Kagen Must Be Stopped

[Founder]

Kagen Must Be Stopped

Every single Republican Senator, must stand united shoulder to shoulder in order to delay a vote on Kagen until after the people have had a chance to speak in the midterm elections scheduled for only 5 months from now.

Every Republican must delay the vote on Kagen until after these elections, when the American people will have had a chance to vote on what they want their representatives to do.

Any Republican Senator who breaks ranks must be charged with treason to the nation, disloyalty to the Republican Party, and a disservice to God.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Kagen...

...

... a disservice to God.

​

 

[hjmick]

Okay, I'll bite...

Why?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right wingers and left looners are both unhappy.

that means that Kagan is a true American choice.

Elena Kagan nomination for Supreme Court riles both sides of political aisle

By choosing his administration's chief legal advocate for an open seat on the court, President Obama triggered a hailstorm of conservative accusations that he is seeking an automatic vote in favor of his legislative agenda.

On the other side of the ideological spectrum, liberals -- while generally supportive -- worried whether Kagan would be a reliable counterweight to the court's conservative majority.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay, I'll bite...

Why?

normal people will like Kagan.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree. I think she is unqualified and the Senate should not accept her. However there is NO reason to delay the vote until January 2011. Further one is not treasonous to vote ones conscious in the matter of a Supreme Court Nomination or conformation.

What must be done is remind the left that the last time a NONE Judge was nominated THEY had fits and cried foul. What must be done is remind the left that this woman claims to be a Constitutional scholar but claimed the Federal Government had no right to recruit on US campuses. She did so not because she believed it Unconstitutional but because she disagreed with a US policy on how the military was made up. She allowed personal opinion to override Constitutional facts. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Flopper]

Have you guys ever considered the possibility that anyone on the other side of the aisle just might be right about something? No, I didn't think so. This reminds me of an old western movie where the good guys all wore white hats and bad guys all wore black hats. Those white hats just could never do anything wrong. The trouble today is that everyone thinks they are wearing a white hat.

 

[Luissa]

Kagen Must Be Stopped

Every single Republican Senator, must stand united shoulder to shoulder in order to delay a vote on Kagen until after the people have had a chance to speak in the midterm elections scheduled for only 5 months from now.

Every Republican must delay the vote on Kagen until after these elections, when the American people will have had a chance to vote on what they want their representatives to do.

Any Republican Senator who breaks ranks must be charged with treason to the nation, disloyalty to the Republican Party, and a disservice to God.

Wow! And I thought it couldn't get any more cuckoo.

 

[Luissa]

I disagree. I think she is unqualified and the Senate should not accept her. However there is NO reason to delay the vote until January 2011. Further one is not treasonous to vote ones conscious in the matter of a Supreme Court Nomination or conformation.

What must be done is remind the left that the last time a NONE Judge was nominated THEY had fits and cried foul. What must be done is remind the left that this woman claims to be a Constitutional scholar but claimed the Federal Government had no right to recruit on US campuses. She did so not because she believed it Unconstitutional but because she disagreed with a US policy on how the military was made up. She allowed personal opinion to override Constitutional facts. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

How many none judges have sat on the supreme court?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the Senators from both parties need to ask series questions about her qualifications. At least so we have some idea what she thinks.

However, the President picks the Supreme Court. Elections have consequences. Obama is going to have one of his picks on there. And trust me, he isn't going to pick a conservative. So make a strong show and do your constitutional duty, but she's likely to be on the court.

 

[Murf76]

I disagree. I think she is unqualified and the Senate should not accept her. However there is NO reason to delay the vote until January 2011. Further one is not treasonous to vote ones conscious in the matter of a Supreme Court Nomination or conformation.

What must be done is remind the left that the last time a NONE Judge was nominated THEY had fits and cried foul. What must be done is remind the left that this woman claims to be a Constitutional scholar but claimed the Federal Government had no right to recruit on US campuses. She did so not because she believed it Unconstitutional but because she disagreed with a US policy on how the military was made up. She allowed personal opinion to override Constitutional facts. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

I've refrained from comment about the Kagen nomination, wanting to mull it over for a few days. But your argument is a sound one. There's no viable explanation for her allowing her personal opinion on DADT to override sound Constitutional judgment... not in a Supreme Court nominee, and not from the Dean of Harvard School of Law.

