Kagan: WTF?

[Jarhead]

Reading comprehension isn't high on you resume.

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

I know many laws. I am not qualified to be a judge.

Mayors and others choose judges at the lower ranks. They prove to not be qualified to interpret the law, they are fired.

Those that prove they can, move up. From traffic court, to family court, to higher courts.

Pretty much like any career.

I would have thought any intelligent person would understand such a basic concept.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

I remember when the republicans were all about "advise and consent" and no filibustering or blocking appointees as they threatened the nuclear option back when W was president and appointing judges to prevent W's appointees from being blocked.
I wonder where all of those "advise and consent" republicans are now?? Oh that's right they are showing that they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrtical hacks who have different constitutional standards depending upon which party controls the white house.

Robert Bork. That's pretty much all that needs to be said to refute completely everything you've written.
The Democrats are the real hypocrites, blocking every judicial nominee from Bush just because they could. The GOP was ready to use the "nuclear" option but wisely stepped back. The Democrats were not so deterred in their insane rush to get Health care passed.

Actually you refuted nothing. The fact that republicans recently claimed that the constitutional standard was to advise and consent but are now talking about filibustering or blocking judges says far more than you bringing up ancient history.

So care to list ALL of the judges democrats blocked under W?? Furthermore how can you HONESTLY claim that "every judicial nominee from bush" was blocked when he appoonted two to the SCOTUS??

Your attempt to rewrite history and make claims not supported by the FACTS is both disturbing and hilarious.

 

[Jarhead]

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

I know many laws. I am not qualified to be a judge.

Mayors and others choose judges at the lower ranks. They prove to not be qualified to interpret the law, they are fired.

Those that prove they can, move up. From traffic court, to family court, to higher courts.

Pretty much like any career.

I would have thought any intelligent person would understand such a basic concept.

To elaborate:

Would you consider it a good idea to hire an MBA grad out of Stanford to be a managing director of Marketing with absolutely no experience in Marketing and no experience in managing?

Especially if you had a pool of experienced and equally educated candidates and no budget constraints?

 

[drsmith1072]

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

I know many laws. I am not qualified to be a judge.

Mayors and others choose judges at the lower ranks. They prove to not be qualified to interpret the law, they are fired.

Those that prove they can, move up. From traffic court, to family court, to higher courts.

Pretty much like any career.

I would have thought any intelligent person would understand such a basic concept.

The point is that you said knowing the law (as a whole) does not mean that you are qualified to interpret it.
How can you interpret something that you don't know?
Furthermore in case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "knowing many laws" and "knowing the law". However, thanks for the spin and the personal attack.

 

[Jarhead]

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

I know many laws. I am not qualified to be a judge.

Mayors and others choose judges at the lower ranks. They prove to not be qualified to interpret the law, they are fired.

Those that prove they can, move up. From traffic court, to family court, to higher courts.

Pretty much like any career.

I would have thought any intelligent person would understand such a basic concept.

The point is that you said knowing the law (as a whole) does not mean that you are qualified to interpret it.
How can you interpret something that you don't know?
Furthermore in case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "knowing many laws" and "knowing the law". However, thanks for the spin and the personal attack.

No spin and no persaonal attack intended. I guess it was a backhanded compliment as I see you as an intelligent person. I take it back. It was backhanded and not necessary

Your question of "How can you interpret something that you don't know"....I dont understand why you think I believe that. I never sdaid I did. You MUST know what you interpret, but it does not mean you can interpret what you know.

So if anything, I think you spun what I said.

And yes, in theory, there is "the law"....but many laws are straight forward and others require interpreting.

SO I go back to my first question. Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

Are there no qualified experienced judges out there to choose from?

 

[drsmith1072]

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

I know many laws. I am not qualified to be a judge.

Mayors and others choose judges at the lower ranks. They prove to not be qualified to interpret the law, they are fired.

Those that prove they can, move up. From traffic court, to family court, to higher courts.

Pretty much like any career.

I would have thought any intelligent person would understand such a basic concept.

To elaborate:

Would you consider it a good idea to hire an MBA grad out of Stanford to be a managing director of Marketing with absolutely no experience in Marketing and no experience in managing?

