Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
She refused to answer the question. SHe dithers. It was clear to me that she thinks they can. COburn of course is anticipating a case on individual mandate in the health care disaster. That isn't encouraging.
Kagan is a statist. It is amazing the Left is supporting her.
Where's Ted Kennedy saying, "In Kagan's America there would be a policeman at your dinner table. No fat person would be safe. We would see back alley McDonald's meals being served in speakeasies"?
She didn't refuse, she was in the middle of starting to explain it when Coburn rephrased it, and extrapolated on it. The video just cuts off shortly afterwords and we don't see her answer after Coburn finishes. To get outraged over this is rather dishonest when we're not event talking about her actual answer. No, you're actually ignoring that.
Are you done making things up?
No one said she refused.
She didnt answer the question. She dithered. She dissimulated. She fixed her hair (OK maybe she didnt do that). She did not give a forthright answer to a fairly simple question.
Here's another Kagan WTF:
She refuses to say that it's unconstitutional for the Government to tell us what to eat.
Unfrellingbelievable.
Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat
The video doesn't actually show her answering the question. How do you know what she said than?
She refused to answer the question. SHe dithers. It was clear to me that she thinks they can. COburn of course is anticipating a case on individual mandate in the health care disaster. That isn't encouraging.
Kagan is a statist. It is amazing the Left is supporting her.
Where's Ted Kennedy saying, "In Kagan's America there would be a policeman at your dinner table. No fat person would be safe. We would see back alley McDonald's meals being served in speakeasies"?
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?
She also said the word "the" twice. WFT?
Oh and in case you forgot.....please see below for your daily reminder about your credibility.
You're such a worthless dipshit. No wonder you support obama.
But you dont know what she meant either. You would have posted it. You don't know anything, do you?
She didn't refuse, she was in the middle of starting to explain it when Coburn rephrased it, and extrapolated on it. The video just cuts off shortly afterwords and we don't see her answer after Coburn finishes. To get outraged over this is rather dishonest when we're not event talking about her actual answer. No, you're actually ignoring that.
Are you done making things up?
No one said she refused.
She didnt answer the question. She dithered. She dissimulated. She fixed her hair (OK maybe she didnt do that). She did not give a forthright answer to a fairly simple question.
Ah-huh, right and you said right here:
The video doesn't actually show her answering the question. How do you know what she said than?
She refused to answer the question. SHe dithers. It was clear to me that she thinks they can. COburn of course is anticipating a case on individual mandate in the health care disaster. That isn't encouraging.
Kagan is a statist. It is amazing the Left is supporting her.
Where's Ted Kennedy saying, "In Kagan's America there would be a policeman at your dinner table. No fat person would be safe. We would see back alley McDonald's meals being served in speakeasies"?
Yeah. Now who's making stuff up?
I reiterate what I've said again, the video cuts off before we actually get to here her answer, so jumping to conclusions over what she said is incredibly disingenuous when we're not even basing this off her actual answer.
She didn't refuse, she was in the middle of starting to explain it when Coburn rephrased it, and extrapolated on it. The video just cuts off shortly afterwords and we don't see her answer after Coburn finishes. To get outraged over this is rather dishonest when we're not event talking about her actual answer. No, you're actually ignoring that.
Are you done making things up?
No one said she refused.
She didnt answer the question. She dithered. She dissimulated. She fixed her hair (OK maybe she didnt do that). She did not give a forthright answer to a fairly simple question.
Ah-huh, right and you said right here:
The video doesn't actually show her answering the question. How do you know what she said than?
She refused to answer the question. SHe dithers. It was clear to me that she thinks they can. COburn of course is anticipating a case on individual mandate in the health care disaster. That isn't encouraging.
Kagan is a statist. It is amazing the Left is supporting her.
Where's Ted Kennedy saying, "In Kagan's America there would be a policeman at your dinner table. No fat person would be safe. We would see back alley McDonald's meals being served in speakeasies"?
Yeah. Now who's making stuff up?
I reiterate what I've said again, the video cuts off before we actually get to here her answer, so jumping to conclusions over what she said is incredibly disingenuous when we're not even basing this off her actual answer.
Coburn: I go back to my original question to you: is it within the Constitution for me to write a bill having been duly elected by the people of Oklahoma to say and get it signed by the president that you have to eat three fruits and three vegetables every day.
Kagan: First let me say about the federalist papers quote that you read that it is absolutely the case that the judiciarys job is to you know in Marbury v. Madison the famous phrase to say what the law is and to make sure I think Ive talked about it as policing the constitutional boundaries making sure the Congress doesnt go further than the Constitution says it can go, doesnt violate individual rights and also doesnt act outside its enumerated authorities. We live in a government in which Congresss authorities are enumerated in Article I of the Constitution and Congress cant act except under one of those heads of authority. Now as I talked about with Sen. Cornyn the Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly its been interpreted to apply to regulation of any instruments or instrumentalities or channels of commerce, but its also been applied to anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce. It has not been applied to non-economic activities and thats the teaching of Lopez and Morrison that the Congress cant regulate non-economic activities, especially to the extent that those activities have traditionally been regulated by the states and I think that that would be the question that the court would ask with respect to any case of this kind. But I do want to sort of say again that we can come up with sort of you know just ridiculous-sounding laws and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves. And I would go back I think to Oliver Wendell Holmes on this. He was this judge who lived in the early 20th Century hated a lot of the legislation that was being enacted during those years but insisted that if the people wanted it, it was their right to go hang themselves. Now, thats not always the case but there is substantial deference due to political branches
It means she is always going to side with the government against the individual.
