Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[jillian]

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.

i think she will be more conservative. I think he should have gone with Wood. Why pander to people who are going to give you a hard time no matter what you do?

Rhenquist and Warren were never judges either...

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

No...

You are indeed right that we have these clauses.... and we also have the limits written in of what specific powers are granted to our federal government.. with all other powers then granted to the states of the individuals... For changes in actual powers or in the actual jobs of the different branches, we indeed have the amendment process...

And just because we have had the government expanding their power without being challenged (because the governmental power base has made itself very hard to question) des not mean that they are actually supposed to have the power they have grabbed...

For as much as those on the left love to say the government over-reached with the patriot act... you and ones like jokey sure don't mind backing them up when they grab other powers that fit your political mantra

Constitutional Amendment Process
That is how changes to the constitution and constitutional powers are supposed to be done... and because it has been abused and thwarted, it has made it easier for our government to usurp more and more power that was granted to others (states, and individuals)

Again.. they government was not set up with unlimited powers and only limited by things specifically denied in the constitution... it is indeed the exact opposite.. that limited powers (though strong authority and enforcement in those limited powers) were granted and a specific process put in place for the change of those powers or the addition of those powers.. quite simply spelled out, the federal government was not and is not supposed to have any powers not specifically granted to it within the constitution... powers not had by the fed revert to the state, and powers not held by the state revert to the people.. a simple concept and brilliant in its setup... but a simple concept that has been warped by the ever expanding power whore that is the governmental system

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Again... simply cite the granted power.. it's not hard, if you can actually find it.... I cite the constitution itself with the powers officially laid out in there, and the limitations specifically set forth... and you come up with your specific thought of what that job is supposed to be, without so much as any reference to this supposed power actually being granted anywhere

 

[saveliberty]

Many times a President's most lasting effects comes through their Supreme Court appointments. It tempers their choices. I wish there was more to read about her. There should be some position papers from her tenure as a Harvard professor.

 

[bodecea]

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

dear God....you and the other men here who can only comment on the nominee's looks are women hating pigs.

Alito's looks ain't that great ya know, but wtf does that have to do with the person's capabilities?

when it is a women nominated or running for office, you dorks comment on looks only...as if women are nothing without good looks....or only can be remarked about, via their looks?

you're sickos, misogynistic below ground worms!!!!!!!!

shame on you!

The problem is that it's so damned obvious she's trying to look mannish.

Commenting on it isn't misogynistic....it's using a little common-sense. I suppose political-correctness doesn't allow us to notice these things.

I think some of the comments are going over the line...but Jesus....it's next to impossible to resist.

Fox News hasn't said anything about her yet. I wonder if this was an idea the media is floating while they prep the real nominee.

Whaaaaa?

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

 

[JakeStarkey]

DiamondDave, I understand that you do not understand the document, but you kindly prove that with every post you make.

 

[EriktheRed]

And here's the oppositions' opening salvo:

In the latest evidence that National Review Online's Ed Whelan is just throwing everything he can at the wall and hoping something sticks to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Whelan is now attacking her for... not learning to drive until her late 20s. According to Whelan, this "nicely captures Elena Kagan's remoteness from the lives of most Americans."

Huh?

Putting aside for a second the deeply bizarre idea that one's ability to drive should be a qualification or disqualification for high office, as the article Whelan quotes from points out, Kagan grew up in New York City, which is one of the most walkable cities in the country and has one of the best public transportation systems nationwide. You don't need a license if you live in NYC, and in fact a large percentage of New Yorkers don't have one: New York City has 5.6 million residents over age 25, but only 3.3 million residents have drivers' licenses.

Yes folks, Ed Whelan is bagging on Ms. Kagan because of her driving. There are other gems in his opinon piece, too. What a fun fight this is gonna turn out to be!




Ed Whelan smears New Yorkers in attack on Kagan | Media Matters for America

 

[DiamondDave]

DiamondDave, I understand that you do not understand the document, but you kindly prove that with every post you make.

Cite the granted power.... simple request

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

 

[Coyote]

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

And between you and Mud, I'm sure you two are just male models of the year.

If either of you are as ugly as your personalities, don't even bother posting a picture.

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

Interesting that you seem to feel nominations should be based on physical appearance rather than merit

 

[JakeStarkey]

DiamondDave, I understand that you do not understand the document, but you kindly prove that with every post you make.

Cite the granted power.... simple request

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

You prove my point. You are even poor at drive by: I just swat your silly arguments aside.

You are better at drive by than DiamondDave and The Rabbi who always shoot themselves in the feet whenever they try it, and then crash because their is blood all over the floor pedals.

 

[Coyote]

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.

That's disengenius bullshit. She supported barring recruiters based on the discrimminatory "don't ask, don't tell" rule. That doesn't make her someone who doesn't love her country or indeed, anti-military. Her action was specifically directed.

 

[DiamondDave]

Or maybe the ABA should shed some light on the role of the judge, jokey

How Courts Work: The Role of Judges (Resources, ABA Division for Public Education)

"...according to the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is "favored," without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law"

Funny... not seeing anything of guaranteeing prosperity in the American Dream.... not even from the bar association, which is very much in the support of those in the legal professions

What you put forth to be a power or a job of a judge does not fit in with neutrality... and really goes against equal treatment in a court room (sort of what a judge is required to do)

 

[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.

No...

You are indeed right that we have these clauses.... and we also have the limits written in of what specific powers are granted to our federal government.. with all other powers then granted to the states of the individuals... For changes in actual powers or in the actual jobs of the different branches, we indeed have the amendment process...

And just because we have had the government expanding their power without being challenged (because the governmental power base has made itself very hard to question) des not mean that they are actually supposed to have the power they have grabbed...

For as much as those on the left love to say the government over-reached with the patriot act... you and ones like jokey sure don't mind backing them up when they grab other powers that fit your political mantra

Constitutional Amendment Process
That is how changes to the constitution and constitutional powers are supposed to be done... and because it has been abused and thwarted, it has made it easier for our government to usurp more and more power that was granted to others (states, and individuals)

Again.. they government was not set up with unlimited powers and only limited by things specifically denied in the constitution... it is indeed the exact opposite.. that limited powers (though strong authority and enforcement in those limited powers) were granted and a specific process put in place for the change of those powers or the addition of those powers.. quite simply spelled out, the federal government was not and is not supposed to have any powers not specifically granted to it within the constitution... powers not had by the fed revert to the state, and powers not held by the state revert to the people.. a simple concept and brilliant in its setup... but a simple concept that has been warped by the ever expanding power whore that is the governmental system

wrong....

you are missing the point and have no understanding of the manner in which constitutional construction has been done. I'd suggest you start with Marbury v Madison so you understand the construct and then feel free to review the cases that elaborate and rely upon Marbury.

this BS pretend 'originalism' is a crock.

 

[DiamondDave]

DiamondDave, I understand that you do not understand the document, but you kindly prove that with every post you make.

Cite the granted power.... simple request

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

You prove my point. You are even poor at drive by: I just swat your silly arguments aside.

You are better at drive by than DiamondDave and The Rabbi who always shoot themselves in the feet whenever they try it, and then crash because their is blood all over the floor pedals.

C'mon jokey.... still waiting...

You see.. YOUR assertion of a governmental or constitutionally granted power, does not inherently mean it is granted within the constitution

You cite the granted power that proclaims as you say, and I will give you credit... however, I have not seen ANY constitutionally granted power that is anything CLOSE to what you have ASSumed...

You have failed to support your claim, whatsoever... and it is you who have been bitch slapped around and it is your arguments that are indeed silly

I will cite the constitution... and you keep citing your own assumption... and still you believe you have proven a point... you are indeed laughable

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

No...

You are indeed right that we have these clauses.... and we also have the limits written in of what specific powers are granted to our federal government.. with all other powers then granted to the states of the individuals... For changes in actual powers or in the actual jobs of the different branches, we indeed have the amendment process...

And just because we have had the government expanding their power without being challenged (because the governmental power base has made itself very hard to question) des not mean that they are actually supposed to have the power they have grabbed...

For as much as those on the left love to say the government over-reached with the patriot act... you and ones like jokey sure don't mind backing them up when they grab other powers that fit your political mantra

Constitutional Amendment Process
That is how changes to the constitution and constitutional powers are supposed to be done... and because it has been abused and thwarted, it has made it easier for our government to usurp more and more power that was granted to others (states, and individuals)

Again.. they government was not set up with unlimited powers and only limited by things specifically denied in the constitution... it is indeed the exact opposite.. that limited powers (though strong authority and enforcement in those limited powers) were granted and a specific process put in place for the change of those powers or the addition of those powers.. quite simply spelled out, the federal government was not and is not supposed to have any powers not specifically granted to it within the constitution... powers not had by the fed revert to the state, and powers not held by the state revert to the people.. a simple concept and brilliant in its setup... but a simple concept that has been warped by the ever expanding power whore that is the governmental system

wrong....

you are missing the point and have no understanding of the manner in which constitutional construction has been done. I'd suggest you start with Marbury v Madison so you understand the construct and then feel free to review the cases that elaborate and rely upon Marbury.

this BS pretend 'originalism' is a crock.

And we have indeed gone over this many times... and with the history we have with various questions and stances about law/courts, we have all read this numerous time

Judicial review does not mean that the judiciary gets to expand their constitutional powers without the amendment process... nor does it mean that they get to make up 'guarantees' (that jokey has put forth as being in our government setup) that are not granted within the constitution or law...

Now if you were arguing that Marbury v Madison was pertinent in a statute that was proclaimed in law that this was a power granted... you would have a point that they would review.... but there is indeed no statute stating this power... and the only one stating that this power exists to 'guarantee prosperity under the American Dream' is jokey himself... and the little buffoon cannot cite from any single place that this power has even been granted, so as to bring up any hint for judicial review of the power or statute

You see jill... the SC has the power to declare some statute unconstitutional.. they do not have to power to add a power to the constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read Jillian above.

She has addressed your idiocy of "originalism" perfectly. You cannot build a construct until you have a context, and you clearly don't or won't understand the context.

I will not give you the benefit of the doubt, though. You argue "originalism", which does not exist, as a defense from having to participate in the social compact that behinds us all as citizens to the better natures that the Declaration and Constitution that they call us to become.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No...

You are indeed right that we have these clauses.... and we also have the limits written in of what specific powers are granted to our federal government.. with all other powers then granted to the states of the individuals... For changes in actual powers or in the actual jobs of the different branches, we indeed have the amendment process...

And just because we have had the government expanding their power without being challenged (because the governmental power base has made itself very hard to question) des not mean that they are actually supposed to have the power they have grabbed...

For as much as those on the left love to say the government over-reached with the patriot act... you and ones like jokey sure don't mind backing them up when they grab other powers that fit your political mantra

Constitutional Amendment Process
That is how changes to the constitution and constitutional powers are supposed to be done... and because it has been abused and thwarted, it has made it easier for our government to usurp more and more power that was granted to others (states, and individuals)

Again.. they government was not set up with unlimited powers and only limited by things specifically denied in the constitution... it is indeed the exact opposite.. that limited powers (though strong authority and enforcement in those limited powers) were granted and a specific process put in place for the change of those powers or the addition of those powers.. quite simply spelled out, the federal government was not and is not supposed to have any powers not specifically granted to it within the constitution... powers not had by the fed revert to the state, and powers not held by the state revert to the people.. a simple concept and brilliant in its setup... but a simple concept that has been warped by the ever expanding power whore that is the governmental system

wrong....

you are missing the point and have no understanding of the manner in which constitutional construction has been done. I'd suggest you start with Marbury v Madison so you understand the construct and then feel free to review the cases that elaborate and rely upon Marbury.

this BS pretend 'originalism' is a crock.

And we have indeed gone over this many times... and with the history we have with various questions and stances about law/courts, we have all read this numerous time

Judicial review does not mean that the judiciary gets to expand their constitutional powers without the amendment process... nor does it mean that they get to make up 'guarantees' (that jokey has put forth as being in our government setup) that are not granted within the constitution or law...

Now if you were arguing that Marbury v Madison was pertinent in a statute that was proclaimed in law that this was a power granted... you would have a point that they would review.... but there is indeed no statute stating this power... and the only one stating that this power exists to 'guarantee prosperity under the American Dream' is jokey himself... and the little buffoon cannot cite from any single place that this power has even been granted, so as to bring up any hint for judicial review of the power or statute

You see jill... the SC has the power to declare some statute unconstitutional.. they do not have to power to add a power to the constitution

And you have never, ever proved that SCOTUS has ever done such a thing, and in truth you wish to turn our constitutional republic into a majoritarian state.

You are a fool if you do that, because the unlimited democratic tyranny that emerges will put your kind first against the wall to be shot. Why? You are a very small minority, and the tyrannical majority will tolerate your kind. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[DiamondDave]

Read Jillian above.

She has addressed your idiocy of "originalism" perfectly. You cannot build a construct until you have a context, and you clearly don't or won't understand the context.

I will not give you the benefit of the doubt, though. You argue "originalism", which does not exist, as a defense from having to participate in the social compact that behinds us all as citizens to the better natures that the Declaration and Constitution that they call us to become.

Again fool

You should learn to cite your source for this power

The SC does have the power to declare a law or statute unconstitutional thru review

the SC does not have the power to change the constitution or to add a power to the constitution... please cite where (ANYWHERE IN LAW) that this power you proclaim is granted

We are still waiting, jokey

Oh... and BTW... if you try and bring up some bogus 'social contract', please cite such legal social contract as guaranteed or dictated by law

You and ones like you love to throw that term out... when you want something

 

[JakeStarkey]

DiamondDave, you waste your own time on an issue about which you understand nothing.