Donna,did you at least read the article?

Originally Posted by billethkid

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One withdrawn candidate comes to mind....LOL.

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.

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

Still laughing. LOL

Originally Posted by waynet

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.

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

Originally Posted by djplong

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......

Originally Posted by Donna2

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by Donna2

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by billethkid

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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?