Coburn: I go back to my original question to you: is it within the Constitution for me to write a bill having been duly elected by the people of Oklahoma to say and get it signed by the president that you have to eat three fruits and three vegetables every day.
Kagan: First let me say about the federalist papers quote that you read that it is absolutely the case that the judiciarys job is to you know in Marbury v. Madison the famous phrase to say what the law is and to make sure I think Ive talked about it as policing the constitutional boundaries making sure the Congress doesnt go further than the Constitution says it can go, doesnt violate individual rights and also doesnt act outside its enumerated authorities. We live in a government in which Congresss authorities are enumerated in Article I of the Constitution and Congress cant act except under one of those heads of authority. Now as I talked about with Sen. Cornyn the Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly its been interpreted to apply to regulation of any instruments or instrumentalities or channels of commerce, but its also been applied to anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce. It has not been applied to non-economic activities and thats the teaching of Lopez and Morrison that the Congress cant regulate non-economic activities, especially to the extent that those activities have traditionally been regulated by the states and I think that that would be the question that the court would ask with respect to any case of this kind. But I do want to sort of say again that we can come up with sort of you know just ridiculous-sounding laws and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves. And I would go back I think to Oliver Wendell Holmes on this. He was this judge who lived in the early 20th Century hated a lot of the legislation that was being enacted during those years but insisted that if the people wanted it, it was their right to go hang themselves. Now, thats not always the case but there is substantial deference due to political branches
Shorter Kagan: Non-economic activity can't be regulated by the Commerce Clause. Also the best defense against stupid laws is not electing stupid people.
The sub-text here of course is the individual health care mandate. It is not economic in nature per se and has traditionally been regulated by the states.
Are you done making things up?
No one said she refused.
She didnt answer the question. She dithered. She dissimulated. She fixed her hair (OK maybe she didnt do that). She did not give a forthright answer to a fairly simple question.
Ah-huh, right and you said right here:
She refused to answer the question. SHe dithers. It was clear to me that she thinks they can. COburn of course is anticipating a case on individual mandate in the health care disaster. That isn't encouraging.
Kagan is a statist. It is amazing the Left is supporting her.
Where's Ted Kennedy saying, "In Kagan's America there would be a policeman at your dinner table. No fat person would be safe. We would see back alley McDonald's meals being served in speakeasies"?
Yeah. Now who's making stuff up?
I reiterate what I've said again, the video cuts off before we actually get to here her answer, so jumping to conclusions over what she said is incredibly disingenuous when we're not even basing this off her actual answer.
So what was her answer?
She effectively refused to answer it by dithering and saying something unresponsive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are a bag of turds.
Knowing the law is a prerequisite to being able to interpret it. But it is not sufficient to be qualified to be a justice. Judicial experience, writing opinions, having them reviewed by higher courts is all to me a prerequisite for a good justice.
And she ain't got it.
Knowing the law does not mean you are qualified to interpret it.
Coburn: I go back to my original question to you: is it within the Constitution for me to write a bill having been duly elected by the people of Oklahoma to say and get it signed by the president that you have to eat three fruits and three vegetables every day.
Kagan: First let me say about the federalist papers quote that you read that it is absolutely the case that the judiciarys job is to you know in Marbury v. Madison the famous phrase to say what the law is and to make sure I think Ive talked about it as policing the constitutional boundaries making sure the Congress doesnt go further than the Constitution says it can go, doesnt violate individual rights and also doesnt act outside its enumerated authorities. We live in a government in which Congresss authorities are enumerated in Article I of the Constitution and Congress cant act except under one of those heads of authority. Now as I talked about with Sen. Cornyn the Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly its been interpreted to apply to regulation of any instruments or instrumentalities or channels of commerce, but its also been applied to anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce. It has not been applied to non-economic activities and thats the teaching of Lopez and Morrison that the Congress cant regulate non-economic activities, especially to the extent that those activities have traditionally been regulated by the states and I think that that would be the question that the court would ask with respect to any case of this kind. But I do want to sort of say again that we can come up with sort of you know just ridiculous-sounding laws and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves. And I would go back I think to Oliver Wendell Holmes on this. He was this judge who lived in the early 20th Century hated a lot of the legislation that was being enacted during those years but insisted that if the people wanted it, it was their right to go hang themselves. Now, thats not always the case but there is substantial deference due to political branches
Shorter Kagan: Non-economic activity can't be regulated by the Commerce Clause. Also the best defense against stupid laws is not electing stupid people.
Virtually everything can be economic activity. The Supreme Court held that drug laws could apply to intra state activities because of the commerce clause.
Why they wised up with Lopez I don't know. Maybe because it was so far from economic in nature.
The sub-text here of course is the individual health care mandate. It is not economic in nature per se and has traditionally been regulated by the states.
Anyone want to bet how she'll rule on that one?
Shorter Kagan: Non-economic activity can't be regulated by the Commerce Clause. Also the best defense against stupid laws is not electing stupid people.
Virtually everything can be economic activity. The Supreme Court held that drug laws could apply to intra state activities because of the commerce clause.
Why they wised up with Lopez I don't know. Maybe because it was so far from economic in nature.
The sub-text here of course is the individual health care mandate. It is not economic in nature per se and has traditionally been regulated by the states.
Anyone want to bet how she'll rule on that one?
So despite your claim that she didn't answer the quiestion, the fact is that she did answer it but now that it has been shown that she did you have decided that you don't like her answer as you begin to read into something you had previously said didn't exist. LOL
)
