Kagan: WTF?

[Woyzeck]

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.

If you don't know what it means, why aren't you trying to understand it? It's not that hard to go look up a dictionary for what 'deference' or 'Congress' means if you're so confused.

Again, I'd still like the rest of the context of the quote to be posted, as well as the question that was asked of her, if there was one. It might help you be less confused if you didn't just look at two or three sentences.

 

[Gatekeeper]

This woman if confirmed will be a female version of Obama, and equally dangerous to this Republic.

And make no mistake about it, this administration WILL confirm KAGAN, it's and 'Authoritarian administration no brainer'. We do have a representative government don't we, we elect them to office, and they do what the hell they want even if it violates, in my opinion, their promises in campaign speeches, I mean lies, all designed to achieve power. Once the election process is over, it seems that is the end of OUR, (citizens), involvement, and the country belongs to THEM, what they promised us in order to get elected is history, so much for representation.

Another grave mistake is about to occur, Kagen will be confirmed. With people like this,maybe next time the gun control might be 5-4 in favor of disarming America. Might as well have elected Ho Chi Min and his gang of merry followers. Four of the members on the Supreme Court should be tossed out or go live in China or North Korea, even join the New KGB. Sounds radical? Well THEY, those (4), are leftist progressives in my opinion, and determined to undermine the people of America and it's constitution.

Thanks to all you brain dead voters and leftists that put Mr. Obama in as POTUS. Only one thing good about it, your all going down with the rest of us, if we don't change things in a very timely manner, unfortunately we have too many gutless people in the Senate and Congress that outnumber the ones that don't want to turn America over to our 'enemies'. Never thought I would see the day that so many anti-Americans would be in Washington D.C. AND on the SCOTUS. But then again I just look in here and see them all over.

 

[Misty]

"In political history deference means the strong tendency of inferiors to acknowledge the legitimacy of the power of their superiors.[1] Deference implies a yielding or submitting to the judgment of a recognized superior out of respect or reverence."

 

[Political Junky]

why does that libturd Khol keep calling her "general" ?

Because that's the correct way to address her.

 

[MikeK]

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?

To say precisely what it means can only be speculative without specific examples. But proper deference does not mean absolute deference. So my guess is it is empty legal rhetoric that means, show Congress the appropriate level of respect but do what you will.

 

[EriktheRed]

I'd like to just point out to the rabid victims of ODS on here that this President who you despise so much is going to put his imprint on the SCOTUS twice in less than two years after first being elected.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jarhead]

I'd like to just point out to the rabid victims of ODS on here that this President who you despise so much is going to put his imprint on the SCOTUS twice in less than two years after first being elected.

Have a nice day.

First of all, I do not despise him. I disagree with his ideology and his approach to governing. I admire his intellect and his charisma. I am not impressed with hios "handlers", but they were not on the ticket.

Secondly, I would have it no other way. It is his job to nominate and it is the role of the peoples voices (the senate) to confirm.

I admire and respect our system.

Sorry, you can not get my goat. I do not agree with her as a pick, but if she is confirmed, then the system worked as it should regardless of my personal sentiments. Ifg she is not confirmed, then the system worked regardless of my personal sentiments.

 

[boedicca]

I'd like to just point out to the rabid victims of ODS on here that this President who you despise so much is going to put his imprint on the SCOTUS twice in less than two years after first being elected.

Have a nice day.

He'll replace two liberals with two other liberals.

That doesn't change the balance on the court.

 

[The Rabbi]

What did i lie about?? I quoted you word for word and didn't change your statement or your question. You spun and now you hit and run.

So i guess I know which way you went on this question

"Care to explain or are you merely going to call me a liar and run away to CYA?"

It seems that you chose the low road and are calling me a liar and running away because your got called out for your spin. How typical and epected.

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.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

They all know the "law" what they dont know is the constitution, all they care about is case law ,, incrementalism.
That makes them progressive turds

 

[EriktheRed]

I'd like to just point out to the rabid victims of ODS on here that this President who you despise so much is going to put his imprint on the SCOTUS twice in less than two years after first being elected.

Have a nice day.

He'll replace two liberals with two other liberals.

That doesn't change the balance on the court.

He'll next likely replace Ginsburg, too. Still he's getting to put his own influence on the SCOTUS.

 

[boedicca]

Here's another Kagan WTF:

She refuses to say that it's unconstitutional for the Government to tell us what to eat.

Unfrellingbelievable.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo]Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat [/ame]

 

[Modbert]

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

I notice you don't give the full context. But hey, when you're getting your videos from Republican SCOTUS, honesty is one of the first casualties.

I only have one question for you Boe, how is it being a Republican and having to act as if you're ashamed of it on this board as to have any credibility?

 

[Woyzeck]

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

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"?

 

[Zona]

"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?

She also said the word "the" twice. WFT?

Oh and in case you forgot.....please see below for your daily reminder about your credibility.

 

[Zona]

All this bitching and for what? Righty's, eat this. She will be sworn in and the minute she is, I will laugh at all of you and think of this thread.


EAT 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?

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?

 

[Woyzeck]

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"?

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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"?

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.