Kagen Must Be Stopped

[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.

Just reviewed the thread. YOU ask no question of me. So either you are senile or a liar. Which is it?

 

[Newby]

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.

Why was the decision she made 'in the best interests of the institution' if it was against the law or even if it wasn't?

 

[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, 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.

While I can appreciate your passion, I can't say that I share it. I just don't see the Democrats as evil, just often not right. While I might prefer a candidate with more experience, Kagan's appointment to the bench will have no real effect on the balance we currently have in the court. For this reason my concerns are not what they would be were a conservative Justice stepping down. I am also of the opinion that the Republicans could achieve the goals you set out simply by conducting a rigorous interview during the confirmation hearing, and they'd come out looking better. There is no way to avoid appointing an Obama candidate to the Court, but by the same token, there is no need to rubber stamp Kagan's nomination.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Aw, jeez......here we go, again...... ​

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....."

....As if that's gonna help you.

​

 

[Father Time]

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.

Except they have cases to decide before then, in fact there's one case they're supposed to decide in October that I'm waiting for so I rather not have that be delayed.

Really you just want to delay it because you think the repubs will win in November and thus deny her. You want the rules changed or the government slowed down just to fit your wants.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 thee 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.

Do you know that one of the deadly sins is Pride, defined as a mere mortal suggesting they speak for God?
Do you know that one of God's commandments prohibited bearing false witness?
Do you know we live in a Constitutional Republic where each representative is elected to vote his or her conscience, and efforts to thwart the process by invoking devine authority demonstrates a disdain for the principles upon which the U.S. was founded (and usually suggests those who so act are mentally unstable)?
Do you understand, somewhere in the deep and self righteous confines of your brain, that OCD is treatable, and many members of the clergy, priesthood, etc. can treat you and provide theraphy within the parameters of your faith?
Finally, do you know faith is fine, dandy and helpful for many, but when one takes faith and makes it into political dogma all debate ends, and necessarily leads to violations of other commandments?

 

[Flopper]

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?

A lot.

What Supreme Court Justices were not judges prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court?

Chief Justices
John Jay..............................Governor
John Rutledge......................Governor
Oliver Ellsworth....................Senator
John Marshall.......................Secretary of State
Roger Taney.........................Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Attorney General
Salmon Chase......................Secretary of the Treasury, Governor
Morrison Waite.....................Lawyer
Melville Fuller.......................Representative
Edward White.......................Lawyer
William Howard Taft..............U.S. President
Charles Hughes....................Secretary of State
Harlan Stone........................Attorney General
Fred Vinson..........................Secretary of the Treasury
Earl Warren..........................Governor


Associate Justices
William Cushing...................Member, Continental Congress
James Wilson......................Member, Continental Congress
William Paterson..................Governor
Samuel Chase.....................Member, Maryland General Assembly; Continental Congress
Bushrod Washington............Lawyer
William Johnson..................Representative, S.C. House
Henry B. Livingston.............Military
Gabriel Duvall.....................Representative
Joseph Story.......................Representative
Smith Thompson.................Secretary of the Navy
John McLean.......................Unknown
Henry Baldwin....................Representative
James M. Wayne.................Mayor, Representative
Philip P. Barbour..................Representative
John McKinley.....................Senator, Representative
Levi Woodbury....................Governor, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of the Navy
Benjamin Curtis..................Lawyer
John Campbell....................Lawyer
Nathan Clifford....................Attorney General
Noah Swayne......................Member, Ohio Legislature, U.S. Attorney
Samuel Miller......................Lawyer
David Davis........................Senator
Joseph Bradley....................Lawyer
John M. Harlan (I)...............Kentucky Attorney General
Stanley Matthews................U.S. Attorney, Military
Horace Gray........................Lawyer
Lucius Lamar.......................Member, Georgia House, Secretary of the Interior
George Shiras, Jr.................Lawyer
Howell Jackson....................Member, Tennessee House
Edward D. White..................Lawyer
William Henry Moody............Attorney General
Mahlon Pitney.....................Congress (office unspecified)
James McReynolds...............Attorney General
Louis Brandeis.....................Lawyer
George Sutherland...............Congress (office unspecified)
Pierce Butler.......................Lawyer
Edward Sanford...................Attorney General
Owen Roberts......................Assistant District Attorney
Hugo L. Black......................Senator
Stanley Forman Reed...........Solicitor General
Felix Frankfurter..................Lawyer
William O. Douglas...............Law Professor, Chairman of SEC
Frank Murphy......................Mayor, Governor, Attorney General
James Francis Byrnes...........Secretary of State
Robert H. Jackson................Attorney General
Harold Hitz Burton................Senator
Tom Clark...........................Attorney General
John M. Harlan (II)..............Lawyer
Arthur J. Goldberg...............Secretary of Labor
Abe Fortas..........................President and Chairman of the SEC
Thurgood Marshall...............Lawyer
Lewis F. Powell....................Lawyer

I think the right is going have to come up with something better than she never served as a judge.

