Shocking: Kagan Wont Answer If It's Unconstitutional To Tell People What To Eat.

[rikules]

She wouldn't answer Senator Coburns question if it unconstitutional for congress to tell us what to eat. What does that tell us about her? It's just like the government telling us we have to purchase health care. Kagan stuttered and had no answer whether it violated the Commerce Clause. People need to wake up and jump on this. Call your senators and tell them that this woman can't be seated on the Supreme Court. This woman will not be faithful to the Constitution. She is not qualified to be seated because she rejects the Constitution and a politcal hack will do everything for her unconstitutionally qualified President and she wants to expand the federal government.

Listen to this radical:


YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

if govt does not have the constitutional right to tell people what they can eat then it also does not have the constitutional right to tell them what they can or can not smoke or injest.

therefore

govt does not have the constitutional right to deny people the right to smoke pot
or snort cocaine

 

[Tech_Esq]

Resistance is fuTILE. She will be confirmed.

Not that it's much of a recommendation, but at least Bush had sense enough to withdraw Harriet Myers. This sorry excuse is nothing more than Obama's Harriet Myers. Pure and simple.

This is funny....it seems that everything Obama does, the right attempts to compare to Bush:

Obama's verbal stumbling
BP is Obama's Katrina
Kagan is Harriet Myers....


....but, note to the left: you are not allowed to bring up Booooosh

The left (as in the White House and the Speaker of the House) have announced that they have every intention to continue the Bush bashing unabated through the 2010 election. If you don't like Bush comparisons (probably because your guy even suffers by that tepid standard), then you need to talk to the leadership of the Dem party and convince them that they need to let Bush fade into history instead of trotting him out as a whipping boy at every opportunity.

BP is not Obama's Katrina. BP is Obama's Iranian Hostage crisis. Something he can't do anything about that daily the news tells us how many days Obama has been impotent against the oil and it just goes on and on with no end of his impotence in sight.

Obama's verbal stumbling is what it is. He gets to be hung out to dry for every mistake because that is the standard that has been set for presidents and vice-presidents now. You must ridicule them at every opportunity, because after all, it's funny how insipidly stupid they are, doncha think?

Or maybe it's not funny when it's your ox that's getting gored.....hmmm? Lost your sense of humor?

 

[Coyote]

Not that it's much of a recommendation, but at least Bush had sense enough to withdraw Harriet Myers. This sorry excuse is nothing more than Obama's Harriet Myers. Pure and simple.

This is funny....it seems that everything Obama does, the right attempts to compare to Bush:

Obama's verbal stumbling
BP is Obama's Katrina
Kagan is Harriet Myers....


....but, note to the left: you are not allowed to bring up Booooosh

The left (as in the White House and the Speaker of the House) have announced that they have every intention to continue the Bush bashing unabated through the 2010 election. If you don't like Bush comparisons (probably because your guy even suffers by that tepid standard), then you need to talk to the leadership of the Dem party and convince them that they need to let Bush fade into history instead of trotting him out as a whipping boy at every opportunity.

I have no liking for the Congressional Democrats so you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't mind comparisons, when they are accurate but these seem to smack more of desperation than validity.

BP is not Obama's Katrina. BP is Obama's Iranian Hostage crisis. Something he can't do anything about that daily the news tells us how many days Obama has been impotent against the oil and it just goes on and on with no end of his impotence in sight.

That's a pretty good analogy.....

Obama's verbal stumbling is what it is. He gets to be hung out to dry for every mistake because that is the standard that has been set for presidents and vice-presidents now. You must ridicule them at every opportunity, because after all, it's funny how insipidly stupid they are, doncha think?

Bush was unique, and his Bushisms genuinely funny. I never felt they were an indicator of intelligence but more, a problem with language. Obama's verbal stumbles (in comparison to Bush) are sparse but highlighted by his ideological opponents. I think Obama's geekness is more amusing. He really is a geek.

Or maybe it's not funny when it's your ox that's getting gored.....hmmm? Lost your sense of humor?

Nope. Not in the least. But as I said, it smacks more of desperation then a genuine attempt to find something funny

 

[Tech_Esq]

Kagan, however folks may feel about her qualifications - is vastly more qualified then Harriet Myers if this Wikipedia entry is any way accurate: Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're on an Island. It's the same thing. No judicial experience. Less than a year on the job as Soc. Gen. You might have something if she'd been the soc. gen. for 5 years or something, but she barely knows where the ladies room is.

