Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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

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.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

...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.

Originally Posted by Donna2

...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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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.

Originally Posted by waynet

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.

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

Originally Posted by waynet

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.

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.

Originally Posted by springfield

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!!!!

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

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.....

Originally Posted by Donna2

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.