Kagen Must Be Stopped

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

People like you are why our Government has usurped more power then allowed and continues to do so.

 

[JBeukema]

INCLUDING what the Founders INTENDED for it to mean.

Like the definition of 'men' as 'White landed gentry'?

She KNEW or should have known her position on recruitment was in direct violation of the Constitution, which she is a scholar off

How many times has the Constitution been amended because those who were right and just opposed it because it was wrong?

The Constitution includes means to change it precisely because it is not written by gods or perfect men.

She allowed personal prejudice to sway her

She made her decision based on true principles, it sounds. All people should do accordingly. Principles, not ink, should govern us all.

 

[JBeukema]

People like you are why our Government has usurped more power then allowed and continues to do so.

Right... people like me who keep calling for a gutting of the Fed?

 

[rightwinger]

Didn't we do this thread already?

Oh wait...............that was "Sotomayor must be stopped"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

INCLUDING what the Founders INTENDED for it to mean.

Like the definition of 'men' as 'White landed gentry'?

She KNEW or should have known her position on recruitment was in direct violation of the Constitution, which she is a scholar off

How many times has the Constitution been amended because those who were right and just opposed it because it was wrong?

The Constitution includes means to change it precisely because it is not written by gods or perfect men.

She allowed personal prejudice to sway her

She made her decision based on true principles, it sounds. All people should do accordingly. Principles, not ink, should govern us all.

And yet you argue that even though the document has the means to change it as a basic part of it somehow it has no fixed meaning and there is no need to amend it at all, just ignore those parts you disagree with.

Laws are USELESS if they do not have concrete FIXED meanings. A document detailing the power and scope of our Government is USELESS if one can simply ignore it when convenient.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

I guess you were also against Scalia's appointment then, right?

 

[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.

I guess you were also against Scalia's appointment then, right?

Scalia has a long judicial history. And was rated as not only a good Judge but well qualified to the Supreme Court.

 

[Murf76]

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.

So.... as Dean of Harvard School of Law, she either didn't know what the correct Constitutional interpretation would be...or she willfully chose to put her own bias ahead of it. (????)

 

[maineman]

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.

So.... as Dean of Harvard School of Law, she either didn't know what the correct Constitutional interpretation would be...or she willfully chose to put her own bias ahead of it. (????)

as Dean of Harvard Law School, she wasn't sworn to interpret the constitution, but to uphold the standards of her institution.

 

[xotoxi]

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?

The last was William Rehnquist.

 

[Murf76]

as Dean of Harvard Law School, she wasn't sworn to interpret the constitution, but to uphold the standards of her institution.

So... your answer then, is that she willfully flouted Constitutional Law based upon her own personal bias.

That's hardly making the case for why Republican Senators should support her nomination.

Valerie Jarrett's on Fox right now saying that Obama chose her for her "appreciation" of the Constitution.
Looks to me like she's "appreciating" it from a distance.

 

[Founder]

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, your OP offers nothing for you 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.

Reasonable questions, but it is helpful to consider EVERYONE as wearing either a White or Black hat. It keeps things neat, and minds ordered. Confusion is the cousin of deception, and deception is the mother of error.

The main reason to unite in keeping her from being approved in any way is it strengthens Republicans for the battles ahead, such as the elections and 2012 and a host of other tests. Discipline has been proven to raise your side's morale and lower the morale of the other side. Better be united in a poor cause than disunited in pursuit of a good one.

We can only win by being unalterably opposed to every enemy initiative. We are facing an implacable, united, AND EVIL, foe in the form of the Demonrat Party, and our best weapon is unity and resolve of the highest order. That is just one reason why NOT opposing her is treason to the nation, and disloyalty to the Republican Party. We need to sharpen the minds and stiffen the resolve of the American people if we are to have any chance to save the Republic, and discipline and radicalization is the best and proven way to that goal.

 

[Founder]

as Dean of Harvard Law School, she wasn't sworn to interpret the constitution, but to uphold the standards of her institution.

So... your answer then, is that she willfully flouted Constitutional Law based upon her own personal bias.

That's hardly making the case for why Republican Senators should support her nomination.

Valerie Jarrett's on Fox right now saying that Obama chose her for her "appreciation" of the Constitution.
Looks to me like she's "appreciating" it from a distance.

The Cat "Appreciating" the Mouse

Her "appreciation" of the Constitution is like a cat "appreciating" the mouse he has just caught by playing with it prior to eating it.

 

[Founder]

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.

So.... as Dean of Harvard School of Law, she either didn't know what the correct Constitutional interpretation would be...or she willfully chose to put her own bias ahead of it. (????)

as Dean of Harvard Law School, she wasn't sworn to interpret the constitution, but to uphold the standards of her institution.

Reply To Your Insane Signature

Galbraith Venality: "In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquility." John Kenneth Galbraith (This idiocy is the perfect recipe throughout history for “rich” ordered societies to become poor and disordered. It is based on the wimp notion of bribing the blackmailing predatory underclass to leave their betters alone.)

 

[jillian]

as Dean of Harvard Law School, she wasn't sworn to interpret the constitution, but to uphold the standards of her institution.

So... your answer then, is that she willfully flouted Constitutional Law based upon her own personal bias.

That's hardly making the case for why Republican Senators should support her nomination.