Dean of Harvard Law that has never heard of the brand of Con Law that "the Great" Lawrence Tribe teaches there? Riiiiiight! And, she can't say whether she subscribes to it. Smart girl this one. Abe Fortas was genius and well-qualified compared to her.

Then she was political robot for Clinton. Great resume!

The point is that neither are good choices. It was a mistake for Bush and a mistake for Obama. The difference is that Dems know no shame, they'll plug her right in there. It is only about naked power grabs for Dems, first last and always. No other consideration need apply.

 

[Zander]

She's brilliant. Obama is brilliant too. The economy is brilliant. BP's Deep Horizon well is brilliant.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This is funny....it seems that everything Obama does, the right attempts to compare to Bush:

Obama's verbal stumbling
BP is Obama's Katrina
Kagan is Harriet Myers....


....but, note to the left: you are not allowed to bring up Booooosh

The left (as in the White House and the Speaker of the House) have announced that they have every intention to continue the Bush bashing unabated through the 2010 election. If you don't like Bush comparisons (probably because your guy even suffers by that tepid standard), then you need to talk to the leadership of the Dem party and convince them that they need to let Bush fade into history instead of trotting him out as a whipping boy at every opportunity.

I have no liking for the Congressional Democrats so you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't mind comparisons, when they are accurate but these seem to smack more of desperation than validity.



That's a pretty good analogy.....

Obama's verbal stumbling is what it is. He gets to be hung out to dry for every mistake because that is the standard that has been set for presidents and vice-presidents now. You must ridicule them at every opportunity, because after all, it's funny how insipidly stupid they are, doncha think?

Bush was unique, and his Bushisms genuinely funny. I never felt they were an indicator of intelligence but more, a problem with language. Obama's verbal stumbles (in comparison to Bush) are sparse but highlighted by his ideological opponents. I think Obama's geekness is more amusing. He really is a geek.

Or maybe it's not funny when it's your ox that's getting gored.....hmmm? Lost your sense of humor?

Nope. Not in the least. But as I said, it smacks more of desperation then a genuine attempt to find something funny

Ok. I hadn't really noticed the geekness. He's not as much of a policy wonk as Clinton was. He seems too aloof to get into any details of much of anything. I disagree it was just Bush, Dan Quayle got slammed too. Seems to me that anyone who sets themselves up as "culture warriors" on the right get the same treatment. Spiro Agnew got it too.

I will agree that there is a lot of "tit for tat" going on with Obama's miscues. But for the treatment of Bush, they'd let him slide on a lot the silliness. But, that's not where we are and that's not what happened, so we'll all need to suffer through it. It's a race to the bottom and has been for at least the last 20 years. It might date back to Watergate really.

 

[Coyote]

Kagan, however folks may feel about her qualifications - is vastly more qualified then Harriet Myers if this Wikipedia entry is any way accurate: Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're on an Island. It's the same thing. No judicial experience. Less than a year on the job as Soc. Gen. You might have something if she'd been the soc. gen. for 5 years or something, but she barely knows where the ladies room is.

Dean of Harvard Law that has never heard of the brand of Con Law that "the Great" Lawrence Tribe teaches there? Riiiiiight! And, she can't say whether she subscribes to it. Smart girl this one. Abe Fortas was genius and well-qualified compared to her.

Then she was political robot for Clinton. Great resume!

The point is that neither are good choices. It was a mistake for Bush and a mistake for Obama. The difference is that Dems know no shame, they'll plug her right in there. It is only about naked power grabs for Dems, first last and always. No other consideration need apply.

She seems to be far better prepared and far more knowledgable of Con Law then Myers- and is certainly doing better by far than Myers did in the hearings. She is considered intelligent by her peers, and Dean of Harvard Law School is no small thing. Even when meeting with "friendly" senators from her side of the aisle Myers utterly failed to make even a remotely intelligent impression - it was so bad, they asked for papers and positions she had written for the White House to get an understanding of her legal views. I can't find anything positive from her peers about her. Kagan may not be as qualified as many on both sides might wish, she is far more qualified then Myers.

