Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[DiamondDave]

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

Review of an existing charge within the constitution "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

This was a case in law under the constitution (Marbury v Madison)... and IMHO (notice here jokey, when I have an opinion I state it as such, unlike you who likes to proclaim your opinion as fact) this clarified the power given

What jokey is trying to do is say the SC has the power and the ability to add a power not granted, as a granted power

We can sit here and argue whether the SC was right in interpreting it that way without an amendment.. but what was interpreted was not the power to grant a new power or change the constitution (according to everything I have read)... now... would I have preferred that because of Marbury v Madison, that the government spell out that power in a better way thru a constitutional amendment?? Yep

Anyone can state their stance on what they think the government or a specific branch SHOULD do... whether i agree or disagree is not important.... but if they wish to enact change for that to happen, all that has to be done is already set forth in the constitution itself.... make and pass the amendment

But again.. I do stand by my statement that declaring something unconstitutional is not the same as changing the constitution or adding a constitutional power

Semantics? When the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, has it ever struck down one part of the constitution over another part of the Constitution?

Not what is being argued.. this not not something being argued of one constitutional power that is written, over another power that is written....

Question for you then... is it indeed the same to declare a writ or statute unconstitutional, as it is to add to the constitution or to grant a power?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Kagan had the support of 7 Republican Senatorsfor confirmation as Solicitor General including Orin Hatch. The woman is a constitutional scholar. The executive has the right to appoint who they want.
Starting with The Democrats slandering Borg and Thomas expect many kook Republicans to do the same with this woman.
"Well qualified" used to be the only requirement for acceptance to the bench. Sad that partisan politics has now taken over civility amongst sitting politicians.
Dumbass partisan civilian hacks that spend all day listening to a talk radio host to tell them how to think and act is the problem. Ignorance from 30 second sound bites has taken the place of common sense and decency.

Keeping in mind, of course, that support for a temporary position is different than support for a lifetime appointment.

Not to mention supporting her for Solicitor General is a long ways from supporting her for the Supreme Court. She has NEVER been a Judge. She is NOT qualified.

 

[bodecea]

Never been a Judge, no idea how she rules. Didn't the left have a fit when Bush Nominated a person that was never a Judge before?

Was that the reason given?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

Why, golly, you are right. But JethroDiamond and his brother aren't a gonna git it.

Funny... no legal writeup I can see asserts that at all... but I do see plenty of assertion that it formalizes judicial review

I told you he would not get it.

The kooks have trouble being told their narrow niche minority kook view is wrong. But that is the way of the world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Never been a Judge, no idea how she rules. Didn't the left have a fit when Bush Nominated a person that was never a Judge before?

Was that the reason given?

Not at all.

 

[DiamondDave]

The only thing I have learned as fact so far is this is the lady that tried to ban the military from recruiting on campus at Harvard.

Well.. that is one BIG reason not to like this nomination

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kagan had the support of 7 Republican Senatorsfor confirmation as Solicitor General including Orin Hatch. The woman is a constitutional scholar. The executive has the right to appoint who they want.
Starting with The Democrats slandering Borg and Thomas expect many kook Republicans to do the same with this woman.
"Well qualified" used to be the only requirement for acceptance to the bench. Sad that partisan politics has now taken over civility amongst sitting politicians.
Dumbass partisan civilian hacks that spend all day listening to a talk radio host to tell them how to think and act is the problem. Ignorance from 30 second sound bites has taken the place of common sense and decency.

Keeping in mind, of course, that support for a temporary position is different than support for a lifetime appointment.

Not to mention supporting her for Solicitor General is a long ways from supporting her for the Supreme Court. She has NEVER been a Judge. She is NOT qualified.

Why not? Because she was not a judge? Gotta do better than that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only thing I have learned as fact so far is this is the lady that tried to ban the military from recruiting on campus at Harvard.

Well.. that is one BIG reason not to like this nomination

She did not like the "don't ask don't tell" part of the military. On this, I disagree with her.

 

[Truthmatters]

How is it not OK for her to be left of you in her politics?

If she was right leaning you would say she was fine.

Do you think left leaning people should be banned from the SCOTUS?

 

[DiamondDave]

Why, golly, you are right. But JethroDiamond and his brother aren't a gonna git it.

Funny... no legal writeup I can see asserts that at all... but I do see plenty of assertion that it formalizes judicial review

I told you he would not get it.

The kooks have trouble being told their narrow niche minority kook view is wrong. But that is the way of the world.

