone who calls Rush an intellectual lightweight and a laughable buffoon is extremely credible. Unless of course Rush knew eveything about this woman an hour after her nomination or was he just being his blowhard self and spouting more hate.

[Guest]

Donna,I must disagree with you yet again. Anyone who calls Rush an intellectual lightweight and a laughable buffoon is extremely credible. Unless of course Rush knew eveything about this woman an hour after her nomination or was he just being his blowhard self and spouting more hate.

When you disagree with me it reaffirms my convictions, so thank-you.

Unless you have been living under a rock the last few weeks (months?) there has been a "short list" available. (shows that you do not pay attention, huh?)
Actually, it was well known that he wanted her the last time but he wanted to get the Latino card in there first. That is a two for one deal. (woman and minority).

And don't laugh because that is how the liberals think when they nominate someone. Very hypocritical from the party that claims everybody is equal. Oh, wait a minute, that is the Republican Party's policies. Sorry.

[Guest]

If it wasn't for Rush we would still be at the mercy of the MSM. Liberals can't stand it that their "word" is questioned. Remember when we were told that Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America? Not by me he wasn't. Finally someone came along that said what many of us thought, but didn't have the national voice. Now we have many more who can help Rush give opposing views. He has been going strong for 22 years. Lets hope he has another 22 years.

[Guest]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237737

[Guest]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237737

Nobody reads Foolsweek anymore. It lost 26 million last year and is going out of business, last I heard. All they do is put the Anointed one on the cover and make a fools of themselves. Another liberal rag to bite the dust.

[Guest]

I am more than a bit amused when people don't agree with President Obama, they like to throw around the same little catch phrases: socialist, left wing extremest,intellectual elite (as if being intellectual is something bad), oh yes, the "mainstream media" (as opposed to "fair and balanced" Fox News?)

Besides her intelligence, she is known for her ability to work with people, and communicate. Not bad for a Supreme Court justice.

[Guest]

Besides her intelligence, she is known for her ability to work with people, and communicate. Not bad for a Supreme Court justice.


Sounds like a community organizer. We already have one of them and look where that got us.

I heard today that she favors limits on free speech. I also heard that she is in favor of executive powers. That is probably why Obama picked her. They say she is a mirror image (so to speak) of the Anointed one.

Yucky!!!!

[Guest]

cologal, I started this thread by saying the Progressives aren't too happy with Obama's pick of Kagan and included an article from the Progressive Democrats of America website. After looking further at her views and such; which you know, there aren't many out there, it looks like she is pretty liberal and Progressive leaning. I wonder why the Progressives are split on supporting her. Because she isn't liberal and Progressive enough?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head....not that I run in the Progressive pack. Seems her stance on torture is the one liberals are not happy about. Overall they she her as moderate. I heard an argument that with 59 votes this would be the time to put up a real liberal. But Obama isn't real liberal he is a politician.....

[Guest]

Is this a personal attack? Should I post all the quotes from your liberal hero's about Bush's candidates? Your party is a bunch of hypocrites. This women is pro death, anti-military and anti-everything that is right and conservative. Thank goodness it is one moonbat replacing another moonbat!!!!

Personal attacks are NOT allowed on this website. I was NOt saying you were the lightweight ......Rush.

No one is Pro-death. And what wrong with being anti conservative? Difference is what makes the world go around.

[Guest]

Donna,did you at least read the article?

[Guest]

Obama did not choose the very best person to fill the position. He chose someone he knows.
Choosing the very best people to fill the position is a mark of leadership. Some shy away from it as they are intimidated by having a better than themselves talent on the scene.
Since she would not work directly for Obama, this one of course is the same old politics.....has nothing to do with ones capability to do the job.

If she were measured against the top ten most capable candidates in the entire USA, she would not make the first cut! No matter how talented she may be, she is not the best candidate for the job, hence....a degree of mediocrity is introduced. By the person filling the job if she is annointed and most assuredly by Obama.

As we all know he is a politician and as we all know he is certainly not an executive (chief or any otherwise).

btk

One withdrawn candidate comes to mind....LOL.

[Guest]

I'm willing to wait until those that are supposed to research Ms. Kagan's background and qualifications do their job. That'll happen soon enough.

In the meantime, I've watched the back and forth on this thread. Quite amusing, actually. I was particularly struck by Donna quoting Rush Limbaugh, who said that Kagan is an intellectual lightweight.

Now there's an example of the kettle calling the pot black, if I ever heard one. I actually laughed out loud.

Be careful....I used that old adage and got called racist. But I am with you.

Still laughing. LOL :a20:

[Guest]

Donna,did you at least read the article?