 

[Coyote]

The left (as in the White House and the Speaker of the House) have announced that they have every intention to continue the Bush bashing unabated through the 2010 election. If you don't like Bush comparisons (probably because your guy even suffers by that tepid standard), then you need to talk to the leadership of the Dem party and convince them that they need to let Bush fade into history instead of trotting him out as a whipping boy at every opportunity.

I have no liking for the Congressional Democrats so you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't mind comparisons, when they are accurate but these seem to smack more of desperation than validity.



That's a pretty good analogy.....




Bush was unique, and his Bushisms genuinely funny. I never felt they were an indicator of intelligence but more, a problem with language. Obama's verbal stumbles (in comparison to Bush) are sparse but highlighted by his ideological opponents. I think Obama's geekness is more amusing. He really is a geek.

Or maybe it's not funny when it's your ox that's getting gored.....hmmm? Lost your sense of humor?

Nope. Not in the least. But as I said, it smacks more of desperation then a genuine attempt to find something funny

Ok. I hadn't really noticed the geekness. He's not as much of a policy wonk as Clinton was. He seems too aloof to get into any details of much of anything. I disagree it was just Bush, Dan Quayle got slammed too. Seems to me that anyone who sets themselves up as "culture warriors" on the right get the same treatment. Spiro Agnew got it too.

I will agree that there is a lot of "tit for tat" going on with Obama's miscues. But for the treatment of Bush, they'd let him slide on a lot the silliness. But, that's not where we are and that's not what happened, so we'll all need to suffer through it. It's a race to the bottom and has been for at least the last 20 years. It might date back to Watergate really.

Unfortunately, I think you are right - and it isn't helped any by the media (mainstream and otherwise).

 

[Tech_Esq]

Kagan, however folks may feel about her qualifications - is vastly more qualified then Harriet Myers if this Wikipedia entry is any way accurate: Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're on an Island. It's the same thing. No judicial experience. Less than a year on the job as Soc. Gen. You might have something if she'd been the soc. gen. for 5 years or something, but she barely knows where the ladies room is.

Dean of Harvard Law that has never heard of the brand of Con Law that "the Great" Lawrence Tribe teaches there? Riiiiiight! And, she can't say whether she subscribes to it. Smart girl this one. Abe Fortas was genius and well-qualified compared to her.

Then she was political robot for Clinton. Great resume!

The point is that neither are good choices. It was a mistake for Bush and a mistake for Obama. The difference is that Dems know no shame, they'll plug her right in there. It is only about naked power grabs for Dems, first last and always. No other consideration need apply.

She seems to be far better prepared and far more knowledgable of Con Law then Myers- and is certainly doing better by far than Myers did in the hearings. She is considered intelligent by her peers, and Dean of Harvard Law School is no small thing. Even when meeting with "friendly" senators from her side of the aisle Myers utterly failed to make even a remotely intelligent impression - it was so bad, they asked for papers and positions she had written for the White House to get an understanding of her legal views. I can't find anything positive from her peers about her. Kagan may not be as qualified as many on both sides might wish, she is far more qualified then Myers.

My point was less about how much she is "just like" Miers than it was about how we deserve, as a country, a better nominee. She is not even remotely, the best person for the job. Whatever her strengths or weaknesses, she isn't the most qualifies or even in the top 50 most qualified.

It sounds like we might be able to agree on that point at least.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I have no liking for the Congressional Democrats so you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't mind comparisons, when they are accurate but these seem to smack more of desperation than validity.



That's a pretty good analogy.....




Bush was unique, and his Bushisms genuinely funny. I never felt they were an indicator of intelligence but more, a problem with language. Obama's verbal stumbles (in comparison to Bush) are sparse but highlighted by his ideological opponents. I think Obama's geekness is more amusing. He really is a geek.



Nope. Not in the least. But as I said, it smacks more of desperation then a genuine attempt to find something funny

Ok. I hadn't really noticed the geekness. He's not as much of a policy wonk as Clinton was. He seems too aloof to get into any details of much of anything. I disagree it was just Bush, Dan Quayle got slammed too. Seems to me that anyone who sets themselves up as "culture warriors" on the right get the same treatment. Spiro Agnew got it too.

I will agree that there is a lot of "tit for tat" going on with Obama's miscues. But for the treatment of Bush, they'd let him slide on a lot the silliness. But, that's not where we are and that's not what happened, so we'll all need to suffer through it. It's a race to the bottom and has been for at least the last 20 years. It might date back to Watergate really.

Unfortunately, I think you are right - and it isn't helped any by the media (mainstream and otherwise).

True, the media doesn't help but it is really the pols themselves that are to blame. They engage in the actual coarsening of rules of the political institutions to the point where it is "majority rule and the minority lost the election and they are gonna get theirs." Whereas, it used to be Majority rule with minority rights.

It might have gotten started when the Republicans got tired of being the permanent minority party for the more than 50 years in the house and Gingrich used not a little "bomb-throwing" to get the Repubs in striking distance as Minority whip and then minority leader after Michael left. But, that was followed by new lows when the Dems were in the minority. (More tit for tat for sure, but they invented new wrinkles). And, so it has gone.

We are engaged in a true battle for the next direction that the country will take. They are diametrically opposed views and we're on a real decision point. My guess is that after the struggle for direction is over, we'll see a return to civility in the political institutions, but that won't necessarily be good for us.

Kagan is one more battle in that overall war of direction.

 

[Coyote]

Ok. I hadn't really noticed the geekness. He's not as much of a policy wonk as Clinton was. He seems too aloof to get into any details of much of anything. I disagree it was just Bush, Dan Quayle got slammed too. Seems to me that anyone who sets themselves up as "culture warriors" on the right get the same treatment. Spiro Agnew got it too.

I will agree that there is a lot of "tit for tat" going on with Obama's miscues. But for the treatment of Bush, they'd let him slide on a lot the silliness. But, that's not where we are and that's not what happened, so we'll all need to suffer through it. It's a race to the bottom and has been for at least the last 20 years. It might date back to Watergate really.

Unfortunately, I think you are right - and it isn't helped any by the media (mainstream and otherwise).

True, the media doesn't help but it is really the pols themselves that are to blame. They engage in the actual coarsening of rules of the political institutions to the point where it is "majority rule and the minority lost the election and they are gonna get theirs." Whereas, it used to be Majority rule with minority rights.

Damn....I'm not sure I can stand much more of this - but I gotta agree with you. That's a good way of putting it. It seems like whenever one side wins a majority - they take it as an unlimited voter-given mandate for their entire ideological agenda even though it's not. They assume it with an uncompromising arrogance - the Republicans first, then when the Dems took power again in Congress - was there any humility, humbleness, bipartisanship, lessons learned from being a minority party - no, just the same uncompromising arrogance.

It might have gotten started when the Republicans got tired of being the permanent minority party for the more than 50 years in the house and Gingrich used not a little "bomb-throwing" to get the Repubs in striking distance as Minority whip and then minority leader after Michael left. But, that was followed by new lows when the Dems were in the minority. (More tit for tat for sure, but they invented new wrinkles). And, so it has gone.

Yup

We are engaged in a true battle for the next direction that the country will take. They are diametrically opposed views and we're on a real decision point. My guess is that after the struggle for direction is over, we'll see a return to civility in the political institutions, but that won't necessarily be good for us.

Kagan is one more battle in that overall war of direction.

I think our nation is more polorized than ever before in my memory...by why do think a return to civility won't be necessarily good?

On another note - I see the passing of old timers like Byrd, Kennedy, Helmes - regardless of their views, as a loss for the traditions and civility of the Congress and the ability to compromise and work out deals to get key legislation passed. What is missing now, in all this politicing and partisan grandstanding is a long-term view. Maybe that is good maybe it's isn't. I am not sure.

 

[Old Rocks]

She's brilliant. Obama is brilliant too. The economy is brilliant. BP's Deep Horizon well is brilliant.

Kagan will be confirmed, the wingnuts will have their whining, moaning, and puking fit, then move on to some other idiocy. Zander will be right there with them, good little wooly headed sheep.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I know....all this agreeing isn't the way things normally go. But, I think at bottom, both sides (or most of us) see that there is an underlying problem. We may differ at the steps we think need to be done to fix the problem, but we agree about the problem.

When I said it might not be good for us that there is a return to civility, I mean that the return to civility will probably come when the new direction is set irretrievably and one side admits defeat. Think about the Conservatives in Britain. They lost the battle in 1948. Since then, they have been the Labour-lite party. They have changed things around the edges, but they have governed a system created by "social-democrats" and not sought to re-visit the decisions that made it thus (like the national health system etc.)

