Kagan: WTF?

[The Rabbi]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

 

[The T]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

Perhaps she's ignorant to the fact that we have three separate, but equal Branches.

This tells me that she hasn't a clue of the type of government she works for. Her 'deference' should be toward the Constitution, and the rule of LAW, not the body that makes Law.

 

[The T]

This woman if confirmed will be a female version of Obama, and equally dangerous to this Republic.

 

[The Rabbi]

This woman if confirmed will be a female version of Obama, and equally dangerous to this Republic.

She is a terrible choice. I hope they grill her to death.
Sotomayor got a pass, affirming an individual right to keep and bear and today voted against all that. Was she just kidding in testimony?
I wonder if we could impeach her for lying under oath.

 

[The T]

This woman if confirmed will be a female version of Obama, and equally dangerous to this Republic.

She is a terrible choice. I hope they grill her to death.
Sotomayor got a pass, affirming an individual right to keep and bear and today voted against all that. Was she just kidding in testimony?
I wonder if we could impeach her for lying under oath.

That's a nice idea...but when has the Congress ever challanged the court...[And YES Folks they can but don't]...?

As a matter of course she lied and accentuates the importence of nominations to the most Despotic branch of the three.

 

[logical4u]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

Senators should walk out on her until there is documentation of her performance and methods of determining an arguement. She is a ghost. There is little about her that is known, and what is does not point to someone that loves this country or its Constitution.

Stop her, now.

 

[boedicca]

Here's the Kagan WTF about which we should all worry:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqdKKKRrrg&feature=player_embedded]Kagan: its Fine if The Law Bans Books Because Government Won't Really Enforce It [/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

This woman if confirmed will be a female version of Obama, and equally dangerous to this Republic.

She is a terrible choice. I hope they grill her to death.
Sotomayor got a pass, affirming an individual right to keep and bear and today voted against all that. Was she just kidding in testimony?
I wonder if we could impeach her for lying under oath.

No, she was lying through her teeth to get confirmed, just as obie wan lied through his teeth to get elected.

 

[The T]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

Senators should walk out on her until there is documentation of her performance and methods of determining an arguement. She is a ghost. There is little about her that is known, and what is does not point to someone that loves this country or its Constitution.

Stop her, now.

Agreed. This 'Going through the motions' aspect of nominees should cease by those opposed to her on principle alone.

This woman has zero business being on the court, much less being Nominated. She an idealouge same as Obama...and equally damaging to the people shopuld she be confirmed.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It means she is always going to side with the government against the individual.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

Senators should walk out on her until there is documentation of her performance and methods of determining an arguement. She is a ghost. There is little about her that is known, and what is does not point to someone that loves this country or its Constitution.

Stop her, now.

Agreed. This 'Going through the motions' aspect of nominees should cease by those opposed to her on principle alone.

This woman has zero business being on the court, much less being Nominated. She an idealouge same as Obama...and equally damaging to the people shopuld she be confirmed.

And she wrote a whole article lambasting confirmation hearings as being vapid and uninformative. Bet she's eating those words now.

 

[xotoxi]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

What she meant was that it is important to defer to Congress prior to making a judicial ruling, just in case the Congress has impending plans to make modifications to the Constitution.

 

[The T]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

What she meant was that it is important to defer to Congress prior to making a judicial ruling, just in case the Congress has impending plans to make modifications to the Constitution.

Why on Earth would you defer to Congress after they have written a LAW that is being challanged?

They are to defer to the LAW [Constitution] and nothing else. No Deference to the Legislative, Executive...or any other person/group. Just the LAW as it squares with the Constitution...period.

 

[The T]

Senators should walk out on her until there is documentation of her performance and methods of determining an arguement. She is a ghost. There is little about her that is known, and what is does not point to someone that loves this country or its Constitution.

Stop her, now.

Agreed. This 'Going through the motions' aspect of nominees should cease by those opposed to her on principle alone.

This woman has zero business being on the court, much less being Nominated. She an idealouge same as Obama...and equally damaging to the people shopuld she be confirmed.

And she wrote a whole article lambasting confirmation hearings as being vapid and uninformative. Bet she's eating those words now.

What she's wanting is a Rubber Stamp. Sorry...even the Constitution lays it out. SHE should know this. It just confirms her status as NO FRIEND to the Constitution or the LAW just the same as the man that nominated her.

She's a crony. And that's it.

 

[The T]

It means she is always going to side with the government against the individual.

Exactly. She doesn't care a WIT of the Constitution or the protections FOR the individual. She's completely a Groupthink Statist same as the man that nominated her.

She's dangerous to this Republic.

 

[Greenbeard]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

It's controversial now for a nominee to the Court to praise judicial restraint? I thought that was practically a requirement.

 

[Political Junky]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

Perhaps she's ignorant to the fact that we have three separate, but equal Branches.

This tells me that she hasn't a clue of the type of government she works for. Her 'deference' should be toward the Constitution, and the rule of LAW, not the body that makes Law.

As the former Dean of Harvard Law, I'm pretty sure she knows, and considerably more than you know.

 

[Political Junky]

It means she is always going to side with the government against the individual.

You mean like the cons always side with corporations over individuals?

 

[The Rabbi]

What does "proper deference to Congress" mean? If they make a law that is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down. Why is this a question?

Perhaps she's ignorant to the fact that we have three separate, but equal Branches.

This tells me that she hasn't a clue of the type of government she works for. Her 'deference' should be toward the Constitution, and the rule of LAW, not the body that makes Law.

As the former Dean of Harvard Law, I'm pretty sure she knows, and considerably more than you know.

You're a former dean of Harvard Law School? Wow. I had no idea.

 

[Political Junky]

Perhaps she's ignorant to the fact that we have three separate, but equal Branches.

This tells me that she hasn't a clue of the type of government she works for. Her 'deference' should be toward the Constitution, and the rule of LAW, not the body that makes Law.

As the former Dean of Harvard Law, I'm pretty sure she knows, and considerably more than you know.

You're a former dean of Harvard Law School? Wow. I had no idea.

Reading comprehension isn't high on you resume.