Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Bork ranked right with Abe Fortas. Rab, the Constitution of 1801 is not the Constitution of 2010. It is organic, it has evolved, and we are a better nation for it.

 

[Zander]

really? interesting. perhaps on other boards you've haunted. not here.

there is nothing inappropriate or 'spam' about providing information.

or do i have to go through every rightwingnut thread to show you what spam is?

Good for you. I prefer to get my own news. I come here to view other peoples opinion about the news.

and i'm sure if the O/P was a rightwingnut you'd have had a comment, right?

puleeze...

I don't care what your politics are, if you post an article without comment you are a spammer.

 

[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.

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.

Are you really that fucking stupid?

Human guarantees?? Name 1

It is not a judicial job to 'ensure prosperity' or to 'ensure the American Dream prospers'

Because You and your ilk wish to equalize outcome or 'guarantee' prosperity... does not mean it is the government's job under our system and constitution to do so....

I have posted the exact language of judicial powers given by the constitution MANY times... none of what you claim is in there at all

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your time and philosophy, DiamondDave, have come and gone. You espouse dead constitutional philosophy, and some day it will realize it and fall over.

And, DD, just in case you don't get it, the above is a metaphor.

 

[DiamondDave]

Rab, the Constitution of 1801 is not the Constitution of 2010.

And hence the AMENDMENT process.. which has not been used to give constitutional power to the judicial branch for anything you have described here

 

[DiamondDave]

Waiting for the ACTUAL text of the constitutionally granted powers to back up your claim, Jokey

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rab, the Constitution of 1801 is not the Constitution of 2010.

And hence the AMENDMENT process.. which has not been used to give constitutional power to the judicial branch for anything you have described here

Read three posts up, please. And, DiamondDave, you are conloon so whatever is posted will not satisfy you, but . . . . hold your breath.

 

[maineman]

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?

demeaning? perhaps in your eyes, but it certainly implies that she is a hottie and not an "ugly troll".

and regardless, YOU were the one whose first impulse regarding Kagan was to criticize her appearance.... that shows me that you are both stupid AND shallow.

And who CARES what public servants LOOK like? Why do you feel that the president needs to appoint beautiful women to public office? what do LOOKS have to do with qualifications for such a position?

 

[DiamondDave]

Rab, the Constitution of 1801 is not the Constitution of 2010.

And hence the AMENDMENT process.. which has not been used to give constitutional power to the judicial branch for anything you have described here

Read two posts up, please.

Yep.. you have no constitutional text to back up what you are saying.. whether it be 2 posts up or the rest of the drivel posts you have made here

 

[JakeStarkey]

And hence the AMENDMENT process.. which has not been used to give constitutional power to the judicial branch for anything you have described here

Read two posts up, please.

Yep.. you have no constitutional text to back up what you are saying.. whether it be 2 posts up or the rest of the drivel posts you have made here

Article III, for starters, and so on so forth. That you are an "originalist" means nothing other than you have lost this point not only on the thread but in real life as well.

 

[DiamondDave]

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

 

[DiamondDave]

Read two posts up, please.

Yep.. you have no constitutional text to back up what you are saying.. whether it be 2 posts up or the rest of the drivel posts you have made here

Article III, for starters, and so on so forth. That you are an "originalist" means nothing other than you have lost this point not only on the thread but in real life as well.

Cite the exact text that supports your claim.. to make it easy I have posted article 3 and the associated amendments for you

put up, or shut up, jokey...

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of that forbids the SCOTUS, under Article III, from making appropriate decisions. The majority of justices decide that, not you. Sorry.

 

[DiamondDave]

Read two posts up, please.

Yep.. you have no constitutional text to back up what you are saying.. whether it be 2 posts up or the rest of the drivel posts you have made here

Article III, for starters, and so on so forth. That you are an "originalist" means nothing other than you have lost this point not only on the thread but in real life as well.

Yet I believe in the amendments and the amendment process... not just the original constitution....

But you are a fictionalist.. stating supposed powers not constitutionally granted, yet you claim that they are

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't get to rewrite and reargue constitutional history. It's over, and it's decided. Sorry.

 

[DiamondDave]

None of that forbids the SCOTUS, under Article III, from making appropriate decisions. The majority of justices decide that, not you. Sorry.

No.. judges do not get to change the rights given to them by the constitution.. that indeed is the amendment process....

What forbids what you claim... the constitution itself.... because it was not created to just have a popular whim or a branch dictate what they THINK their powers are supposed to be... the powers are strictly laid out as to LIMIT the government... not to grant unlimited power to expand their jobs and only list things they cannot do...

You are flat out, unequivocally and 100% wrong

 

[DiamondDave]

You don't get to rewrite and reargue constitutional history. It's over, and it's decided. Sorry.

Then simply show me the exact constitutional text that grants the power you claim to the judicial branch... the text is right there... just highlight or bold it.. we'll be waiting

 

[PatekPhilippe]

they weren't even like that in 1955 as far as i know.

he can't help being a loser. is what he is.

You're just jealous that Obama didnt nominate you. I guess you aren't enough of a dyke to qualify.

Hey, bro. How are you? Good to see a fellow Jew on my board. Now that the pleasantries are over with... unless you want to find your dick stuck down your nostrils, don't you ever speak to Jillian like that again.

jillian doesn't need anyone to stick up for her. She handles herself quite well....unlike you who seem to think message board threats will change someone's behavior. Grow the fuck up.

 

[jillian]

Are SCJs with absolutely no judicial experience a good thing or not? I haven't considered that question to carefully yet but my gut says 'no'.

SCJs should be apolitical - their only focus should be the Constitution. Nothing else. Not skin color, not 'wise Latinos', not political correctness or anything else - just the damned document on which our nation is founded.

Dunno... how do you think Rhenquist and Warren did?

Go look at Clarence Thomas and tell me again how justices aren't political.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Breaking:
Elena Kagan To Be Nominated To Supreme Court By Obama To Replace Justice John Paul Stevens

NBC is reporting that Elena Kagan will be nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama.

I think the pick will be met with the usual political ramblings of the Senate. The only problem I could foresee is her lack of holding an actual judgeship but IMHO that doesn't disqualify her...it just makes her an unknown quantity. I think Obama picked someone who had very little out there in the public domain and someone who was already supported by some U.S.(R) Senators. She will be confirmed without much of a problem.