I just heard Jeff Sessions on Greta saying that she's going to be questioned thoroughly about that. And bottom line... she's NOT going to have a good answer. She doesn't have a judicial record to fall back on that proves she's capable of rising above her own ideological prejudices. All she has is her own word, which is already at odds with her previous action.

Republicans should hold the line and reject her, IMO. Sure, Obama will keep nominating activists. But eventually, if Republicans keep their coalition solid... he's going to have to relent and give us a justice who'll put the Constitution ahead of ideology. Either that, or dick with this nomination until November.

I think the impression that he's trying to avoid just that, by offering a "moderate" compromise, might be a bit of a ruse and that we should actually put his feet to the fire on it.

His choice was fairly vanilla on it's face. The fact that she has so little in writing was likely part of her charm for him.... less to critically examine. But he's an untrustworthy sort, one who would have certainly taken bigger risks if he didn't believe she's an ideological fit for his agenda. I don't think the politics of avoiding a dog fight would have outweighed that if he wasn't confident in her leftist leanings. I think it's more likely that he's trying to slip us a radical under the radar while we're all complacent, believing his political motives are known.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I disagree. I think she is unqualified and the Senate should not accept her. However there is NO reason to delay the vote until January 2011. Further one is not treasonous to vote ones conscious in the matter of a Supreme Court Nomination or conformation.

What must be done is remind the left that the last time a NONE Judge was nominated THEY had fits and cried foul. What must be done is remind the left that this woman claims to be a Constitutional scholar but claimed the Federal Government had no right to recruit on US campuses. She did so not because she believed it Unconstitutional but because she disagreed with a US policy on how the military was made up. She allowed personal opinion to override Constitutional facts. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

She was not a judge interpretting the constitution when she did not allow military recruiting in the Harvard law school. She was a school administrator.

At Harvard she brought in conservative professors to counter balance the many liberal professors. She has already been endorsed by some of the top conservative constitutional lawyers in the US.

Those against her are politicians purely based on political divisiveness. Not on her competence of knowing the law and our constitution.

 

[hjmick]

Have you guys ever considered the possibility that anyone on the other side of the aisle just might be right about something? No, I didn't think so. This reminds me of an old western movie where the good guys all wore white hats and bad guys all wore black hats. Those white hats just could never do anything wrong. The trouble today is that everyone thinks they are wearing a white hat.

Okay, first let me say that you would probably be surprised by which side of the aisle I agree with, more often than not.

Second, his OP offers nothing for you or him to be "right" about. Unless you consider the title, "Kagen must be stopped." It's spelled Kagan, by the way. Unfortunately I do not believe the title is enough to be "right" about. Why does she need to be stopped? Give us a reason.

Third, even if you were able to stop her appointment to the Court, Obama would still be President. Do you think he would choose someone more conservative than Kagan? I don't.

 

[JBeukema]

I think she is unqualified and the Senate should not accept her. ...

What must be done is remind the left that the last time a NONE Judge was nominated THEY had fits and cried foul. What must be done is remind the left that this woman claims to be a Constitutional scholar but claimed the Federal Government had no right to recruit on US campuses. She did so not because she believed it Unconstitutional but because she disagreed with a US policy on how the military was made up. She allowed personal opinion to override Constitutional facts. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

I assume that one decision was not the only factor?

 

[JBeukema]

I disagree. I think she is unqualified and the Senate should not accept her. However there is NO reason to delay the vote until January 2011. Further one is not treasonous to vote ones conscious in the matter of a Supreme Court Nomination or conformation.

What must be done is remind the left that the last time a NONE Judge was nominated THEY had fits and cried foul. What must be done is remind the left that this woman claims to be a Constitutional scholar but claimed the Federal Government had no right to recruit on US campuses. She did so not because she believed it Unconstitutional but because she disagreed with a US policy on how the military was made up. She allowed personal opinion to override Constitutional facts. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

She was not a judge interpretting the constitution when she did not allow military recruiting in the Harvard law school. She was a school administrator.