Valerie Jarrett's on Fox right now saying that Obama chose her for her "appreciation" of the Constitution.
Looks to me like she's "appreciating" it from a distance.

how did she flout the constitution? what mandate would support the proposition that the military has to be allowed to recruit on campus even though it violates a school's anti-discrimination policies?

not to mention the fact that, apparently, they weren't barred, they just couldn't recruit from the school's placement office.

so? they shouldn't discriminate.

more to the point, the insane O/P is pretty amusing to watch. I think they should have gone with a real liberal like Wood since you all are in melt down anyway.... maybe should really have something to melt down about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

as Dean of Harvard Law School, she wasn't sworn to interpret the constitution, but to uphold the standards of her institution.

So... your answer then, is that she willfully flouted Constitutional Law based upon her own personal bias.

That's hardly making the case for why Republican Senators should support her nomination.

Valerie Jarrett's on Fox right now saying that Obama chose her for her "appreciation" of the Constitution.
Looks to me like she's "appreciating" it from a distance.

how did she flout the constitution? what mandate would support the proposition that the military has to be allowed to recruit on campus even though it violates a school's anti-discrimination policies?

not to mention the fact that, apparently, they weren't barred, they just couldn't recruit from the school's placement office.

so? they shouldn't discriminate.

more to the point, the insane O/P is pretty amusing to watch. I think they should have gone with a real liberal like Wood since you all are in melt down anyway.... maybe should really have something to melt down about.

The School accepts Government funds. It is not a private school. As such the Government has every right and legal standing to RECRUIT there. Pretty simple Constitutional facts. YOU sure you are a Lawyer? You keep making ignorant asinine comments that even a 1st year law student would know better.

 

[jillian]

So... your answer then, is that she willfully flouted Constitutional Law based upon her own personal bias.

That's hardly making the case for why Republican Senators should support her nomination.

Valerie Jarrett's on Fox right now saying that Obama chose her for her "appreciation" of the Constitution.
Looks to me like she's "appreciating" it from a distance.

how did she flout the constitution? what mandate would support the proposition that the military has to be allowed to recruit on campus even though it violates a school's anti-discrimination policies?

not to mention the fact that, apparently, they weren't barred, they just couldn't recruit from the school's placement office.

so? they shouldn't discriminate.

more to the point, the insane O/P is pretty amusing to watch. I think they should have gone with a real liberal like Wood since you all are in melt down anyway.... maybe should really have something to melt down about.

The School accepts Government funds. It is not a private school. As such the Government has every right and legal standing to RECRUIT there. Pretty simple Constitutional facts. YOU sure you are a Lawyer? You keep making ignorant asinine comments that even a 1st year law student would know better.

again... i didn't ask how they could restrict funds. i know they can restrict funds (although i think it inappropriate for them to discriminate). the comment was that she somehow violated the constitution. she didn't.

i asked that comment be substantiated.

even you should be able to understand that.... so stop frothing at the mouth.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

how did she flout the constitution? what mandate would support the proposition that the military has to be allowed to recruit on campus even though it violates a school's anti-discrimination policies?

not to mention the fact that, apparently, they weren't barred, they just couldn't recruit from the school's placement office.

so? they shouldn't discriminate.

more to the point, the insane O/P is pretty amusing to watch. I think they should have gone with a real liberal like Wood since you all are in melt down anyway.... maybe should really have something to melt down about.

The School accepts Government funds. It is not a private school. As such the Government has every right and legal standing to RECRUIT there. Pretty simple Constitutional facts. YOU sure you are a Lawyer? You keep making ignorant asinine comments that even a 1st year law student would know better.

again... i didn't ask how they could restrict funds. i know they can restrict funds (although i think it inappropriate for them to discriminate). the comment was that she somehow violated the constitution. she didn't.

i asked that comment be substantiated.

even you should be able to understand that.

No one said she violated the Constitution. What I said and will continue to say is we have ONE example of where she got to interpret the Constitution. And she allowed personal opinion and Bias to sway her decision. Not the kind of people we want ruling on Constitutional grounds.

 

[maineman]

The School accepts Government funds. It is not a private school. As such the Government has every right and legal standing to RECRUIT there. Pretty simple Constitutional facts. YOU sure you are a Lawyer? You keep making ignorant asinine comments that even a 1st year law student would know better.

again... i didn't ask how they could restrict funds. i know they can restrict funds (although i think it inappropriate for them to discriminate). the comment was that she somehow violated the constitution. she didn't.

i asked that comment be substantiated.

even you should be able to understand that.

No one said she violated the Constitution. What I said and will continue to say is we have ONE example of where she got to interpret the Constitution. And she allowed personal opinion and Bias to sway her decision. Not the kind of people we want ruling on Constitutional grounds.

and AGAIN, it was not her job, nor her intent to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. She was acting in the best interests of her institution and its student body. THAT was her job.

I noticed you never answered me concerning Rehnquist and Warren. COWARD.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

again... i didn't ask how they could restrict funds. i know they can restrict funds (although i think it inappropriate for them to discriminate). the comment was that she somehow violated the constitution. she didn't.

i asked that comment be substantiated.

even you should be able to understand that.

No one said she violated the Constitution. What I said and will continue to say is we have ONE example of where she got to interpret the Constitution. And she allowed personal opinion and Bias to sway her decision. Not the kind of people we want ruling on Constitutional grounds.

and AGAIN, it was not her job, nor her intent to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. She was acting in the best interests of her institution and its student body. THAT was her job.

I noticed you never answered me concerning Rehnquist and Warren. COWARD.

The only coward here is you. Remind us again how Iraq can not remain free? How it will devolve into civil war just as soon as the US pulls troops out.

She made a decision contrary to the Constitution. Being a Constitutional scholar she knew what was right and wrong. She opened her school to law suits by the US Federal Government, endangered her schools flow of US Federal dollars for Students and programs in the school. All based on a personal opinion.

She is not qualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice.