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

[blu]

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.

Must be a slow news day if this is making you upset.

exactly, why do they stop the video while they are still talking?

 

[Gadawg73]

You folks areabout as dumb as a stick.
Kagan refuses to answer specific cases.If she did one these hearings would last 103 years.
Quit listening to Rush and Sean. They are brilliant entertainers and dumb as shit at law.

 

[Bern80]

You folks areabout as dumb as a stick.
Kagan refuses to answer specific cases.If she did one these hearings would last 103 years.
Quit listening to Rush and Sean. They are brilliant entertainers and dumb as shit at law.

The question wasn't about a specific case. It was asking about whether something is constitutional or not. Since determing whether something is constitutional or not is going to be her FUCKING JOB, I would say anyone (like yourself) that lets her off the hook for not answering is the one who is 'dumb as a stick'.

 

[Greenbeard]

She did answer.

 

[Bern80]

She did answer.

Okay, can someone provide a link of what she said AFTER the OP link cuts off?

 

[haileydavey]

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

Are you suggesting that you have to have a law degree in order to have an opinion on a law or who will be enforcing and interpreting that law? If that is the case then why should any one other than lawyers even vote.

That was a good question whether the senator is an embarrassment or not. I would not like to have a judge on the any court thinking it is alright for the government to tell me what to eat or that I have to have health coverage.

I am not big on people taking my freedom of choice away even it is for my benefit.

 

[Greenbeard]

She did answer.

Okay, can someone provide a link of what she said AFTER the OP link cuts off?

Yes.

 

[Gadawg73]

You folks areabout as dumb as a stick.
Kagan refuses to answer specific cases.If she did one these hearings would last 103 years.
Quit listening to Rush and Sean. They are brilliant entertainers and dumb as shit at law.

The question wasn't about a specific case. It was asking about whether something is constitutional or not. Since determing whether something is constitutional or not is going to be her FUCKING JOB, I would say anyone (like yourself) that lets her off the hook for not answering is the one who is 'dumb as a stick'.

Not OK with Bork, not OK with Kagan.
Asking whether something is constitutional or not is a specific case Moe.
How else could that work?

 

[Gadawg73]

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

Are you suggesting that you have to have a law degree in order to have an opinion on a law or who will be enforcing and interpreting that law? If that is the case then why should any one other than lawyers even vote.

That was a good question whether the senator is an embarrassment or not. I would not like to have a judge on the any court thinking it is alright for the government to tell me what to eat or that I have to have health coverage.

I am not big on people taking my freedom of choice away even it is for my benefit.

Wrong for Bork, wrong for Kagan.
Inappropriate questions.
Do you even remember Robert Bork?

 

[DiveCon]

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

i didnt read every post in this thread

but it seems right to me that she shouldn't
since its looking like the potential for such a law to be passed is at hand, and it is likely to be challenged before the court

 

[macrylinda]

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

Of course she will... most of the lefties in Congress have little regard for our Constitution.. nothing new here. Enjoy! Only a few months to go!

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.

Must be a slow news day if this is making you upset.