Obama picks Elena Kagan as Supreme Court nominee
 

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/..._court_kagan_1

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/ne...35-09-news.php

She has no judicial experience. So I await with baited breath
 

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

Mainstream Harvard
 

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.

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

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 seems like a clone of Barack Obama.
 

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.

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.

Does Kagan see the US Constitution as a Living Document
 

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."

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

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

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

Thank you Wayne
 

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.

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

Couldn't find anything to cut and paste today?

Rush Says
 

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.

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

Another pin headed intellectual.

Does the POTUS have something against experience?

Yoda

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.

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.

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.

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/o...eme-court-pick


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

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....

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?

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!!!!

Liberals have an honesty problem
 

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

This is pure lack of honesty.

Among others, a real fact of the matter of choice is,
 

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.

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

ijusluvit, you are consistent in stating what someone said to
 

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

Willing To Wait
 

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.

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...ion-Messes.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...Kagan-saw-them

Naive comments
 

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.

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.

Me too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

interesting???