WikiAnswers - What Supreme Court Justices were not judges prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court

 

[LibocalypseNow]

She's obviously a radical Socialist/Progressive. I couldn't support her. No Republican should either.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

i.e. She's another woman who'll make "conservative"-males look like oedipal-spawn they've always been.​

"With much of the competition away in the Pacific and European theaters, Wayne was able to storm movie theaters to solidify his stardom. While Jimmy Stewart and his fellow celebrity servicemen were real action heroes, Wayne was a “Lights! Cameras! Action!” hero who merely played the part in the safety of Tinseltown’s home front and back lot."

"ooooooooooooooo.....the big, bad COWBOY!!!!"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I think the Senators from both parties need to ask series questions about her qualifications.

Yeah....we know....like "Where's her birth-certificate???".....right?

​

 

[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.

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.

My point is that these arguments are a bit dumb at this point in time and has little to do with her qualifications but has everything to do with who appointed her. There have been plenty of supreme court judges that have not served as a judge. The right has not raked up any muck yet.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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 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.

Yeah.....that ol' cracker's got the experience/background to get-the-job-done, right??



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFGPaqK7I6k&feature=related]YouTube - The Rachel Maddow Show: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III's Ugly Past[/ame]​

 

[Wry Catcher]

She's obviously a radical Socialist/Progressive. I couldn't support her. No Republican should either.

Ouch, what happened to the big tent?

"Honey, I shrunk the Tent" starring Sarah Palin as Michael Steele, Sean Hannity as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh as President-Elect Big Dick Cheney.
A special Fox News/Entertainment colaboration sponsored by BP. Watch also the first annual Maverslips Slickoil Slip and Slide Beach Race on South Padre Island (oil courtesy of BP and its subsidiary, Hilaburton) following the Simpsons next Sunday on Fox.

 

[Flopper]

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.

While I can appreciate your passion, I can't say that I share it. I just don't see the Democrats as evil, just often not right. While I might prefer a candidate with more experience, Kagan's appointment to the bench will have no real effect on the balance we currently have in the court. For this reason my concerns are not what they would be were a conservative Justice stepping down. I am also of the opinion that the Republicans could achieve the goals you set out simply by conducting a rigorous interview during the confirmation hearing, and they'd come out looking better. There is no way to avoid appointing an Obama candidate to the Court, but by the same token, there is no need to rubber stamp Kagan's nomination.

The question should not be whether she will vote the way you would like her to vote, but rather will she make a good judge? Will she be able to put personal preferences, prejudices, and political philosophies aside and interpret the law based on sound legal argument.

 

[Murf76]

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 Supreme Court decided against her position UNANIMOUSLY in 2006. Nine-zip. You can't get further off the trail than that. You don't think maybe that outcome should have been predictable to someone in her position?

Maybe she could have saved some time, money, and aggravation, by not putting her personal views first.



You're aware that she's the one who argued Citizens United aren't you? Apparently, ineffectively if we're to take into account the liberal outrage on the decision.
Elena Kagan and Citizens United - Ed Whelan - Bench Memos on National Review Online

 

[LibocalypseNow]

She's obviously a radical Socialist/Progressive. I couldn't support her. No Republican should either.

Ouch, what happened to the big tent?

"Honey, I shrunk the Tent" starring Sarah Palin as Michael Steele, Sean Hannity as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh as President-Elect Big Dick Cheney.
A special Fox News/Entertainment colaboration sponsored by BP. Watch also the first annual Maverslips Slickoil Slip and Slide Beach Race on South Padre Island (oil courtesy of BP and its subsidiary, Hilaburton) following the Simpsons next Sunday on Fox.