Especially if you had a pool of experienced and equally educated candidates and no budget constraints?

uh kagan has experience and knowledge, she "knows the law".

That is a huge difference from a new graduate with ZERO experience. Your scenario does NOT apply.

 

[WillowTree]

why does that libturd Khol keep calling her "general" ?

 

[drsmith1072]

I know many laws. I am not qualified to be a judge.

Mayors and others choose judges at the lower ranks. They prove to not be qualified to interpret the law, they are fired.

Those that prove they can, move up. From traffic court, to family court, to higher courts.

Pretty much like any career.

I would have thought any intelligent person would understand such a basic concept.

The point is that you said knowing the law (as a whole) does not mean that you are qualified to interpret it.
How can you interpret something that you don't know?
Furthermore in case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "knowing many laws" and "knowing the law". However, thanks for the spin and the personal attack.

No spin and no persaonal attack intended. I guess it was a backhanded compliment as I see you as an intelligent person. I take it back. It was backhanded and not necessary

Your question of "How can you interpret something that you don't know"....I dont understand why you think I believe that. I never sdaid I did. You MUST know what you interpret, but it does not mean you can interpret what you know.

So if anything, I think you spun what I said.

And yes, in theory, there is "the law"....but many laws are straight forward and others require interpreting.

SO I go back to my first question. Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

Are there no qualified experienced judges out there to choose from?

Uh i spun nothing and quoted you exactly but you are now changing your original statement

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

to a different question.

Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

I spun nothing but you are attempting to spin your statement into a question.

The fact is, and apparently you now agree, that knowing the law is required (a qualification) for interpreting the law.

As for why I think that you believe that you can interpret somethign you don't know it is based on your own statement where you say

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

That spelled out where you stood on teh issue, so i spun nothing.

 

[Jarhead]

The point is that you said knowing the law (as a whole) does not mean that you are qualified to interpret it.
How can you interpret something that you don't know?
Furthermore in case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "knowing many laws" and "knowing the law". However, thanks for the spin and the personal attack.

No spin and no persaonal attack intended. I guess it was a backhanded compliment as I see you as an intelligent person. I take it back. It was backhanded and not necessary

Your question of "How can you interpret something that you don't know"....I dont understand why you think I believe that. I never sdaid I did. You MUST know what you interpret, but it does not mean you can interpret what you know.

So if anything, I think you spun what I said.

And yes, in theory, there is "the law"....but many laws are straight forward and others require interpreting.

SO I go back to my first question. Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

Are there no qualified experienced judges out there to choose from?

Uh i spun nothing and quoted you exactly but you are now changing your original statement



to a different question.

Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

I spun nothing but you are attempting to spin your statement into a question.

The fact is, and apparently you now agree, that knowing the law is required (a qualification) for interpreting the law.

As for why I think that you believe that you can interpret somethign you don't know it is based on your own statement where you say

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

That spelled out where you stood on teh issue, so i spun nothing.

You are spinning your own gibberish.
Read what I wrote:

"Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it."

This is true. Is it not?

Read what you responded with to my quote:

"How can you interpret something that you don't know"

That is spin my friend. That is spin to the nth degree.

 

[Jarhead]

Reading comprehension isn't high on you resume.

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

Here is where you first took my quote.

Please offer me an apology for lying about what I said earlier in the debate.

I CHANGED NOTHING. You outright lied.

 

[drsmith1072]

No spin and no persaonal attack intended. I guess it was a backhanded compliment as I see you as an intelligent person. I take it back. It was backhanded and not necessary

Your question of "How can you interpret something that you don't know"....I dont understand why you think I believe that. I never sdaid I did. You MUST know what you interpret, but it does not mean you can interpret what you know.

So if anything, I think you spun what I said.

And yes, in theory, there is "the law"....but many laws are straight forward and others require interpreting.

SO I go back to my first question. Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

Are there no qualified experienced judges out there to choose from?

Uh i spun nothing and quoted you exactly but you are now changing your original statement



to a different question.



I spun nothing but you are attempting to spin your statement into a question.

The fact is, and apparently you now agree, that knowing the law is required (a qualification) for interpreting the law.

As for why I think that you believe that you can interpret somethign you don't know it is based on your own statement where you say

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

That spelled out where you stood on teh issue, so i spun nothing.

You are spinning your own gibberish.
Read what I wrote:

"Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it."

This is true. Is it not?

Read what you responded with to my quote:

"How can you interpret something that you don't know"

That is spin my friend. That is spin to the nth degree.

No I am NOT spinning but YOU are and I showed how you tried to change your STATEMENT to a QUESTION as you tried to spin your way out of a predicament.

So are you ever going to say what your qualifications for judge are??

You did agree with me that knowing the law is a requirement (qualification) for interpreting it but you were kind of vague on the rest of it and then you tried to change your argument and are now attacking me again for calling you out for your arttempt to spin.

Face it, you tried to spin and you failed. Your original STATEMENT was flawed which is why you tried to change your argument with your NEW QUESTION that you tried to present as your "first question".

 

[Jarhead]

Uh i spun nothing and quoted you exactly but you are now changing your original statement



to a different question.



I spun nothing but you are attempting to spin your statement into a question.

The fact is, and apparently you now agree, that knowing the law is required (a qualification) for interpreting the law.

As for why I think that you believe that you can interpret somethign you don't know it is based on your own statement where you say



That spelled out where you stood on teh issue, so i spun nothing.

You are spinning your own gibberish.
Read what I wrote:

"Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it."

This is true. Is it not?

Read what you responded with to my quote:

"How can you interpret something that you don't know"

That is spin my friend. That is spin to the nth degree.

No I am NOT spinning but YOU are and I showed how you tried to change your STATEMENT to a QUESTION as you tried to spin your way out of a predicament.

So are you ever going to say what your qualifications for judge are??

You did agree with me that knowing the law is a requirement (qualification) for interpreting it but you were kind of vague on the rest of it and then you tried to change your argument and are now attacking me again for calling you out for your arttempt to spin.

Face it, you tried to spin and you failed. Your original STATEMENT was flawed which is why you tried to change your argument with your NEW QUESTION that you tried to present as your "first question".

I give up on you smith. You spun what I said, I showed you my original quote, you ignored it and you still claim I said something else.
I answered your question and you ignoired that as well.
SO I am now done with this rediculous childish debate with you. It is not a debate. You simply want to take what IU say and spin it and then claim that I am the one doing the spinning. Whatever works for you smith.
Go play your games with someone else.

 

[drsmith1072]

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

Here is where you first took my quote.

Please offer me an apology for lying about what I said earlier in the debate.

I CHANGED NOTHING. You outright lied.

yeah you did change it and now you a lying in a desperate attempt to CYA.

UI even showed how you changed your STATEMENT to a QUESTION and quoted you to show that you changed it.

Here is it again jsut for you.

your STATEMENT.

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

and then your spin to your NEW QUESTION which you claimed was your first question.

SO I go back to my first question. Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

So what exactly did I lie about?? Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a liar and run away to CYA?

 

[VaYank5150]

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

You all should have thought of the repercussions BEFORE you put McCain and Palin on the ticket.

 

[Jarhead]

Really?? How does one gain the qualifications for becoming a judge then?? Shouldn't knowing the law be a requirement for being able to interpret it?? Could you please list what you think the qualifications are for being able to interpret the law??

Here is where you first took my quote.

Please offer me an apology for lying about what I said earlier in the debate.

I CHANGED NOTHING. You outright lied.

yeah you did change it and now you a lying in a desperate attempt to CYA.

UI even showed how you changed your STATEMENT to a QUESTION and quoted you to show that you changed it.

Here is it again jsut for you.

your STATEMENT.

Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.

and then your spin to your NEW QUESTION which you claimed was your first question.

SO I go back to my first question. Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

So what exactly did I lie about?? Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a lair and run away to CYA.

Smth...you are a fuckling liar and I have had enough of your shit.
I know exactly my stance on ths debate and you obviously have a reading comprehension issue....noty to mention a lying issue.
You are out of my league and not worthy of my time anymore.

 

[Jarhead]

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

You all should have thought of the repercussions BEFORE you put McCain and Palin on the ticket.

Likewise, many should have asked the media to do a better job on vetting Mr. Obama.

But true, the opposing ticket sucked ass.

 

[drsmith1072]

Here is where you first took my quote.

Please offer me an apology for lying about what I said earlier in the debate.

I CHANGED NOTHING. You outright lied.

yeah you did change it and now you a lying in a desperate attempt to CYA.

UI even showed how you changed your STATEMENT to a QUESTION and quoted you to show that you changed it.

Here is it again jsut for you.

your STATEMENT.



and then your spin to your NEW QUESTION which you claimed was your first question.

SO I go back to my first question. Why confirm someone with absolutely no p[roof that she knows how to interpret the law?

So what exactly did I lie about?? Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a lair and run away to CYA.

Smth...you are a fuckling liar and I have had enough of your shit.
I know exactly my stance on ths debate and you obviously have a reading comprehension issue....noty to mention a lying issue.
You are out of my league and not worthy of my time anymore.

What did i lie about?? I quoted you word for word and didn't change your statement or your question. You spun and now you hit and run.

So i guess I know which way you went on this question

"Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a liar and run away to CYA?"

It seems that you chose the low road and are calling me a liar and running away because your got called out for your spin. How typical and epected.

 

[Jarhead]

yeah you did change it and now you a lying in a desperate attempt to CYA.

UI even showed how you changed your STATEMENT to a QUESTION and quoted you to show that you changed it.

Here is it again jsut for you.

your STATEMENT.



and then your spin to your NEW QUESTION which you claimed was your first question.



So what exactly did I lie about?? Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a lair and run away to CYA.

Smth...you are a fuckling liar and I have had enough of your shit.
I know exactly my stance on ths debate and you obviously have a reading comprehension issue....noty to mention a lying issue.
You are out of my league and not worthy of my time anymore.

What did i lie about?? I quoted you word for word and didn't change your statement or your question. You spun and now you hit and run.

So i guess I know which way you went on this question

"Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a liar and run away to CYA?"

It seems that you chose the low road and are calling me a liar and running away because your got called out for your spin. How typical and epected.

Nearly 2000 posts and a rep power of 5.

Enough said.
Go away.

 

[drsmith1072]

Smth...you are a fuckling liar and I have had enough of your shit.
I know exactly my stance on ths debate and you obviously have a reading comprehension issue....noty to mention a lying issue.
You are out of my league and not worthy of my time anymore.

What did i lie about?? I quoted you word for word and didn't change your statement or your question. You spun and now you hit and run.

So i guess I know which way you went on this question

"Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a liar and run away to CYA?"

It seems that you chose the low road and are calling me a liar and running away because your got called out for your spin. How typical and epected.

Nearly 2000 posts and a rep power of 5.

Enough said.
Go away.

LOL so you are going top hide behind rep which can be inflated easilly if I really cared about it.

The sad thing is that you can't show where or how I lied because i didn't and you know it. so you are desperately looking for an out so you can run away from your lies and try to save face instead of admitting that you were wrong. LOL

You admit that knowing the law is required to interpret but then try to argue that knowing the law doesn't make you qualified to interpret the law. LOL Then you tried to spin and create a NEW argument based on your NEW first question and since i called you out for your spin you have been attacking me personally and avoiding a debate that you kow you already lost but refuse to admit that you lost.

 

[Jarhead]

What did i lie about?? I quoted you word for word and didn't change your statement or your question. You spun and now you hit and run.

So i guess I know which way you went on this question

"Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a liar and run away to CYA?"

It seems that you chose the low road and are calling me a liar and running away because your got called out for your spin. How typical and epected.

Nearly 2000 posts and a rep power of 5.

Enough said.
Go away.

LOL so you are going top hide behind rep which can be inflated easilly if I really cared about it.

The sad thing is that you can't show where or how I lied because i didn't and you know it. so you are desperately looking for an out so you can run away from your lies and try to save face instead of admitting that you were wrong. LOL

You admit that knowing the law is required to interpret but then try to argue that knowing the law doesn't make you qualified to interpret the law. LOL Then you tried to spin and create a NEW argument based on your NEW first question and since i called you out for your spin you have been attacking me personally and avoiding a debate that you kow you already lost but refuse to admit that you lost.

I showed you where you lied.

You opted to iognore it.

Speaks volumes of your maturity.

Not much more I can do about that.

Cya.