Sometimes it is very difficult to judge someone when they were younger especially in Kalifornia. (Reagan)
Reagan never had the luxury of a Republican controlled congress like Bill Clinton did. Reagan said many times that congress spends money like a drunken sailor except a drunken sailor spends his own money.
I was extremely disappointed with G. Bush because he had an opportunity to do many good things for the country with a Republican controlled congress for 6 years.
His attempt to be a "compassionate conservative" was a complete bust.
We need leaders to make some hard financial decisions or we will be doomed. The days of passing bills for the sheer folly of generating votes is is a luxury of the past.
In November, the American people will dump both republicans and democrats who are not part of the grass roots movement. The Tea Party will not go silent despite the media's attempt to brand them.

[Guest]

If she's so in favor of executive power, it makes you wonder why Bush didn't nominate her.

[Guest]

If she's so in favor of executive power, it makes you wonder why Bush didn't nominate her.

Now that is a great shot across the bow......:a20:

[Guest]

It is statements like this where you lose all credibility of claiming your not a liberal. At least I now know for sure where you stand, as if I didn't before.Holy cats! Are you really saying that if I don't believe everything Rush Limbaugh says, that I'm a liberal?

I'm sorry. Limbaugh is still a buffoon and if I listen to him at all, it's purely for the entertainment value. He's an entertainer and conducts himself in ways to enhance his attractiveness to sponsors, nothing more. People who actually buy into his brand of inflamatory nonsense are part of the reason why this country is so divided.

Yes, Rush is a buffoon and I still have the political beliefs I had before. And they sure aren't all that way to the left hand side of left.

[Guest]

Holy cats! Are you really saying that if I don't believe everything Rush Limbaugh says, that I'm a liberal?

I'm sorry. Limbaugh is still a buffoon and if I listen to him at all, it's purely for the entertainment value. He's an entertainer and conducts himself in ways to enhance his attractiveness to sponsors, nothing more. People who actually buy into his brand of inflamatory nonsense are part of the reason why this country is so divided.

Yes, Rush is a buffoon and I still have the political beliefs I had before. And they sure aren't all that way to the left hand side of left.

If it wasn't for opposing opinions of the left dominated media, where the heck would the USA be today? Your blaming Rush for what Obama and the left is doing to the USA. You better get out of the bubble and get some air.

[Guest]

Sometimes it is very difficult to judge someone when they were younger...I was extremely disappointed with G. Bush because he had an opportunity to do many good things for the country with a Republican controlled congress for 6 years.
His attempt to be a "compassionate conservative" was a complete bust.
We need leaders to make some hard financial decisions or we will be doomed. The days of passing bills for the sheer folly of generating votes is is a luxury of the past.
In November, the American people will dump both republicans and democrats who are not part of the grass roots movement. The Tea Party will not go silent despite the media's attempt to brand them.Guess what, Donna, I'm pretty much completely in your camp. But I know you won't believe that because I'm a "liberal". If the Tea Partiers actually had more well-articulatd ideas other than the soundbite stuff that permeates their every meeting, I might even embrace their basic philosophy--true fiscal conservatism.

[Guest]

Guess what, Donna, I'm pretty much completely in your camp. But I know you won't believe that because I'm a "liberal". If the Tea Partiers actually had more well-articulatd ideas other than the soundbite stuff that permeates their every meeting, I might even embrace their basic philosophy--true fiscal conservatism.

Your missing the whole point, VK. Politicians have been romancing the Tea Party to no avail. Everybody in the Tea Party is the leader. It is our votes that do the talking. We invite speakers to rallies but we do not want any "articulate" leader or soundbites.

If you want so-called leaders, you might make the unfortunate mistake and get a hopey changey kind of guy. We know how that worked out.:shocked:

[Guest]

suit your need. If you will kindly re-read my post you will find I did not say Kagan was a "poor choice"...YOU DID!!!!!

I also did not say I knew 10 candidates better than her....YOU DID!!!

Talk about bias....I do believe you have a thing for your perception of what I say VS what you like to say I said....to suit your cause....what ever that may be.

You are off base on your statements regarding my intent....AGAIN!!!

btk

Use whatever descriptors, you want. Your criticism of the nominee and her qualifications was crystal clear. Yes, I questioned your rationale for that criticism: that the President knows her, which I still do not think is a well-founded criticism. You went on to assert that the nominee would not compare to at least ten others. I'll ask again, who might a few of those candidates be?

The angry focus on the speaker instead of responding to issues/questions is what's wrong with the political forum. I think some of your comments are very good and factually based, but I wish you would not snap at folks with all those capital letters and exclamation points if they challenge your statements.

[Guest]

The only criticism implied in my post was Obama not seeking or hiring the very best person for the job.

The very nature of political appointments is unfortunately over whelmed with examples of NOT putting the best qualified for the job in place. It is political.

This is not criticism, it happens to be what I believe, based on experience.

You are entitled to your opinion...your interpretation and attempt to again restate my intent, is still incorrect.

btk:rolleyes:

[Guest]

BTK

You are right. It is just a political appointment. I think it all started with the outrageous Kennedy attacks on Bork. Since that terrible stain on history it has been nothing but a partisan fracas.