Doh! Your boy Hopey Changey took the most cash from BP no? He hasn't even criticized them for God's sake. Has he returned all that BP cash yet? Blaming BOOOOOOOSH & Palin on this one just isn't gonna cut it this time. Your boy has handled this awful oil spill calamity very badly. I don't care how the Obama-Run MSM tries to spin it for him. They haven't even stopped the leak yet. As for "Big Tents",your boy wouldn't be putting up such blatant Socialist/Progressive-types if he really believed in that stuff. "Big Tent" rhetoric is not only out-dated but is also Bull Chit.

 

[DavidS]

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.

Unqualified? How is she unqualified? Was Rehnquist unqualified? Marshall? The 1 out 8 Supreme Court Judges who weren't judges before?

Or is she unqaulified because her personal viewpoints might not align with yours and you can't stand the idea of anyone disagreeing with you?

 

[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 thee 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.

Do you know that one of the deadly sins is Pride, defined as a mere mortal suggesting they speak for God?

All mortals should speak for God if they think they have been inspired to do so. God speaks through human mouths that He has informed as to what to say. This excludes the devil's disciples such as any Democrat.

Do you know that one of God's commandments prohibited bearing false witness?

The Commandment, properly understood, is to not lie to, or about, another Believer. Heathens, such as Demonrats, can be, and should be, lied to, at will.

Do you know we live in a Constitutional Republic where each representative is elected to vote his or her conscience, and efforts to thwart the process by invoking devine authority demonstrates a disdain for the principles upon which the U.S. was founded (and usually suggests those who so act are mentally unstable)?

Demonrats typically want to invoke God, whom they hate, and Psychology, which the devil created, to try to demoralize and defeat Conservative Believer Republicans.

Do you understand, somewhere in the deep and self righteous confines of your brain, that OCD is treatable, and many members of the clergy, priesthood, etc. can treat you and provide theraphy within the parameters of your faith?

Using charges of mental illness to win political arguments is a bigoted slur against people who have real mental disabilities. It is typical Demonrat Fascist mentality.

Finally, do you know faith is fine, dandy and helpful for many, but when one takes faith and makes it into political dogma all debate ends, and necessarily leads to violations of other commandments?

All faith should be taken and made into political dogma and stuffed down the throats of the Demonrats. That is the way to honor and obey all the Commandments.

I Am Rubber, You Are Glue

 

[hjmick]

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.

While I can appreciate your passion, I can't say that I share it. I just don't see the Democrats as evil, just often not right. While I might prefer a candidate with more experience, Kagan's appointment to the bench will have no real effect on the balance we currently have in the court. For this reason my concerns are not what they would be were a conservative Justice stepping down. I am also of the opinion that the Republicans could achieve the goals you set out simply by conducting a rigorous interview during the confirmation hearing, and they'd come out looking better. There is no way to avoid appointing an Obama candidate to the Court, but by the same token, there is no need to rubber stamp Kagan's nomination.

The question should not be whether she will vote the way you would like her to vote, but rather will she make a good judge? Will she be able to put personal preferences, prejudices, and political philosophies aside and interpret the law based on sound legal argument.

Overall, I agree with you Flop. But I think we both know that personal preferences, prejudices, and political philosophies are sometimes not so easily set aside. In a perfect world, perhaps, but not ours. As for whether or not they would vote the way I would like, what would you say to the appoinment of a judge who favored repealling the Second Amendment? The Fifth? Roe v. Wade? I think we all have pet concerns that could be effected by the SCOTUS. So, among other things, we should all want qualified, fair individuals serving on the bench, but we should also concern ourselves with how they may or may not vote.

 

[jillian]

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 Supreme Court decided against her position UNANIMOUSLY in 2006. Nine-zip. You can't get further off the trail than that. You don't think maybe that outcome should have been predictable to someone in her position?

Maybe she could have saved some time, money, and aggravation, by not putting her personal views first.



You're aware that she's the one who argued Citizens United aren't you? Apparently, ineffectively if we're to take into account the liberal outrage on the decision.
Elena Kagan and Citizens United - Ed Whelan - Bench Memos on National Review Online

The Supreme Court made a decision. And? She took a position I happen to agree with vis a vis the military. But it's clear the court wouldn't agree. Again, I'm not seeing your point, so perhaps we're speaking at cross-purposes.

And your point re citizen's united?

Remember... I said she wouldn't be my choice. They should have gone left because no matter what he does, you guys fight anyway.

*shrug*