Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[jillian]

My douche bag roomate said the same thing in college. She he hired an electrician (the best electrician in the entire country) to fix the plumbing!. What happened? The basement flooded!

Not a true story, but you get the point. Don't hire an electrician to do the plumbing!!

except that kagan is a constitutional scholar and as solicitor general is certainly comfortable in front of the court. she was also counsel to the judiciary committee when ginzberg was confirmed.

that's a lot more court experience than rhenquist had.

although i'm sure the rightwingnuts will try to paint her as ignorant as harriet miers.

Funny seeing you invoke Rhenquist, among the most right wing of justices, as support for Kagan.
He wasn't exactly a stellar appointment. Neither will she be.

I didn't invoke it to support kagan.

I raised it to point out that you wingnuts don't know what you're talking about and are hypocrites.

now go crawl back under your rock like a good little insane stalker and let the grown ups talk.

 

[The Rabbi]

except that kagan is a constitutional scholar and as solicitor general is certainly comfortable in front of the court. she was also counsel to the judiciary committee when ginzberg was confirmed.

that's a lot more court experience than rhenquist had.

although i'm sure the rightwingnuts will try to paint her as ignorant as harriet miers.

Funny seeing you invoke Rhenquist, among the most right wing of justices, as support for Kagan.
He wasn't exactly a stellar appointment. Neither will she be.

I didn't invoke it to support kagan.

I raised it to point out that you wingnuts don't know what you're talking about and are hypocrites.

now go crawl back under your rock like a good little insane stalker and let the grown ups talk.

You raised the example of the most right wing justice on the court who did not author a single major opinion to support this nomination?

Your insults are tedious at best. You are just a neg rep bully with nothing of substance on any issue.

 

[jillian]

Funny seeing you invoke Rhenquist, among the most right wing of justices, as support for Kagan.
He wasn't exactly a stellar appointment. Neither will she be.

I didn't invoke it to support kagan.

I raised it to point out that you wingnuts don't know what you're talking about and are hypocrites.

now go crawl back under your rock like a good little insane stalker and let the grown ups talk.

You raised the example of the most right wing justice on the court who did not author a single major opinion to support this nomination?

Your insults are tedious at best. You are just a neg rep bully with nothing of substance on any issue.

awwwwwwwwww.... poor baby. still stinging about getting negged for your insulting and ignorant mouth? pssssst... you're the one who's the bully. get a grip. i wouldn't even know you were there if you didn't stalk my posts, insane pretend rabbi.

in any event, too bad, so sad, life is filled with pain.

you can always try civil discussion if that isn't beyond you.

you'd be surprised at how that works.

or you can continue to be a moron and then go cry to the powers that be.

 

[Dr.House]

No, but if it's from HuffyPuffy it isn't worth posting...

I'll wait for other sources....

really? is he not picking kagan? huffington is pretty good with its facts. you can disagree with their opinion pieces (depending on who's doing them) but the fact-checking is pretty good.

you have something that says they're lying? you know, not everyone is faux news... even if their opinion leans a certain way. (not to mention that huff po takes its share of potshots at the president).

Sorry Jillybean, but I'm not going to click a HuffyPuffy link - ever... I'm sure I'll survive, but I just won't go there...

FreeRepublic has outstanding facts as well, but I wouldn't source them and expect the left here to take it without another source.....

Haven't read up on her...

My rule of thumb is if they're not qualified to be on the SCOTUS bench then they shouldn't be nominated...

she's a brilliant woman. it's not that she's not qualified. the thought was that one of our best chief justices (warren) wasn't a judge before being on the bench. he's hoping for someone in that mold.

i disagree with him on this... should have gone with wood. if you're going to take heat no matter what you do, may as well earn it.

As I said, I haven't read up on her... Saw an article on the Solomon Amendment problems she had, including the 9-0 smackdown from SCOTUS, but I will need to read more...

 

[Meister]

Kagan will be the next Supreme Court justice, no doubt. Again.....what's the big deal about this? It's the priviledge of the president to nominate his choice. I wouldn't expect a liberal president to nominate a conservative judge, nor would I expect a conservative president to nominate a liberal judge. The mix of the Court is not going to change on this nomination. Let's all take a deep breath and get back to the important things....like filling out the NBA playoff pools.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) Holden wasN'T nominated. The worst AG in US history, would do more damage to America from the bench.
(2) Napalitano wasN'T nominated. She is inept at her current role. In fact she is an utter failure at it. Surprised Obama didn't appoint her. I mean she was an utter failure, makes perfect sense for the Obama camp to promote her.

You can Deval Patrick to that list. Also Hillary. Also Bill. The list of possible disasters is unlimited.

Nominating basically an academic is interesting. Scalia made a comment during a hearing about a legal theory that showed a disdain for academic discussion of the subject vs those held by practicing jurists. In the ivory tower you can afford to be "creative."

I don't see a lot of opposition to her appearing. I also don't think she will do a very good job.

Governor Earl Warren (Cal-R), whom Eisenhower later called his "worst" appointment of his administration, somewhat fits The Rab's concerns. However, Warren's court put the legal end to segregation. He did by building consensus in a court that would have not overturned Plessy even as early as two years before.

 

[The Rabbi]

(1) Holden wasN'T nominated. The worst AG in US history, would do more damage to America from the bench.
(2) Napalitano wasN'T nominated. She is inept at her current role. In fact she is an utter failure at it. Surprised Obama didn't appoint her. I mean she was an utter failure, makes perfect sense for the Obama camp to promote her.

You can Deval Patrick to that list. Also Hillary. Also Bill. The list of possible disasters is unlimited.

Nominating basically an academic is interesting. Scalia made a comment during a hearing about a legal theory that showed a disdain for academic discussion of the subject vs those held by practicing jurists. In the ivory tower you can afford to be "creative."

I don't see a lot of opposition to her appearing. I also don't think she will do a very good job.

Governor Earl Warren (Cal-R), whom Eisenhower later called his "worst" appointment of his administration, somewhat fits The Rab's concerns. However, Warren's court put the legal end to segregation. He did by building consensus in a court that would have not overturned Plessy even as early as two years before.

A very good point.
ANd Brown was a terrible decision judicially. It had little to no precedent. Its arguments were terribly flawed to get the right policy decision, which is the provence of legislatures, not courts.
Kagan has written that the job of a judge is to stick up for the oppressed and despised. That is not the job of a judge. The job of a judge is to administer fair impartial justice, whether the litigant is IBM or Rose Selavy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution. There is no such thing as "original construct" or "liberal activism." Only justice counts. Thus Brown was absolutely the right decision because the courts and the legislatures would not move on one of the two great moral injustice of our time.

 

[hjmick]

So let me get this straight...

She's ugly and fat, and, though qualified, no one's first choice. She's too "right" for the lefties and to "left" for the righties. She has enough experience except for the fact that she doesn't.

Well, let me say this...

Black is slimming and she can get a makeover.

As for the rest, any one of us is, by my understanding, qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. By my reckoning, that makes her more than qualified. As for which side of the political spectrum she falls, Obama nominated her, that should tell us all we need to know. Where experience is concerned, she has none as a judge and... how much as a lawyer? So far she seems to be... Well, I don't know. I just don't know enough about her. Perhaps this is why Obama has chosen her? Not enough to hang on her during confirmation?

I think I'll wait until the hearings before I pass judgement.

 

[The Rabbi]

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution. There is no such thing as "original construct" or "liberal activism." Only justice counts. Thus Brown was absolutely the right decision because the courts and the legislatures would not move on one of the two great moral injustice of our time.

No, that is not the job of a judge. Sorry.
Brown might have been the right policy decision but it was the wrong legal decision. And policy decisions need to be made by legislatures elected by the people, not by judges who are unaccountable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She looks like Mark from 'Peep Show', if he were heavier and in drag.

 

[DiamondDave]

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution. There is no such thing as "original construct" or "liberal activism." Only justice counts. Thus Brown was absolutely the right decision because the courts and the legislatures would not move on one of the two great moral injustice of our time.

I don't know how deep you had to reach up your ass to pull this shit out

What you have described is in NO way the job of a judge

 

[GHook93]

I can only go off my opinions. I don't know her position, nor do I care. What I care about is that she has no Federal judicial service and that urks me!

So let me get this straight...

She's ugly and fat, and, though qualified, no one's first choice. She's too "right" for the lefties and to "left" for the righties. She has enough experience except for the fact that she doesn't.

Well, let me say this...

Black is slimming and she can get a makeover.

As for the rest, any one of us is, by my understanding, qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. By my reckoning, that makes her more than qualified. As for which side of the political spectrum she falls, Obama nominated her, that should tell us all we need to know. Where experience is concerned, she has none as a judge and... how much as a lawyer? So far she seems to be... Well, I don't know. I just don't know enough about her. Perhaps this is why Obama has chosen her? Not enough to hang on her during confirmation?

I think I'll wait until the hearings before I pass judgement.

 

[GHook93]

Sorry Quinn the Fag vote isn't going to win in IL!

 

[maineman]

I'm not getting nominated for a political position either.
You were trying to make some kind of point, dumbshit?

the point, perhaps, is that it is incredibly shallow and ignorant to think that appearance has anything to do with one's qualification to be a supreme court justice.

idiot

Or Vice President of the U.S.
Moron.

And in other posts I've explored some of the issues. Let's see you do the same.

I NEVER suggested that Caribou Barbie was unqualified because of her appearance. I thought she was a poor choice because of her lack of intellectual curiousity and her ignorance on many issues, but she certainly was QUALIFIED for the job. McCain could have made a better choice, and it would seem that polls show that the majority of Americans agree with me.

As to this nominee, I happen to think that if the senate approved Kagan to be solicitor general in a bi-partisan vote, that would indicate that she has as much qualification as anyone might require to be a SCOTUS assocciate justice.

but you were the one whose FIRST impulse was to criticize her for being ugly.

pretty pathetic.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you call Palin with a demeaning name. Hypocrite.
I never suggested she wasnt qualified either. Just that she's an ugly troll and with Nappy on the scene who needs more of them in the media?

 

[hjmick]

I can only go off my opinions. I don't know her position, nor do I care. What I care about is that she has no Federal judicial service and that urks me!

I understand your position completely, and I do not disagree with you necessarily. But I also recognize that she is not the first SCOTUS nominee with no judicial experience and, should she be approved, not the first to serve.

The truth is, I am not sure what all the fuss is about. The fact of the matter is, it is the prerogative the sitting President who is nominated and it is the job of the Senate to approve, or not, the nominee. There is nothing we as citizens can do except hope that a particularly onerous nominee is struck down. Kagan does not appear to be particularly onerous thus far, unless the fact that she is an Obama nomination makes it so.

No, I would be far more concerned if we were facing a scenario in which the current balance was in jeopardy.

This is just politics.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can only go off my opinions. I don't know her position, nor do I care. What I care about is that she has no Federal judicial service and that urks me!

I understand your position completely, and I do not disagree with you necessarily. But I also recognize that she is not the first SCOTUS nominee with no judicial experience and, should she be approved, not the first to serve.

The truth is, I am not sure what all the fuss is about. The fact of the matter is, it is the prerogative the sitting President who is nominated and it is the job of the Senate to approve, or not, the nominee. There is nothing we as citizens can do except hope that a particularly onerous nominee is struck down. Kagan does not appear to be particularly onerous thus far, unless the fact that she is an Obama nomination makes it so.

No, I would be far more concerned if we were facing a scenario in which the current balance was in jeopardy.

This is just politics.

The Senate's role is to offer "advise and consent." Since Bork though the paradigm has shifted to an all out political battle on every judicial nominee. So everything becomes an issue.
Bork was probably the best-qualified nominee for the Supreme Court we have ever had. But the Dums wanted to make an example of him and flex their muscles. Since then it's payback time.
And that is just politics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution. There is no such thing as "original construct" or "liberal activism." Only justice counts. Thus Brown was absolutely the right decision because the courts and the legislatures would not move on one of the two great moral injustice of our time.

No, that is not the job of a judge. Sorry.
Brown might have been the right policy decision but it was the wrong legal decision. And policy decisions need to be made by legislatures elected by the people, not by judges who are unaccountable.

Not when the 'people's' decisions fly in the face of human guarantees in the Constitution. If the people do not get it right, then the judges, in accordance with Article III of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review and the weight of more than 200 years, have indeed the legal as well as moral right to get it right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution. There is no such thing as "original construct" or "liberal activism." Only justice counts. Thus Brown was absolutely the right decision because the courts and the legislatures would not move on one of the two great moral injustice of our time.

I don't know how deep you had to reach up your ass to pull this shit out

What you have described is in NO way the job of a judge

DiamondDave, the bad old days of 'originalist construct' are over. This is not even worth arguing. Believe as you want, though, for it is your right, and the Court will protect that.