So it is your assertion that all others within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while this branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

Again...
Constitutional Amendment Process

 

[Truthmatters]

Kagan had the support of 7 Republican Senatorsfor confirmation as Solicitor General including Orin Hatch. The woman is a constitutional scholar. The executive has the right to appoint who they want.
Starting with The Democrats slandering Borg and Thomas expect many kook Republicans to do the same with this woman.
"Well qualified" used to be the only requirement for acceptance to the bench. Sad that partisan politics has now taken over civility amongst sitting politicians.
Dumbass partisan civilian hacks that spend all day listening to a talk radio host to tell them how to think and act is the problem. Ignorance from 30 second sound bites has taken the place of common sense and decency.

Keeping in mind, of course, that support for a temporary position is different than support for a lifetime appointment.

Not to mention supporting her for Solicitor General is a long ways from supporting her for the Supreme Court. She has NEVER been a Judge. She is NOT qualified.

DEAR IDIOT , 40 people have served on the SCOTUS without ever being a judge.

One was Rehnquist




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

 

[JakeStarkey]

My assertion is that I agree with SCOTUS on their power, not you.

Take it up with SCOTUS, JethroDiamond, and they will say, "Thanks for playing," turn you over to the Clerk of the Court and instruct him, "Turn his sorry ass out into the alley and don't let him back in."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Funny... no legal writeup I can see asserts that at all... but I do see plenty of assertion that it formalizes judicial review

I told you he would not get it.

The kooks have trouble being told their narrow niche minority kook view is wrong. But that is the way of the world.

So it is your assertion that all others within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while this branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

Again...
Constitutional Amendment Process

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court any power to rule on Constitutional issues arising from legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is simple something Jefferson allowed the Court to do and it has become Precedent.

 

[DiamondDave]

My assertion is that I agree with SCOTUS on their power, not you.

Take it up with SCOTUS, and they will say, "Thanks for playing," turn you over to the Clerk of the Court and instruct him, "Turn his sorry ass out into the alley and don't let him back in."

Answer the question

The Legislative and Executive within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while the Judicial branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

 

[Gadawg73]

Kagan had the support of 7 Republican Senatorsfor confirmation as Solicitor General including Orin Hatch. The woman is a constitutional scholar. The executive has the right to appoint who they want.
Starting with The Democrats slandering Borg and Thomas expect many kook Republicans to do the same with this woman.
"Well qualified" used to be the only requirement for acceptance to the bench. Sad that partisan politics has now taken over civility amongst sitting politicians.
Dumbass partisan civilian hacks that spend all day listening to a talk radio host to tell them how to think and act is the problem. Ignorance from 30 second sound bites has taken the place of common sense and decency.

Keeping in mind, of course, that support for a temporary position is different than support for a lifetime appointment.

Excellent point but the fact remains the Constitution set up the seperation of powers allowing a duly elected executive, and specifically granting them the power and the right, to appoint the Federal judiciary.

 

[Gunny]

Keeping in mind, of course, that support for a temporary position is different than support for a lifetime appointment.

Not to mention supporting her for Solicitor General is a long ways from supporting her for the Supreme Court. She has NEVER been a Judge. She is NOT qualified.

DEAR IDIOT , 40 people have served on the SCOTUS without ever being a judge.

One was Rehnquist

Which means absolutely NOTHING. What was argument with Bush's 1st nomination? Let's see IICR .... not qualified because she was not a sitting judge?

Y'all are bunch of damned hypocrites and someone needs to get that "thing" some freakin' estrogen QUICK.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Not to mention supporting her for Solicitor General is a long ways from supporting her for the Supreme Court. She has NEVER been a Judge. She is NOT qualified.

DEAR IDIOT , 40 people have served on the SCOTUS without ever being a judge.

One was Rehnquist

Which means absolutely NOTHING. What was argument with Bush's 1st nomination? Let's see IICR .... not qualified because she was not a sitting judge?

Y'all are bunch of damned hypocrites and someone needs to get that "thing" some freakin' estrogen QUICK.

****

 

[saveliberty]

Post Date: September 20, 2005

To all members of the HLS community:

I write to let you know that this fall, the Office of Career Services (OCS) will provide assistance to the U.S. military in recruiting students, as it has done for most of the past three years. This email gives newcomers to our community some background on this issue, describes recent developments affecting it, and states my own views on the matter.

The Law School’s anti-discrimination policy, adopted in 1979, provides that any employer that uses the services of OCS to recruit at the school must sign a statement indicating that that it does not discriminate on various bases, including sexual orientation. As a result of this policy, the military was barred for many years from using the services of OCS. The military retained full access to our students (and vice versa) through the good offices of the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, which essentially took the place of OCS in enabling interviews to occur.

In 2002, the then-Dean of the Law School, Robert Clark, in consultation with other officers of the University, reluctantly created an exception from the law school’s general anti-discrimination policy for the military. The Dean took this action because of a new ruling by the Department of Defense stating that unless the Law School lifted its ban, the entire University would lose federal funding under a statute known as the Solomon Amendment. (This amendment denies federal funds to an educational institution that “prohibits or in effect prevents” military recruiting.) The Law School’s own resources were not at risk: we do not receive any of the kinds of federal funding that the Amendment threatens to cut off. The University, however, receives about 15% of its operating budget from the federal government, with the Medical School and the School of Public Health receiving by far the largest share of this money for scientific and medical research. The Dean determined (as did all other law school deans) that he should make an exception to the School’s anti-discrimination policy in the face of this threat to the University’s funding and research activities.

I continued this exception in effect, for the same reasons, through the 2003 and 2004 fall recruiting seasons. In the meantime, a consortium of law schools and law school faculty members (FAIR) brought suit challenging the Defense Department’s policy on constitutional grounds. Harvard Law School is not a member of FAIR, but 54 faculty members, including me, filed an amicus brief in that suit articulating different, statutory grounds for overturning the Department’s policy. In November 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision in the FAIR case, holding that the Defense Department’s policy violates First Amendment freedoms. The Supreme Court granted review of this decision; the Third Circuit’s ruling is stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected later this year. (Much the same group of HLS faculty members, including me, will file an amicus brief tomorrow in the Supreme Court litigation. I also understand that the University expects to join an amicus brief filed by Yale and other universities.) Although the Supreme Court’s action meant that no injunction applied against the Department of Defense, I reinstated the application of our anti-discrimination policy to the military (after appropriate consultation with University officials) in the wake of the Third Circuit’s decision; as a result, the military did not receive OCS assistance during our spring 2005 recruiting season. My hope in taking this action was that the Department would choose not to enforce its interpretation of the Solomon Amendment while the Third Circuit opinion stood. Over the summer, however, the Department of Defense notified the University that it would withhold all possible funds if the Law School continued to bar the military from receiving OCS services. As a result, I have decided (again, after appropriate consultation) that we should lift our ban and except the military from our general non-discrimination policy. This will mean that the military will receive OCS assistance during the fall 2005 recruiting season.

I have said before how much I regret making this exception to our antidiscrimination policy. I believe the military’s discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong – both unwise and unjust. And this wrong tears at the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have. The importance of the military to our society – and the great service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us – heightens, rather than excuses, this inequity. The Law School remains firmly committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without regard to sexual orientation. And I look forward to the time when all our students can pursue any career path they desire, including the path of devoting their professional lives to the defense of their country.

Best,

Elena Kagan

Letter from Dean Kagan on military recruiting

The Supreme Court's unanimous ruling upholding the Solomon amendment, which allows the federal government to deny funds to colleges that don't give military recruiters the same access to their campuses as other employers, suggests that many constitutional-law professors should receive failing grades in their own field. Not only were they unable to convince conservative members of the court of their position, but even the most-liberal justices rejected their arguments.

Out of the Jungle: Supreme Court Ruling in Solomon Amendment Case

9-0 ruling and this lady thinks the opposite. Hmm...

 

[DiamondDave]

I told you he would not get it.

The kooks have trouble being told their narrow niche minority kook view is wrong. But that is the way of the world.

So it is your assertion that all others within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while this branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

Again...
Constitutional Amendment Process

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court any power to rule on Constitutional issues arising from legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is simple something Jefferson allowed the Court to do and it has become Precedent.

Not going to argue with that stance... and I actually agree with that more... as I fully believe any power granted that is not expressly written, should only be granted thru the amendment process

But since this IS being used as precedent.... for judicial review... I am simply arguing that judicial review indeed is not the same as a power to grant constitutional power without the amendment process

 

[Truthmatters]

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Miers met with senators after her nomination was announced, and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[22] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[22] In mock sessions with lawyers, Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[23] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[24] Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional concepts senators asked of her.[24] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[25]