At Harvard she brought in conservative professors to counter balance the many liberal professors. She has already been endorsed by some of the top conservative constitutional lawyers in the US.

Those against her are politicians purely based on political divisiveness. Not on her competence of knowing the law and our constitution.

^^

good argument

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Have you guys ever considered the possibility that anyone on the other side of the aisle just might be right about something? No, I didn't think so. This reminds me of an old western movie where the good guys all wore white hats and bad guys all wore black hats. Those white hats just could never do anything wrong. The trouble today is that everyone thinks they are wearing a white hat.

She is nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice. She chose to allow personal opinion to sway her attacking the US Government when she claims to be a Constitutional Scholar. She disqualified herself from being an honest broker as a Supreme Court Justice by showing us she allows personal opinion to sway her when the Constitution is clear as to the power of the Federal Government and its ability to recruit on college campuses.

We need honest brokers. Not ideologues. She has proven she is not capable of impartial rulings.

 

[JBeukema]

We need honest brokers. Not ideologues.

Like ideologues who treat the words of dead men as the word of God? Sounds like she stood for her own principles, as any honest broker would. If you disagree with her principles, that's fine- but don't attack her for standing for them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree. I think she is unqualified and the Senate should not accept her. However there is NO reason to delay the vote until January 2011. Further one is not treasonous to vote ones conscious in the matter of a Supreme Court Nomination or conformation.

What must be done is remind the left that the last time a NONE Judge was nominated THEY had fits and cried foul. What must be done is remind the left that this woman claims to be a Constitutional scholar but claimed the Federal Government had no right to recruit on US campuses. She did so not because she believed it Unconstitutional but because she disagreed with a US policy on how the military was made up. She allowed personal opinion to override Constitutional facts. She is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

She was not a judge interpretting the constitution when she did not allow military recruiting in the Harvard law school. She was a school administrator.

At Harvard she brought in conservative professors to counter balance the many liberal professors. She has already been endorsed by some of the top conservative constitutional lawyers in the US.

Those against her are politicians purely based on political divisiveness. Not on her competence of knowing the law and our constitution.

^^

good argument

No it is not. We have no judicial history to go by. THIS single act is telling. She allowed her personal bias to cloud her judgement on a CONSTITUTIONAL matter. Since we have no history to go on this decision is TELLING.

If one aspires to be a Supreme Court Justice one is expected to put the Constitution first NOT personal bias and opinion. She supposedly KNOWS the Constitution which means when she made the decision to try and bar recruiters from campus she KNEW she had no Constitutional basis for that decision. She made a PERSONAL decision , she allowed personal BIAS to over ride what she knew to be the facts. She allowed her personal opinion to violate what she had to know was Constitutional rights and power. EXACTLY the kind of people we DO NOT WANT on the Supreme Court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We need honest brokers. Not ideologues.

Like ideologues who treat the words of dead men as the word of God? Sounds like she stood for her own principles, as any honest broker would. If you disagree with her principles, that's fine- but don't attack her for standing for them.

Dumb ass, the Constitution is the LAW of the land. Her job as a Supreme Court Justice will be to make decisions based on what that Constitution means, INCLUDING what the Founders INTENDED for it to mean. She KNEW or should have known her position on recruitment was in direct violation of the Constitution, which she is a scholar off. She allowed personal prejudice to sway her and that is NOT who we want on the Supreme Court.

 

[JBeukema]

She allowed her personal bias to cloud her judgement on a CONSTITUTIONAL matter

She was acting as one interpreting the Constitution? Or she was acting as a school administrator who objected to the practice ad Elmer claims?


What was her title and from what authority was she acting at the time?

If one aspires to be a Supreme Court Justice one is expected to put the Constitution first NOT personal bias and opinion.

One should always put principles first. The Constitution means nothing in light of one's true principles. If people thought like you, the Constitution would have been improved and brought into compliance with such principles as abolition and universal suffrage.

Principles always come first when you're dealing with someone who truly stands for anything. You treat the Law as God and worship the words of corpses as immutible commandments.

Sometimes those corpses are wrong.