[Guest]

Reading the back and forth comments on the seven pages of this thread, here are the only points I could find supporting Obama's choice of Kagan to the US Supreme Court:

--She's been the one representing the government in Supreme Court cases so I'd say she's got some experience for someone who's never been a judge. It'll be interesting to see how the hearings go given that she doesn't have the 'long judicial record' that previous nominees have had. The Senators are going to have to go about their research a little differently.

She's been in her present position as Solicitor General for about 15 months. She lost her first case, the Citizens United case. She had to be corrected in her opening oral arguments to the Supreme Court offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent.

--Just remember folks, there have been many Justices who have not been judges- most recently Sandra Day O'Connor. So was William Taft- the man most responsible for giving this country away to corporations.

Not true. Sandra Day O'Conner was a judge in Arizona. And besides being President, wasn't Taft an Appeals Court Judge?

--Because she disagreed with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" she kept the military off campus...and some of those soldiers are gay!!!!!!! and should be afforded the rights of all Americans. The policy is discrimination plain and simple. Discrimination by anyone including our military is against the law.

The current law for military troops is Public Law 103-160 – Nov. 30, 1993 – § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654). (1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

--She was a supreme court clerk,a law prof. at Univ. of Chicago,a dean of Harvard Law,...and holds degrees from Princeton,Oxford and Harvard. Oh by the way she graduated from Princeton summa cum laude.

She graduated magna (a few grade points lower)
cum laude, not summa.

--This women is NOT a lefty....the progressives are ****ed off about this appointment is it not to be believed.

--Besides her intelligence, she is known for her ability to work with people, and communicate.

--Seems her stance on torture is the one liberals are not happy about. Overall they she her as moderate. I heard an argument that with 59 votes this would be the time to put up a real liberal. But Obama isn't real liberal he is a politician.....

--If she's so in favor of executive power, it makes you wonder why Bush didn't nominate her.

[Guest]

Guess what, Donna, I'm pretty much completely in your camp. But I know you won't believe that because I'm a "liberal". If the Tea Partiers actually had more well-articulatd ideas other than the soundbite stuff that permeates their every meeting, I might even embrace their basic philosophy--true fiscal conservatism.

It is stuff like this, this extremism that is going to defeat our goals. We don't have to agree to like the persona of Limbaugh to be a good loyal Republican. It is o.k. NOT to be left of left as VK says. A moderate is not a liberal.

I imagine that a lot of staunch Democrats don't care for Nancy Pelosi.

And by the way...Is it against the rules to be attractive to be nominated for Supreme Court?

[Guest]

Holy cats! Are you really saying that if I don't believe everything Rush Limbaugh says, that I'm a liberal?

I'm sorry. Limbaugh is still a buffoon and if I listen to him at all, it's purely for the entertainment value. He's an entertainer and conducts himself in ways to enhance his attractiveness to sponsors, nothing more. People who actually buy into his brand of inflamatory nonsense are part of the reason why this country is so divided.

Yes, Rush is a buffoon and I still have the political beliefs I had before. And they sure aren't all that way to the left hand side of left.

To me VK, and I'm only using your words, a buffoon is better described as someone who has strong conclusions about someone who he admitingly does not listen to and therefore knows little about what that person says and believes in any intelligent context. I don't want to sound disrespectful, but in reading some of your posts I'm developing a "head-shaking" syndrome.

[Guest]

It is stuff like this, this extremism that is going to defeat our goals. We don't have to agree to like the persona of Limbaugh to be a good loyal Republican. It is o.k. NOT to be left of left as VK says. A moderate is not a liberal.

I imagine that a lot of staunch Democrats don't care for Nancy Pelosi.

And by the way...Is it against the rules to be attractive to be nominated for Supreme Court?

:a20: I am glad that somebody finally said it. Also, are middle-age white men now banned from being a contender. You would think that with thousands of years of evolution there might be one or two that could fit that description? Are these candidates some form of reparations from some supposed injustice from it's history? Are they really looking for the "best" candidates? I don't think so!!!!

[Guest]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37021

[Guest]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37021

Excellent article with many interesting facts that liberal posters to this thread keep asking for. I fear, though, that the facts will pale for them in the face of the messenger. Just as a fact reported by Fox News or Rush Limbaugh is discounted because of the entity who articulates said fact. If Katie Couric says the sky is blue, liberals will listen. If Shepard Smith says the same thing, there will be derision.

[Guest]

RichieLion, I get your point, but pick some one other than Shepard Smith. Shep is a liberal. He has two hours, on FOX, every week day. Hard to believe, I know, on that evil right wing station. I'm still waiting for a conservative to have even a half hour show, on any of the alphabets.

[Guest]

RichieLion, I get your point, but pick some one other than Shepard Smith. Shep is a liberal. He has two hours, on FOX, every week day. Hard to believe, I know, on that evil right wing station. I'm still waiting for a conservative to have even a half hour show, on any of the alphabets.

Liberals on Fox News? How can that be? Can they really be "fair and balanced"? What are you trying to pull Sally Jo?:shocked: