Supreme Court pick conundrum

Amerika

It’s no secret the far Left in this country have been showing discontent with Barack Obama’s slow progressive advancement. With the recent appointment of Goodwin Liu to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, president Obama just might throw the Left a bone with a somewhat radical nominee (by Republican standards) to the US Supreme Court to replace Justice Stevens.

If a darling of the Left is in fact nominated to the US Supreme Court by the president, several questions are raised based on the point that Republicans probably do not have enough votes to stop any candidate on a simple up or down vote. So, should Democrats, who have filibustered and rejected Republican judicial nominees merely on philosophical grounds, complain if Republicans use the same tactics? And should Republicans, who have repeatedly argued against the filibuster in the past, and demanded an up or down vote on their candidates in order to allow elected officials make the final decision on a president’s nominee, filibuster a far Left nomination?

Personally, in this political environment, I think the Republicans should use the filibuster for any nominee considered by them to be on the far left of their core values. Since the Democrats were the ones who championed the filibuster, they should be the first to throw down the proverbial olive branch on the process. If one side uses the filibuster and the other side doesn't, you end up skewing the courts in one direction - because the tactic works (google Bork). With this president’s nominee process, I feel the filibuster precedent was already set because a once Senator Obama had voted to filibuster a candidate he admitted was qualified, simply because he disagreed with their philosophy.

Back in 2006 during the senate confirmation vote of Samuel Alito, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein had no qualms about rejecting him simply because she did not agree with Alito ("If one is pro-choice in this day and age, in this structure, one can't vote for Judge Alito"). Senator Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, and even Senator Barack Obama supported the use of the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote on qualified nominees. So president Obama can't really object to Republicans using his standard or he will be labeled a hypocrite. But Republicans will also be labeled hypocrites if they employ the filibuster tactic they have often labeled unacceptable.

I do hope president Obama follows his own words and avoids another tough fight we just don’t need at this time. His words I’m referring to come from his book "The Audacity of Hope," which he used as an argument of Senate Democrats' use of the filibuster against President George W. Bush's judicial nominees - “Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president -- and benefits our democracy -- to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support."

It might be an interesting summer if we have to battle this, along with a renewed illegal immigration reform initiative push by Obama because of Arizona, and a climate change bill. I am torn, because I think more of these types of battles will insure a change of Congress back to Republican majority by a center right country come November. But on the other side of the coin, it might just be better if our government focused it’s efforts mainly on the economy and jobs, and took some time off from nasty political battles.

Mr. Incognito

Health Care. Republicans Block. Lose Battle

Financial Reform. Republicans block. Lose battle.

Supreme Court appointment. No matter who is picked, the republicans will block and lose the battle.

They are starting to resemble spoiled children in the public mind. November won't bring the sweeping changes that the Republicans are hoping for.

Obama is getting stuff done. The republicans know it and the public know it whether you agree with it politically or not.

The republican's are shooting themselves in the foot by freezing themselves out.

Manic Moran

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Health Care. Republicans Block. Lose Battle

Financial Reform. Republicans block. Lose battle.

In fairness, the only reason that they passed healthcare was that the vote in the Senate took place before Scott Brown took his seat. The House Democrats were then given the choice of a Senate bill they weren't incredibly keen on (And which took a fair bit of bribing to accept) or nothing at all. Similarly, the only reason Financial Reform is moving forward is that two Republican senators decided to allow it to do so yesterday.

NTM

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, the only reason that they passed healthcare was that the vote in the Senate took place before Scott Brown took his seat. The House Democrats were then given the choice of a Senate bill they weren't incredibly keen on (And which took a fair bit of bribing to accept) or nothing at all. Similarly, the only reason Financial Reform is moving forward is that two Republican senators decided to allow it to do so yesterday.

NTM

I disagree.

The filibuster proof majority was much loved by Republicans as they could simply vote No on everything, yet the problems that needed addressing would still get done, just not with their support. Perfect for a party of lazy half wits more interested in talking rubbish on radio then crafting legislation and addressing long standing issues.

If the Democratic super majority hadn't existed for Health Care there would have been no real filibuster, just like has now happened with Financial Reform. Republicans getting the 41st seat actually ensures a few Republicans will break and vote for bills. Impotent opposition is easy and good politically, actual obstruction is hard and carries a political cost.

Denerick

Republican party activists love screaming out catchphrases and recycled rubbish propogated by their radio demagogues, but the reality is that if they actually got the gun loving, gay bashing, poor hating thugs in the Supreme court all of the time, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites and the beloved 'states rights' mantra, the ultimate unthinking response by a contradictory fundamentalist bigot, would allow Jim Crow to survive in all of its injustice.

Time and time again American conservatism positions itself at the wrong end of history. Block it all you want, you bigots will only ever be able to ruin so much, whatever good that is left in America after your thirty year propaganda campaign aimed at the idiotic majority will still prevail.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

Republican party activists love screaming out catchphrases and recycled rubbish propogated by their radio demagogues, but the reality is that if they actually got the gun loving, gay bashing, poor hating thugs in the Supreme court all of the time, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites and the beloved 'states rights' mantra, the ultimate unthinking response by a contradictory fundamentalist bigot, would allow Jim Crow to survive in all of its injustice.

Time and time again American conservatism positions itself at the wrong end of history. Block it all you want, you bigots will only ever be able to ruin so much, whatever good that is left in America after your thirty year propaganda campaign aimed at the idiotic majority will still prevail.

Actually, if you look at real history rather than the hate based propaganda spewed by some Liberals, Democrats and biased news agencies, you will discover that Republicans have a better civil rights record than do Democrats. I do hope you take the time to discover the truth.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, if you look at real history rather than the hate based propaganda spewed by some Liberals, Democrats and biased news agencies, you will discover that Republicans have a better civil rights record than do Democrats. I do hope you take the time to discover the truth.

Well generally people don't 'look' at history, they read it. And furthermore, I'm aware of the pre 1964 political establishment, when the Democrats were the party of southern white extremists, and Republicans the party of northern abolitionists and liberals.

But Barry Goldwater's 'valiant' defence of states rights in 1964 ensured that inglorious mantle would pass to the Republicans, and the Democrats would become the party of civil rights and Liberal reform.

P.S- I referred to American conservatism in the historical sense. And, while of course this is an arrogant statement, I'd drink you under the table in any discussion of American history.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

I'd drink you under the table in any discussion of American history.

That may very well be true, so you should have no problem answering these questions.

1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history up untill then and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected antilynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

13. What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

14. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not
denied the right to vote?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

17. What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party


The answer to all questions is "B"
http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter.pdf

Denerick

You really are an amazing individual. Not only did you rob a list of broadly known facts from some website with a weird agenda to muddle, you then seem to lack even the most basic understanding of my post. I'm talking about American conservatism, and if you had actually read my post, rather than resort to some pathetic copy paste job, you'd understand I'm fully aware of what you're talking about.

P.S- You're confirming the prevailing view on this website that you, like most Americans on the far right, speak in catchphrases and petty slogans, not reasoned argument.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

You really are an amazing individual. Not only did you rob a list of broadly known facts from some website with a weird agenda to muddle, you then seem to lack even the most basic understanding of my post. I'm talking about American conservatism, and if you had actually read my post, rather than resort to some pathetic copy paste job, you'd understand I'm fully aware of what you're talking about.

My apologies then, silly me thought you wrote the following:

Republican party activists love screaming out catchphrases and recycled rubbish propogated by their radio demagogues, but the reality is that if they actually got the gun loving, gay bashing, poor hating thugs in the Supreme court all of the time, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites and the beloved 'states rights' mantra, the ultimate unthinking response by a contradictory fundamentalist bigot, would allow Jim Crow to survive in all of its injustice.

Denerick

You seem to be highly confused. I'm saying if you got the kind of bigots on the bench that you actually want, the ones who take a fundamentalist line on 'states rights' and certain sections of the constitution, then such things as the overturning of the prohibition of racial intermarriage would never had occured.

You seem to believe that the Republican party pre 1964 and the post 1964 Republican party are the same thing. I find that hilarious.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

You seem to be highly confused. I'm saying if you got the kind of bigots on the bench that you actually want, the ones who take a fundamentalist line on 'states rights' and certain sections of the constitution, then such things as the overturning of the prohibition of racial intermarriage would never had occured.

Where do you come up with this stuff? The kind of bigots who wants? And I thought in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which was the landmark civil rights intermarriage case, was decided on by a 9-0 decision. I think their might have been one or two republican justices on the US Supreme court at the time.

So if I read you correctly, what you meant to say was “what I meant to say”

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Where do you come up with this stuff? The kind of bigots who wants? And I thought in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which was the landmark civil rights intermarriage case, was decided on by a 9-0 decision. I think their might have been one or two republican justices on the US Supreme court at the time.

So if I read you correctly, what you meant to say was “what I meant to say”

You have an acutely obtuse analytical style. You deny that US conservatives defended and fostered the Jim Crow laws? (Usually under the guise of 'states rights') Or was it those darn liberals?

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

You have an acutely obtuse analytical style. You deny that US conservatives defended and fostered the Jim Crow laws? (Usually under the guise of 'states rights') Or was it those darn liberals?

I just might be wrong here, but wasn’t it the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that essentially ended Jim Crow?