So, when the new direction is decided upon. One side will have lost. If your side is the losing one, you might not be too convinced that having your side's pols act civilly with the people you think are doing exactly the wrong thing, is good for you.

In the case we find ourselves in America today, for instance, whether I'm right or wrong, I honestly believe that the institution of the new health reform law will ultimately deprive Americans of their liberty (and probably life) to no good end. Leaving aside whether I'm right or wrong about that proposition, if my pols simply gave in and helped design the new bill with minor little changes here and there, but ultimately it's the same thing, I'd be mad as hell. But, things would have been much more civil. And, some would say, we'd have a "better bill". But, I would contend, we'd have the best BAD bill we could get. So, that's why I say we might not be the better for it.

 

[midcan5]

Ask a dumb question.... actually she did answer it. Law is not about unenforceable silliness, only republicans are about that. Consider as an example smoking and the warning label, this is a reasonable use of information and a reasonable use of legislation. I watched a bit of the hearing today and if there were an honest person in congress they could shorten the dialogue easily, all they need to do is state their beliefs and say do believe these things too? End of BS session.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ask a dumb question.... actually she did answer it. Law is not about unenforceable silliness, only republicans are about that. Consider as an example smoking and the warning label, this is a reasonable use of information and a reasonable use of legislation. I watched a bit of the hearing today and if there were an honest person in congress they could shorten the dialogue easily, all they need to do is state their beliefs and say do believe these things too? End of BS session.

I'll give you that it is a highly stylized bit of kabuki dancing that they're putting on up there.

I'm not sure it was a dumb question. With NY banning salt etc. It does seem like it's a relevant line of inquiry to ask a nominee, if they believe that the federal government could ban certain types of food through the Commerce clause. (Local governments one thing, the federal government another).

But, given the court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn and subsequent cases, anyone would be hard pressed to pronounce a hard limit on Congress' power to do anything at all using the Commerce clause. It seems to be just the thing that turned a limited government into an unlimited one.

But, Republicans don't like to hear that and so Kagan didn't say it.

 

[Zander]

She's brilliant. Obama is brilliant too. The economy is brilliant. BP's Deep Horizon well is brilliant.

Kagan will be confirmed, the wingnuts will have their whining, moaning, and puking fit, then move on to some other idiocy. Zander will be right there with them, good little wooly headed sheep.

You're Brilliant, Obama's Brilliant, The economy is Brilliant, The Deep Horizon Well is Brilliant. Just Brilliant.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

she's going to be overwhelmingly approved, the faux outrage by the republiklans is very funny

I have no doubt she'll be approved. There is no reason not to approve her. Her replacement would be just as radical.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So she answers first, he modifies the question to ask if we have the power to tell people what they have to eat everyday, she thinks for maybe 4 seconds when he starts talking again and the video cuts out before we can see her response.....you're right, she obviously isn't qualified due to this overwhelming evidence.

What video are you looking at, because that's not at all what happened. It shouldn't have taken her more than half a second to say no to his question. What's there to think about? The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the right to be authoritarian.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We might all consider thanking the two posters above for their 'considered' opinons. If they would be so kind as to post their CV's so all of us might know which law school they attended and the extent of their law practice on Constitutional Issues.

I don't need a law degree to understand the Constitution. Furthermore, using your logic, there should be no financial reform bill because most of our elected members have Congress have no financial background and the health care deform legislation should be immediately repealed because most of our elected members of Congress have no medical background and quite clearly aren't qualified to vote on such things.

On a more serious note, Alabama Sen. Sessions is an embarrassment to all Americans; is he the best and the brightest Alabama can offer?

That was Coburn in the video, not Sessions.

 

[RDD_1210]

So she answers first, he modifies the question to ask if we have the power to tell people what they have to eat everyday, she thinks for maybe 4 seconds when he starts talking again and the video cuts out before we can see her response.....you're right, she obviously isn't qualified due to this overwhelming evidence.

What video are you looking at, because that's not at all what happened. It shouldn't have taken her more than half a second to say no to his question. What's there to think about? The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the right to be authoritarian.

That's actually exactly what happened. Just because you don't like the way she responded, doesn't change what actually happened on the video.