Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[jillian]

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

It isn't only the 'text' that is relevant. We aren't a 'code' nation, like France. We are a common law country. Our laws consist of the Constitution and the precedent established in the caselaw.

The Constitution isn't some fundie's bible.

 

[hjmick]

Getting to know you...

I just finished a fairly interesting, and short, article about Kagan. It really hasn't effected my current stance on her nomination, but it should provide some information for more discussion in the thread...

Reserved passion: Kagan ’81

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe Obama was looking for a new special interest group to back so he could drive a wedge between us and cause divisions.

He's trying to corner the market on the "Appearance-handicapped" crowd or the "Visually-challenged" group.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

It isn't only the 'text' that is relevant. We aren't a 'code' nation, like France. We are a common law country. Our laws consist of the Constitution and the precedent established in the caselaw.

The Constitution isn't some fundie's bible.

In terms of specific powers granted, it is... the judicial, just as in the other branches, have their powers laid out... those powers do not expand because of their own whim without the process... now, there are changes in interpretation as things in technology and the world change, as we are sure that the framers never thought of wireless communication and other things... but in terms of what a branch was intended to do, that has not changed.. and nowhere was it even remotely implied or written that the judicial branch is to 'guarantee prosperity'... and that is my contention with what jokey has been posting

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Putting your argumentation into context: Il est terminé; maintenant se déplacent le long.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

It isn't only the 'text' that is relevant. We aren't a 'code' nation, like France. We are a common law country. Our laws consist of the Constitution and the precedent established in the caselaw.

The Constitution isn't some fundie's bible.

In terms of specific powers granted, it is... the judicial, just as in the other branches, have their powers laid out... those powers do not expand because of their own whim without the process... now, there are changes in interpretation as things in technology and the world change, as we are sure that the framers never thought of wireless communication and other things... but in terms of what a branch was intended to do, that has not changed.. and nowhere was it even remotely implied or written that the judicial branch is to 'guarantee prosperity'... and that is my contention with what jokey has been posting

How it little green frogs' names did you translate "justice" to "prosperity?" Il est finise for you, son.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?

and this radibd guy wants to be taken seriously?

 

[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

Putting your argumentation into context: Il est terminé; maintenant se déplacent le long.

oooohhh.. trying to impress us with some French now are we?

Again... you have no argument.. because you have zero to back up your assertion of a given power to the judicial branch

Again... please cite where this power you mention, is granted

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

so what? ....your post should have your opinion about the news. Otherwise it's just spam.

Give Spam A Chance!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Putting your argumentation into context: Il est terminé; maintenant se déplacent le long.

oooohhh.. trying to impress us with some French now are we?

Again... you have no argument.. because you have zero to back up your assertion of a given power to the judicial branch

Again... please cite where this power you mention, is granted

It's not my argument, son. The SCOTUS rules against you, and that is all that counts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

so what? ....your post should have your opinion about the news. Otherwise it's just spam.

Give Spam A Chance!

Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?

and this radibd guy wants to be taken seriously?

I figured Obama would pander to the Gay community and nominate a Lesbian or a Transsexual.

I guess he's still looking for a cross-dresser or some guy with a boob-job to fill the next opening.

Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?

So Rabbi, how is it living in 1955?

He's right. She puts the UGH in Ugly.

another example of hypocrisy.

keeper

So Rabbi, how is it living in 1955?

He's right. She puts the UGH in Ugly.

Thanks.
I mean, look at Napolitano. Hillary.
What is it with this guy?

So Rabbi, how is it living in 1955?

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.

 

[DiamondDave]

It isn't only the 'text' that is relevant. We aren't a 'code' nation, like France. We are a common law country. Our laws consist of the Constitution and the precedent established in the caselaw.

The Constitution isn't some fundie's bible.

In terms of specific powers granted, it is... the judicial, just as in the other branches, have their powers laid out... those powers do not expand because of their own whim without the process... now, there are changes in interpretation as things in technology and the world change, as we are sure that the framers never thought of wireless communication and other things... but in terms of what a branch was intended to do, that has not changed.. and nowhere was it even remotely implied or written that the judicial branch is to 'guarantee prosperity'... and that is my contention with what jokey has been posting

How it little green frogs' names did you translate "justice" to "prosperity?" Il est finise for you, son.

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution.

You brought up the absurd notion that this is the job of a judge under our judicial system...
Not to mention your mention of 'guarantees' that do not exist in the constitution

You are barking and blowing smoke with nothing behind your assertions

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the conloons start using the neg language of sexual comment: a clear sign they have lost the game and now are standing on the sideline throwing mud. Mud washes off, and the conloons have still lost.

 

[jillian]

In terms of specific powers granted, it is... the judicial, just as in the other branches, have their powers laid out... those powers do not expand because of their own whim without the process... now, there are changes in interpretation as things in technology and the world change, as we are sure that the framers never thought of wireless communication and other things... but in terms of what a branch was intended to do, that has not changed.. and nowhere was it even remotely implied or written that the judicial branch is to 'guarantee prosperity'... and that is my contention with what jokey has been posting

no...it's not. there is a general welfare clause; there is an interstate commerce clase; and there are other clauses which require interpretation to ascertain where their limits are.

I AM pretty sure, though that corporations aren't people for purposes of the first amendment.

that's life.

 

[DiamondDave]

Putting your argumentation into context: Il est terminé; maintenant se déplacent le long.

oooohhh.. trying to impress us with some French now are we?

Again... you have no argument.. because you have zero to back up your assertion of a given power to the judicial branch

Again... please cite where this power you mention, is granted

It's not my argument, son. The SCOTUS rules against you, and that is all that counts.

Again... cite this power... we're still waiting

 

[JakeStarkey]

In terms of specific powers granted, it is... the judicial, just as in the other branches, have their powers laid out... those powers do not expand because of their own whim without the process... now, there are changes in interpretation as things in technology and the world change, as we are sure that the framers never thought of wireless communication and other things... but in terms of what a branch was intended to do, that has not changed.. and nowhere was it even remotely implied or written that the judicial branch is to 'guarantee prosperity'... and that is my contention with what jokey has been posting

How it little green frogs' names did you translate "justice" to "prosperity?" Il est finise for you, son.

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution.

You brought up the absurd notion that this is the job of a judge under our judicial system...
Not to mention your mention of 'guarantees' that do not exist in the constitution

You are barking and blowing smoke with nothing behind your assertions

The difference here is that I see the Constitution as a positive document while you see it as a negative one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

oooohhh.. trying to impress us with some French now are we?

Again... you have no argument.. because you have zero to back up your assertion of a given power to the judicial branch

Again... please cite where this power you mention, is granted

It's not my argument, son. The SCOTUS rules against you, and that is all that counts.

Again... cite this power... we're still waiting

No one of worth, you mean. Read history on SCOTUS.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Anyway.
Obama declared that there was no litmus test on abortion for a nominee. Did anyone really expect him to nominate someone who wants to overturn Roe? C'mon.
Kagan has a long track record on abortion, if I recall correctly. This will make the nomination very divisive, leading to another knock down drag out Fuck You America show from the Democrats. Way to go!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fuck. Kagan is a terrible, but predictable, choice. She's as careerist as they come, has practically no discernible record, is subservient to power and claims of expanded executive privilege, and will move the court further to the right when Obama should so obviously be using his majority to move it to the left (especially after Roberts and Sc'Alito and with the departure of the court's most liberal member) or at least keep it status quo.

This is another sad day for progressives, who Obama continues to let down.

That's interesting that you say that. Kagan has a long track record in judicial writings. She is obviously no friend of the military, barring recruiters from Harvard and then urging students to protest their presence after the ban was struck down by the Supreme Court.
So conservatives (hell, anyone who loves this country) won't be too happy either.

Activists on the right have attacked her for briefly barring military recruiters from a campus facility because the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military violated the school’s anti-discrimination policy. -Obama Picks Kagan as Justice Nominee - NYTimes.com

 

[saveliberty]

Without substantial bench time, she could be a true wild card. Might turn out to be more conservative actually on the bench than 0bama thinks. 0bama's lack of management experience means he has no problem picking someone without experience in another important area. I think it bears a longer confirmation process, since there is little to base the decision on.