And again correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this how that vote went down:
The original House version:
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Denerick

Oh My god. Oh my sweet ****ing God. This is a ****ing joke. Do you want me to give you a basic American history lesson or are you trying to do your very best to be as obtuse as possible!!!!??

Note where I said that the DEMOCRATS were the party of the southern racists, and how 1964 CHANGED THAT.

You are the most infuriating man I have ever enconutered on this site.

Denerick

Of course you make the easy mistake (Easy that is if you are completely ignorant of US history) of associating Liberalism with the Democrats and Conservatism with the Republicans, as if it were constant and unchanged throughout history. I cannot convey in words that won't get me banned, how much I want to knock your head off a brick wall until it stands even the slightest chance of understanding how ridiculous you look.

Mr. Incognito

Amerika wrote: »

That may very well be true, so you should have no problem answering these questions.

1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history up untill then and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected antilynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

13. What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

14. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not
denied the right to vote?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

17. What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party


The answer to all questions is "B"
http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter.pdf

This is quite possibly the stupidest post I have ever read on Boards. Seriously.

steelcityblues

As long as these appointed judges can, in a sense, leave their emotions on
issues 'at the door'.

Never a guarantee though!

Amerika

I thought the Left was the party of nuance. I must have misunderstood.

Amerika

steelcityblues wrote: »

As long as these appointed judges can, in a sense, leave their emotions on
issues 'at the door'.

Agreed! And hopefully, as one justice wisely stated: “And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

I thought the Left was the party of nuance. I must have misunderstood.

Is this your way of admitting that you're embarassed by your behaviour on this thread, and that you just want it all to go away?

Exile 1798

Denerick is off course correct, Amerika is off course wrong.

The Republican Party used to be the Liberal wing in American politics, at times they were even considered radical. The Democrats historically were the Conservative, xenophobic, racist, pro-slavery and segregationist party. The two pretty much did a switch in 1964 when Johnson signed The Civil Rights Act.

It is amazing the way Conservatives laud the history of the Republican Party, what they are admiring is the historically Liberal wing of American Politics. What is ridicules is they they seem to have no idea that this is the case - but it does tell you something about these people and where they get their world view from - utter ignorance.

Amerika

Well, right now looks like the pick will be Elena Kagan. We should know soon enough.

Doesn’t surprise me though. Looking at the article about her, several things jumped out at me that represents a microcosm of the Obama regime.

Kagan and Obama both taught at the University of Chicago Law School in the early 1990s.

Cronism!

At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, which would give her the opportunity to extend Obama's legacy for a generation.

Liberal Agenda!

Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years.

Inexperience!

There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach." There might be a footnote to the axiom under the Obama Administration: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Run The Country.” And if the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, maybe we can stop it from becoming: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Ruin The Country.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Well, right now looks like the pick will be Elena Kagan. We should know soon enough.

Doesn’t surprise me though. Looking at the article about her, several things jumped out at me that represents a microcosm of the Obama regime.


Cronism!


Liberal Agenda!

Inexperience!

There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach." There might be a footnote to the axiom under the Obama Administration: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Run The Country.” And if the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, maybe we can stop it from becoming: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Ruin The Country.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

So to translate that into reality, Obama has nominated a well qualified former Law School Dean and current Solicitor General to the Supreme Court.

Obama's choice of Supreme Court nominations can be compared to Bush's in that they are both found of elevating women. One significant difference though is that unlike Bush, none of the women President Obama has nominated have been his secretary.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Inexperience!

There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach."

It's unfortunate that some people resort to such broadsweeping and cliche' generalisations when failing to make a substantive argument. Such statements as this detract from, rather than support their position.

If Republicans or conservatives were smart when attempting to oppose this nomination, they would ignore trying to label Kagan a liberal, and rather focus on if she is qualified to be a judge for the highest court in the land, regardless of her political philosophy.

"Kagan has never served in the judiciary." She may have pleaded before the bench, but she has no experience on the bench, therefore her qualifications are suspect?

Of course, this is not the first time a president has nominated someone without judiciary experience. Republican president GW Bush nominated his lawyer, but failed in confirmation hearings. Republican president Nixon succeeded:

"The last time a non-judge was appointed was in 1972, when President Richard M. Nixon nominated William H. Rehnquist and Lewis Powell in the same year."

In any case, it would seem that a Supreme Court Justice should have lower court judge experience as a part of their qualifications, and that Obama, GW Bush, and Nixon were in error by nominating such people.

Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051001116.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Well, right now looks like the pick will be Elena Kagan. We should know soon enough.

Doesn’t surprise me though. Looking at the article about her, several things jumped out at me that represents a microcosm of the Obama regime.


Cronism!

Gasp! They both worship Cron?!?!

Liberal Agenda!

Inexperience!

There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach." There might be a footnote to the axiom under the Obama Administration: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Run The Country.” And if the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, maybe we can stop it from becoming: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Ruin The Country.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

Inexperience? So what? There have been 40 USSC justices, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, with no prior judicial experience.

Sorry the facts dismantle your 'point'.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

Amerika

Exile 1798 wrote: »

So to translate that into reality, Obama has nominated a well qualified former Law School Dean and current Solicitor General to the Supreme Court.

Obama's choice of Supreme Court nominations can be compared to Bush's in that they are both found of elevating women. One significant difference though is that unlike Bush, none of the women President Obama has nominated have been his secretary.

Agreed that nominating Miers was not one of GW Bush’s shining moments. But I’m confused about your post. How exactly does someone with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, only a year as Solicitor General of the United States, and experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualify her for a seat on the Nation’s high court?

And don't you think its ironic that the "most transparent administration ever" would pick a nominee without much of a paper trail?

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Agreed that nominating Miers was not one of GW Bush’s shining moments. But I’m confused about your post. How exactly does someone with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, only a year as Solicitor General of the United States, and experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualify her for a seat on the Nation’s high court?

And don't you think its ironic that the "most transparent administration ever" would pick a nominee without much of a paper trail?

It wasn't one of his shining moments, but it also wasn't a one off. He had quite a record of appointing incompetent members of the Bush clann to high office. Alberto "Bozo" Gonzales to Attorney General, Donald Rumsfield to Defense Secretary, his former College roommate Michael Brown to head FEMA.

As for your "concerns" about the experience of Kagan, I sense that your simply playing with words. So she has no "judicial experience".... does that make her unqualified?

Just like the President who had no "executive experience", in contrast to Sarah Palin who had a lot of "executive experience" Clearly, Sarah Palin was more qualified and ready to be President the Barack Obama, right?

Manic Moran

Inexperience? So what? There have been 40 USSC justices, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, with no prior judicial experience

Although this is true, Rehnquist did have some 13 years of private practise before moving to the attorney general's office and then the bench. Cliches aside, there is something to be said for real-world experience outside of the academia.

However, she does seem to be more 'middle-of-the-road' than most. I think she'll be less controversial than Sotomeyer.

NTM

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

If a darling of the Left is in fact nominated to the US Supreme Court by the president...

"In her confirmation hearing last year, she stated that she did not believe there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that she was not morally opposed to capital punishment, and that she does not think the decision to support the Second Amendment right for private gun ownership was faulty."

This is Left? If so, left of what?

Source: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-10-things-you-should-know-about-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"In her confirmation hearing last year, she stated that she did not believe there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that she was not morally opposed to capital punishment, and that she does not think the decision to support the Second Amendment right for private gun ownership was faulty."

This is Left? If so, left of what?

Source: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-10-things-you-should-know-about-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/

Who can tell (I know Barack Obama has a liberal agenda though)? She has such a slim resume on her viewpoints, I think that other than Barack Obama, nobody in the process can really get a handle on her judicial philosophy. Her decision to ban the military from campus because of her perception of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is troubling.

So, since she is an unknown commodity, would it be fair for her to get Bork’d? (And I know it is different, I'm more speaking about party posturing led by Ted Kennedy, which was the case then)

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

nobody in the process can really get a handle on her judicial philosophy. Her decision to ban the military from campus because of her perception of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is troubling.

She appears more to the middle (wherever that is...), than Left per se? Pro gun, pro capital punishment, anti-gay marriage, yet banning military recruitment on campuses, and a couple other things to balance her out? But none were rulings from the bench.

Amerika wrote: »

So, since she is an unknown commodity

She is not an "unknown commodity." What experience she has is well published and known. The problem I have with her nomination is that she has no experience as a judge, and she is now to become one in the highest court? And I don't care if Nixon or some distant president appointed someone to the Supreme who lacked judicial experience. From now on we should insist on Supreme Court judges qualified by lower court judge experience.

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

She appears more to the middle (wherever that is...), than Left per se? Pro gun, pro capital punishment, anti-gay marriage, yet banning military recruitment on campuses, and a couple other things to balance her out? But none were rulings from the bench.

That’s the key word, and what will be the most troubling and problematic throughout the process – “appears.”

She is not an "unknown commodity." What experience she has is well published and known.

Yes she is an unknown commodity. Yes you can see what is published and known, but that is arguing on behalf of someone else, not her viewpoints.

The problem I have with her nomination is that she has no experience as a judge, and she is now to become one in the highest court? And I don't care if Nixon or some distant president appointed someone to the Supreme who lacked judicial experience. From now on we should insist on Supreme Court judges qualified by lower court judge experience.

