Kagan: WTF?

[The Rabbi]

As the former Dean of Harvard Law, I'm pretty sure she knows, and considerably more than you know.

You're a former dean of Harvard Law School? Wow. I had no idea.

Reading comprehension isn't high on you resume.

English grammar obviously isn't on yours.

 

[Woyzeck]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

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?

Weird, this sounds like she's saying she won't be an activist judge. I'd figure some people would be happy with that. I'm sure we'd learn more if you'd post the rest of the context of it.

 

[txlonghorn]

I'd love to know if she is under the impression that AZ is not a border state with Mexico....

 

[Wry Catcher]

As predicted, the RW echo chamber is working overtime; idiotgrams galore.

 

[The Rabbi]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

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?

Weird, this sounds like she's saying she won't be an activist judge. I'd figure some people would be happy with that. I'm sure we'd learn more if you'd post the rest of the context of it.

I dont knwo what it means. Probably neither does anyone else. As for not being activist, that isn't even remotely believable.

 

[drsmith1072]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

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?

So you are attacking her because she says that she isn't and wouldn't be an activist judge?? You really need to make up your minds or at least have the people feeding you talking points make sure you aren't contradicting yourselves everytime you open your mouths and regurgitate what they fed you.

Do you have the whole context of the quote or is this all that your talking points memo gave you??

 

[Jarhead]

I am sure I will be blasted for this statement, but I am entitled to believe what I want to beleive.

I believe all nominees should have judicial experience so we, the people, have a track record to follow.

We should be afforded the right to know how one thinks by examples, not by opinion. People DO lie you know. Bush lied. Obama lied. Heck, seems evereyone lies.

You can not lie about your record.

 

[Jarhead]

As the former Dean of Harvard Law, I'm pretty sure she knows, and considerably more than you know.

You're a former dean of Harvard Law School? Wow. I had no idea.

Reading comprehension isn't high on you resume.

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

 

[The Rabbi]

"The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one," Kagan said in her remarks, but did not elaborate on that point or on her statement that she would accord proper deference to Congress if confirmed.

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?

So you are attacking her because she says that she isn't and wouldn't be an activist judge?? You really need to make up your minds or at least have the people feeding you talking points make sure you aren't contradicting yourselves everytime you open your mouths and regurgitate what they fed you.

Do you have the whole context of the quote or is this all that your talking points memo gave you??

Is that what that means? I dunno. Neither do you. Does it mean she would uphold McCain-Feingold? How about detainment/interrogation?
But the idea that she wont be an "acitvist" (whatever that means) is absurd. Of course she will. She is lying, just like Sotomayor lied and needs to be called on it.

 

[B. Kidd]

You're a former dean of Harvard Law School? Wow. I had no idea.

Reading comprehension isn't high on you resume.

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

Exactly.
She only 'practiced' law for 2-3 years, the rest of the time lived on Planet 'Academia'.
BTW: Jeff Sessions 1
Kagan 0

 

[Claudette]

I'm pretty sure Kagan will get the seat.

Kagan has never sat on the bench so its hard to say what she will do. There is no trail to follow. You can only go by what she has written. Pretty skimpy in my book

As for not thinking she's an activist. Well. That remains to be seen.

Basically you are swapping one liberal for another. I don't think it will change the face of the SC one way or the other.

 

[The Rabbi]

So today she says she believes the Constitution is a "living document" but that "we are all originalists."
WTF?

 

[Jarhead]

I'm pretty sure Kagan will get the seat.

Kagan has never sat on the bench so its hard to say what she will do. There is no trail to follow. You can only go by what she has written. Pretty skimpy in my book

As for not thinking she's an activist. Well. That remains to be seen.

Basically you are swapping one liberal for another. I don't think it will change the face of the SC one way or the other.

It is not about changing the face of the SCOTUS.

It is about having the most qualified individual on the bench.

I expect Obama to select one with liberal views. I am OK with that as he is our President and the majority of the poeple opted for that.

I do not believe hse has a track record that proves she is most qualified by any means.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

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.

 

[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.

And she wrote a whole article lambasting confirmation hearings as being vapid and uninformative. Bet she's eating those words now.

What she's wanting is a Rubber Stamp. Sorry...even the Constitution lays it out. SHE should know this. It just confirms her status as NO FRIEND to the Constitution or the LAW just the same as the man that nominated her.

She's a crony. And that's it.

You are right, the constitution does lay it out and according to republicans, congress is merely and only supposed to "advise and consent"/ Rumber Stamp or at least that is what they used to believe when they wanted their activist judges appointed to the SCOTUS.

Why is it that the right doesn't hold the same beliefs that they one held concnering this process?? Did the constitution change or are they merely being partisan hacks who have no integrity as they apply different standards to a democratic president that they did a republican president.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It means she is always going to side with the government against the individual.

You mean like the cons always side with corporations over individuals?

Corporations dont have the power to raise my taxes or throw me in prison over what I say and do.
I have power over corporations, I can choose to not do business with them or sue them over a injury .

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[Claudette]

I'm pretty sure Kagan will get the seat.

Kagan has never sat on the bench so its hard to say what she will do. There is no trail to follow. You can only go by what she has written. Pretty skimpy in my book

As for not thinking she's an activist. Well. That remains to be seen.

Basically you are swapping one liberal for another. I don't think it will change the face of the SC one way or the other.

It is not about changing the face of the SCOTUS.

It is about having the most qualified individual on the bench.

I expect Obama to select one with liberal views. I am OK with that as he is our President and the majority of the poeple opted for that.

I do not believe hse has a track record that proves she is most qualified by any means.

I agree with you jarhead.

He should have chosen someone that was qualified. Someone with acutal bench experience. He didn't.

She isn't qualified to sit on the SC but he is the POTUS and he can nominate anyone he likes.

Now it remains to be seen if the Clowns will approve the nomination or if the GOP will make a fight of it.

 

[drsmith1072]

You're a former dean of Harvard Law School? Wow. I had no idea.

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??

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

So you are attacking her because she says that she isn't and wouldn't be an activist judge?? You really need to make up your minds or at least have the people feeding you talking points make sure you aren't contradicting yourselves everytime you open your mouths and regurgitate what they fed you.

Do you have the whole context of the quote or is this all that your talking points memo gave you??

Is that what that means? I dunno. Neither do you. Does it mean she would uphold McCain-Feingold? How about detainment/interrogation?
But the idea that she wont be an "acitvist" (whatever that means) is absurd. Of course she will. She is lying, just like Sotomayor lied and needs to be called on it.

If you aren't smart enough to know then why are you chiming in with all of your negative assumptions and agreeing with other posters and their negative assumptions??

This comment has NOTHING to do with a specific case so why do you ask or are you merely trying to spin and clouid the debate to cover for the fact that you are a hack??

Your whole argument is nothing but partisan based ASSUMPTIONS and don't even pretend to be against activist judges because W appointed two of them and you don't seem to give a damn about that.