I really wish I could disagree with you, but I can’t.

Amerika

Exile 1798 wrote: »

As for your "concerns" about the experience of Kagan, I sense that your simply playing with words. So she has no "judicial experience".... does that make her unqualified?

No, that does not make her “unqualified.” But neither am I “unqualified” for the Supreme Court. But would you want me sitting on the bench? (I was a runner up for the Nobel Peace Prize. I have a T-Shirt that says so)

Just like the President who had no "executive experience", in contrast to Sarah Palin who had a lot of "executive experience" Clearly, Sarah Palin was more qualified and ready to be President the Barack Obama, right?

You said it bud.

Denerick

You support Sarah Palin?

Overheal

Denerick wrote: »

You support Sarah Palin?

If I said GWB was dumber than a peanut that doesnt necessarily mean I want a peanut in the white house.

Amerika

Let's go back to the election of 2008 and compare:

Office being sought
Palin: Vice President
Obama: President of the United States and Leader of the Free World

Religion/Church attendance
Palin: Evangelical Christian; attends Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau and grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God
Obama: Attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a “black liberation theology” church formerly led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and governed according to the Black Value System

Current Job
Palin: Governor of Alaska
Obama: Junior Senator from Illinois

Previous Public Jobs
Palin: Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002); President of Alaska Conference of Mayors; City Council member (1992-1996)
Obama: State Senator (1997-2004); Community Organizer

Executive Experience
Palin: Governor for 2 years; Mayor for 10 years
Obama: None

Foreign Relations experience
Palin: Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia)
Obama: Chaired Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session; once gave a speech to 200,000 screaming Germans

Military Affairs experience
Palin: Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard; Son is enlisted Infantryman in U.S. Army
Obama: None

Private Sector Experience
Palin: Sports reporter; Salmon fisherman
Obama: Associate at civil rights law firm

Speaking ability
Palin: Beautifully executed initial stump speech in Dayton, OH hockey arena without a teleprompter
Obama: Can’t tell without a teleprompter??

Spouse’s occupation
Palin: Salmon fisherman; Former North Slope production supervisor for BP Oil
Obama: Vice President for Community and External Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals; former Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago; former Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies; former Assistant to the Mayor of Chicago; former associate at Sidley Austin law firm

Reaction to spouse’s political success
T Palin: Quit 17-year BP oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with wife’s administration
M Obama: Promoted and given 160% pay raise by UofC hospitals within months of husband’s election to U.S. Senate; Employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion

Most Courageous Moment in Public Service
Palin: Resigned in protest from position of Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders, including the former state Attorney General and the State GOP Chairman (who was also an Oil & Gas Commissioner), who was doing work for the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.
Obama: Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators in Hyde Park in 2002

In Current Office Because
Palin: Upset sitting Governor in GOP primary due to public support for her efforts to clean up corrupt government establishment
Obama: Republican opponent, who was leading in the polls, was forced to leave race after unsealing of divorce records exposed a sex scandal

Theme:
Palin: Change and Clean Government
Obama: Hope and Change; ”Bringing Change from Outside Washington”

What they’ve done to live that theme:
Palin: Replaced entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because of conflict of interest; Resigned from position of Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose corruption among members of own party
Obama: Selected 36-year incumbent Senator as running mate

Union affiliation
Palin: Union member, married to Union member
Obama: Endorsed by a union

Iraq and Troop Support
Palin: Formerly (pre-surge) critical of apparent lack of long-term strategy for Iraq; Visited wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany; visited AK National Guard soldiers deployed to Kuwait; Son deploying to Iraq on 9/11/08 as Army infantryman
Obama: Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators; almost visited wounded troops in Germany, but decided to go shopping in Berlin instead

Bipartisan/”maverick” credentials
Palin: Married to a non-Republican; Exposed corruption within own party; Campaigned for Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell against corrupt GOP congressman Don Young; Called out Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) to “come clean” about financial dealings that are under fed investigation
Obama: Talks about bipartisanship

Legislative Record
Palin: Passed a landmark ethics reform bill; Used veto to cut budgetary spending; Prevented “bridge to nowhere” that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.
Obama: Voted “present” over 100 times as IL state senator

How they dealt with corrupt individuals in home city/state
Palin: Exposed legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders; Campaigned against corrupt GOP Representative; Ran against and defeated corrupt incumbent governor in GOP primary
Obama: Launched political career in home of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (and still refers to him as a part of “mainstream Democratic Chicago”; Purchased home with help of convicted felon Tony Rezko

Guns
Palin: Lifetime member of NRA and avid hunter; video can be found on YouTube of Palin firing an M4 at a military firing range
Obama: Worked to pass legislation in Illinois that would prevent all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms

Earmarks
Palin: Opposed “Bridge to Nowhere” project; Said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects; Campaigned against porker Don Young (R-AK) in 2008 primary
Obama: Secured federal earmarks for wife’s employer and for campaign bundlers

Abortion
Palin: Pro life; gave birth to 5th child knowing that he would have Down’s syndrome
Obama: Pro-choice; only IL state sen. to speak against the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act, which required medical care to be given to live infants who survived abortions

Energy
Palin: Believes energy independence is a matter of national security; For drilling in ANWR, which is in her state
Obama: Says Americans should “get tune-ups” and “check tire pressure”; Says “we can’t expect the world to be okay with” our use of heating and air conditioning

Environment
Palin: Chair of Alaska Conservation Commission (2003-4); Announced plans to create sub-cabinet group of advisors to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in AK
Obama: Talks about the environment a lot

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Let's go back to the election of 2008 and compare:

Office being sought
Palin: Vice President
Obama: President of the United States and Leader of the Free World

Religion/Church attendance
Palin: Evangelical Christian; attends Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau and grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God
Obama: Attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a “black liberation theology” church formerly led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and governed according to the Black Value System

Current Job
Palin: Governor of Alaska
Obama: Junior Senator from Illinois

Previous Public Jobs
Palin: Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002); President of Alaska Conference of Mayors; City Council member (1992-1996)
Obama: State Senator (1997-2004); Community Organizer

Executive Experience
Palin: Governor for 2 years; Mayor for 10 years
Obama: None

Foreign Relations experience
Palin: Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia)
Obama: Chaired Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session; once gave a speech to 200,000 screaming Germans

Military Affairs experience
Palin: Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard; Son is enlisted Infantryman in U.S. Army
Obama: None

Private Sector Experience
Palin: Sports reporter; Salmon fisherman
Obama: Associate at civil rights law firm

Speaking ability
Palin: Beautifully executed initial stump speech in Dayton, OH hockey arena without a teleprompter
Obama: Can’t tell without a teleprompter??

Spouse’s occupation
Palin: Salmon fisherman; Former North Slope production supervisor for BP Oil
Obama: Vice President for Community and External Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals; former Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago; former Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies; former Assistant to the Mayor of Chicago; former associate at Sidley Austin law firm

Reaction to spouse’s political success
T Palin: Quit 17-year BP oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with wife’s administration
M Obama: Promoted and given 160% pay raise by UofC hospitals within months of husband’s election to U.S. Senate; Employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion

Most Courageous Moment in Public Service
Palin: Resigned in protest from position of Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders, including the former state Attorney General and the State GOP Chairman (who was also an Oil & Gas Commissioner), who was doing work for the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.
Obama: Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators in Hyde Park in 2002

In Current Office Because
Palin: Upset sitting Governor in GOP primary due to public support for her efforts to clean up corrupt government establishment
Obama: Republican opponent, who was leading in the polls, was forced to leave race after unsealing of divorce records exposed a sex scandal

Theme:
Palin: Change and Clean Government
Obama: Hope and Change; ”Bringing Change from Outside Washington”

What they’ve done to live that theme:
Palin: Replaced entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because of conflict of interest; Resigned from position of Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose corruption among members of own party
Obama: Selected 36-year incumbent Senator as running mate

Union affiliation
Palin: Union member, married to Union member
Obama: Endorsed by a union

Iraq and Troop Support
Palin: Formerly (pre-surge) critical of apparent lack of long-term strategy for Iraq; Visited wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany; visited AK National Guard soldiers deployed to Kuwait; Son deploying to Iraq on 9/11/08 as Army infantryman
Obama: Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators; almost visited wounded troops in Germany, but decided to go shopping in Berlin instead

Bipartisan/”maverick” credentials
Palin: Married to a non-Republican; Exposed corruption within own party; Campaigned for Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell against corrupt GOP congressman Don Young; Called out Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) to “come clean” about financial dealings that are under fed investigation
Obama: Talks about bipartisanship

Legislative Record
Palin: Passed a landmark ethics reform bill; Used veto to cut budgetary spending; Prevented “bridge to nowhere” that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.
Obama: Voted “present” over 100 times as IL state senator

How they dealt with corrupt individuals in home city/state
Palin: Exposed legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders; Campaigned against corrupt GOP Representative; Ran against and defeated corrupt incumbent governor in GOP primary
Obama: Launched political career in home of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (and still refers to him as a part of “mainstream Democratic Chicago”; Purchased home with help of convicted felon Tony Rezko

Guns
Palin: Lifetime member of NRA and avid hunter; video can be found on YouTube of Palin firing an M4 at a military firing range
Obama: Worked to pass legislation in Illinois that would prevent all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms

Earmarks
Palin: Opposed “Bridge to Nowhere” project; Said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects; Campaigned against porker Don Young (R-AK) in 2008 primary
Obama: Secured federal earmarks for wife’s employer and for campaign bundlers

Abortion
Palin: Pro life; gave birth to 5th child knowing that he would have Down’s syndrome
Obama: Pro-choice; only IL state sen. to speak against the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act, which required medical care to be given to live infants who survived abortions

Energy
Palin: Believes energy independence is a matter of national security; For drilling in ANWR, which is in her state
Obama: Says Americans should “get tune-ups” and “check tire pressure”; Says “we can’t expect the world to be okay with” our use of heating and air conditioning

Environment
Palin: Chair of Alaska Conservation Commission (2003-4); Announced plans to create sub-cabinet group of advisors to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in AK
Obama: Talks about the environment a lot

Wow. You do irrelevant, unattributed cutting & pasting very well.

http://blog.changeandexperience.com/2008/08/experience-sarah-palins-resume-versus.html

Amerika

Mjollnir wrote: »

Wow. You do irrelevant, unattributed cutting & pasting very well.

http://blog.changeandexperience.com/2008/08/experience-sarah-palins-resume-versus.html

Thanks for posting the link, I'm usually pretty good at providing links when relevant. And nice bunny outfit.

Black Swan

Not sure how this relates to the OP, but...

Amerika wrote: »

Let's go back to the election of 2008 and compare:
Earmarks
Palin: Opposed “Bridge to Nowhere” project; Said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects;

Sarah Palin was first in favour of the Bridge to Nowhere (before the media gave it that catchy title), but after the national media discovered and reported the huge financial waste of taxpayer money, she reversed her position and opposed it.

She also took the fed money... "The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects"

Source: http://www.adn.com/2008/08/31/511471/palin-touts-stance-on-bridge-to.html

The list was made by those favouring Palin over Obama, consequently the slant of the list?

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The list was made by those favouring Palin over Obama, consequently the slant of the list?

You are correct! You win a pint of guinness. But how in the world were you able to tell??? :rolleyes:

Hey, can I use “the stretch” and complain about Ms. Kagan’s brief service as a paid member of a Goldman Sachs advisory panel, in order to blame her for all the ills of the financial market?

Mr. Incognito

Yawn.

Here come the Republican attack dogs. They have no hope of blocking this nomination.

They'll make the usual bad noise, get whooped in the Senate elections when she is approved comfortably and slink off back to the corners looking weak again.

They'd want to pick their battles at this stage.

Amerika I didn't even bother to read the whole of that garbage but even suggesting that Palin is a better speaker than Obama? That makes my nomination for silliest internet statement of the day.

Congrats.

Black Swan

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

They'd want to pick their battles at this stage.

The Republicans have not yet learned this lesson, because they are still in denial after being completely overwhelmed beginning with the US House in 2006, followed by the US Senate and presidency in 2008.

I find it ironic how the Republicans overwhelmed the Democrats in the second half of Clinton, now to find themselves overwhelmed and clueless, just as the Democrats were back then. The Republicans have been labeled the "Party of No" today, which is the same name attached to the Democrats back then.

This forum is like an ebb and flow of a huge tide, with the gulls afloat squawking about which is better, and not really having anything to do with it.

(Blue squawk, squawks!)

Amerika

Republicans on the committee better work to stop the appointment of Kagan to the Supreme Court or they will be proven to be hypocrites. Republicans opposed the appointment of GW Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the high court, not because she was unqualified (because she was qualified), but because she had practically no public record – just like Kagan. They didn’t accept Bush’s contention that the committee should simply trust the president’s judgment, so they shouldn’t accept it when Obama asks the same. But I don’t hold much hope.

All most of know is that Kagan’s resume shows her to be an academic who served liberal judges, served liberal presidents, and served liberal universities. One of the biggest problems (or questions I should say) will be that of "judicial activism." What do we know: We know that Obama likes her judicial philosophy. We also know that he wants justices who will substitute "empathy" for the law in tough judicial cases. And we don't know for sure what type of justice she will be. She has never been a judge, never written a judicial opinion, and was named Solicitor General without ever having appeard in a courtroom on behalf of a client. One bit I read yesterday leads me to believe she will in fact be an activist judge. Kagan once stated that the most important thing Justice Marshall taught her was the recognition that “behind law there are stories – stories of people’s lives as shaped by law, stories of people’s lives as might be changed by law.” This is a problem because justice should be “meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness.”

Unfortunately I don’t hold much hope for the public being served properly by either the republicans or the democrats. Like so much in this administration it will become a rush to judgment, not a thorough process. And I fear after a few speeches from the committee, it will simply be a coronation and not a real confirmation process.

PeakOutput

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"In her confirmation hearing last year, she stated that she did not believe there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that she was not morally opposed to capital punishment, and that she does not think the decision to support the Second Amendment right for private gun ownership was faulty."

This is Left? If so, left of what?

Source: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-10-things-you-should-know-about-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/

i dont understand how the above says either way what she is

she gave her interpretation of the constitution on same sex marriage not her personal opinion

same goes for the point on the gun ruling its interpretation not personal opinion

i dont understand how capital punishment is a right or left issue its a moral issue really and if she can justify it to herself morally thats fine if you cant thats fine but its not a left or right opinion

steelcityblues

The fact that her resume says 'University of Chicago' makes me doubt that there is not a touch of cronyism involved here!

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Republicans on the committee better work to stop the appointment of Kagan to the Supreme Court or they will be proven to be hypocrites. Republicans opposed the appointment of GW Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the high court, not because she was unqualified (because she was qualified), but because she had practically no public record – just like Kagan. They didn’t accept Bush’s contention that the committee should simply trust the president’s judgment, so they shouldn’t accept it when Obama asks the same. But I don’t hold much hope.

Translation from Tea Party talk into reality: "Harriet Meirs was such a wildly and embarrassingly unqualified nominee that even Republican Senators and Conservative figures savaged her nomination. Robert Bork himself describing it as a "disaster." In the end Bush was forced to withdraw her nomination before a confirmation vote. In this way, the nomination of Elena Kagan is not at all comparable to that of Harriet Meirs."

If anyone is interested in my Teatard translation service I work on a pro bono basis, just send me a PM with the Teatard rantings you would like translated into reality.

Amerika

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Translation from Tea Party talk into reality: "Harriet Meirs was such a wildly and embarrassingly unqualified nominee that even Republican Senators and Conservative figures savaged her nomination. Robert Bork himself describing it as a "disaster." In the end Bush was forced to withdraw her nomination before a confirmation vote. In this way, the nomination of Elena Kagan is not at all comparable to that of Harriet Meirs."

If anyone is interested in my Teatard translation service I work on a pro bono basis, just send me a PM with the Teatard rantings you would like translated into reality.

It’s a good thing electrons are cheap.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Republicans on the committee better work to stop the appointment of Kagan to the Supreme Court or they will be proven to be hypocrites. Republicans opposed the appointment of GW Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the high court, not because she was unqualified (because she was qualified), but because she had practically no public record – just like Kagan. They didn’t accept Bush’s contention that the committee should simply trust the president’s judgment, so they shouldn’t accept it when Obama asks the same. But I don’t hold much hope.

All most of know is that Kagan’s resume shows her to be an academic who served liberal judges, served liberal presidents, and served liberal universities. One of the biggest problems (or questions I should say) will be that of "judicial activism." What do we know: We know that Obama likes her judicial philosophy. We also know that he wants justices who will substitute "empathy" for the law in tough judicial cases. And we don't know for sure what type of justice she will be. She has never been a judge, never written a judicial opinion, and was named Solicitor General without ever having appeard in a courtroom on behalf of a client. One bit I read yesterday leads me to believe she will in fact be an activist judge. Kagan once stated that the most important thing Justice Marshall taught her was the recognition that “behind law there are stories – stories of people’s lives as shaped by law, stories of people’s lives as might be changed by law.” This is a problem because justice should be “meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness.”

Unfortunately I don’t hold much hope for the public being served properly by either the republicans or the democrats. Like so much in this administration it will become a rush to judgment, not a thorough process. And I fear after a few speeches from the committee, it will simply be a coronation and not a real confirmation process.

I see the usual right wing talking points are making the rounds:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/96967-the-big-question-is-kagan-the-right-pick

http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2010/05/should-we-know-whether-elena-kagan-is-gay.html

Amerika

Mjollnir wrote: »

http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2010/05/should-we-know-whether-elena-kagan-is-gay.html

Curious as to why you bring up the gay thing without adding content? I certainly did not make any reference to it. And why not attribitue it to where these reports began, at the left leaning and democrat favoring CBS? Agenda perhaps?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/elena-kagan-gay-rumor-whi_n_540143.html

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Curious as to why you bring up the gay thing without adding content? I certainly did not make any reference to it. And why not attribitue it to where these reports began, at the left leaning and democrat favoring CBS? Agenda perhaps?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/elena-kagan-gay-rumor-whi_n_540143.html

I didn't bring up 'the gay thing'; you did.

What I brought up is that you're representing the words of others as your own. Hence, the bolding of the statements you tried to pass off as yours.