I was very excited about the possibility of a strongly progressive (possibly gay!)
Supreme Court justice. She has a very disturbing view on the death penalty, I don't know if the risk is worth it, though she may hopefully be playing possum to make the righteous righties happy.


http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149500/index.php

Yes

Some of her questioning has been entertaining, but her judicial record is non-existent (right, she was never a judge). Based on past performance, it would be the height of irresponsibility to confirm her to the court. EDIT: And I wouldn't support putting a Conservative on the bench who has never been a judge either.

Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/538850/201006291834/Constitution-Is-Endangered-If-Kagan-OKd.aspx
"Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth." (which by the way, was never intended to be any part of the Constitution)

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her "judicial hero.""

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2010 10:05AM by Registered Voter.

Yes we should oppose. She's dog ugly and looks like a marshmallow with
a smiley face carved in it's side.

Oh
Attachments:

Now there's something you don't see every day...

Her face reminds me of Paul Bearer from the WWF.

I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!!

YES, SHE JUST FARTED. JUST NOW. 12:36 PM SHE FARTED LOUD DURING HER HEARING.

SHE FARTED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YES, SHE JUST FARTED. JUST NOW. 12:36 PM SHE
> FARTED LOUD DURING HER HEARING.

In that case, she gets my vote!

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Progressive Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was very excited about the possibility of a
> strongly progressive (possibly gay!)
> Supreme Court justice. She has a very disturbing
> view on the death penalty, I don't know if the
> risk is worth it, though she may hopefully be
> playing possum to make the righteous righties
> happy.
>
>
> http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149500/in
> dex.php

If she isnt confirmed the next nominee will only be more conservative.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

There needs to be a balance to the overall make up of the Supreme Court - Kagan does not appear - at least on the surface - to be that person. She is very middle of the road and largely unknown. I would have hoped for a strong left of centre judge, Republicans be damned.

That is because she is well-educated and reasonable, qualities usually not found in far-left-leaning people.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There needs to be a balance to the overall make up
> of the Supreme Court - Kagan does not appear - at
> least on the surface - to be that person. She is
> very middle of the road and largely unknown. I
> would have hoped for a strong left of centre
> judge, Republicans be damned.

A "judge" would be the appropriate term.

I would have more respect for a left leaning judge than someone that is representing themselves to be something everyone knows they are not.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

SHE FARTED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YES, SHE JUST FARTED. JUST NOW. 12:36 PM SHE
> FARTED LOUD DURING HER HEARING.

I was skeptical, but CSPAN has proven you right.


http://cspan.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing-34894.aspx

It takes a second or two to load as it is automatically ff'ing to Sen. Grassley's question.

Fast forward to 1:13:45 that should give you enough lead time to build up to her loud flatulence at 1:13:58. Or, you could just scroll til you see 12:36 on the clock in the corner.

One thing I noticed is that she seems to stammer quite a bit.

stammerin stan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SHE FARTED Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > YES, SHE JUST FARTED. JUST NOW. 12:36 PM SHE
> > FARTED LOUD DURING HER HEARING.
>
> I was skeptical, but CSPAN has proven you right.
>
>
> http://cspan.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senat
> e-Confirmation-Hearing-34894.aspx
>
> It takes a second or two to load as it is
> automatically ff'ing to Sen. Grassley's question.
>
> Fast forward to 1:13:45 that should give you
> enough lead time to build up to her loud
> flatulence at 1:13:58. Or, you could just scroll
> til you see 12:36 on the clock in the corner.
>
> One thing I noticed is that she seems to stammer
> quite a bit.

Ewwwwww. That is nasty. I feel bad for the people sitting behind her. I wonder if it was her nerves or she ate something bad.

so what? she farted. you don't?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme
> Court when he complained on Chicago radio station
> WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't
> "radical" enough because "it didn't break free
> from the essential constraints placed by the
> Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to
> allow "redistribution of wealth." (which by the
> way, was never intended to be any part of the
> Constitution)


Sorry your comprehension skills are lacking. But then again that tape has been sliced and diced so much by the right wing, you dont know what Obama said.

Here is what he actually said, word for word

OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britdrnva~ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There needs to be a balance to the overall make
> up
> > of the Supreme Court - Kagan does not appear -
> at
> > least on the surface - to be that person. She
> is
> > very middle of the road and largely unknown. I
> > would have hoped for a strong left of centre
> > judge, Republicans be damned.
>
> A "judge" would be the appropriate term.
>
> I would have more respect for a left leaning judge
> than someone that is representing themselves to be
> something everyone knows they are not.


What...like the supposed unbiased Republican nominated Justices? Fuck..Clarence Thomas didnt ask a question on the bench for almost 2 years...he didnt need to know the facts on cases he had already made his mind up on! The Roberts COurt will go down in history as one of the worst in modern history...another testement to the stupidity of Republican dogma.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > "Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme
> > Court when he complained on Chicago radio
> station
> > WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court
> wasn't
> > "radical" enough because "it didn't break free
> > from the essential constraints placed by the
> > Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order
> to
> > allow "redistribution of wealth." (which by the
> > way, was never intended to be any part of the
> > Constitution)
>
>
> Sorry your comprehension skills are lacking. But
> then again that tape has been sliced and diced so
> much by the right wing, you dont know what Obama
> said.
>
> Here is what he actually said, word for word
>
> OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never
> happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you
> look at the victories and failures of the civil
> rights movement and its litigation strategy in the
> court, I think where it succeeded was to vest
> formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples
> so that I would now have the right to vote, I
> would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and
> order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be
> OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the
> issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of
> more basic issues of political and economic
> justice in this society.
>
> And, to that extent, as radical as I think people
> try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't
> that radical. It didn't break free from the
> essential constraints that were placed by the
> Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as
> it's been interpreted, and Warren Court
> interpreted it in the same way that, generally,
> the Constitution is a charter of negative
> liberties -- says what the states can't do to you,
> says what the federal government can't do to you,
> but it doesn't say what the federal government or
> the state government must do on your behalf, and
> that hasn't shifted.
>
> And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the
> civil rights movement was, because the civil
> rights movements became so court-focused, I think
> that there was a tendency to lose track of the
> political and community organizing, and activities
> on the ground that are able to put together the
> actual coalitions of power through which you bring
> about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we
> still suffer from that.

Sorry, but what in anything he said makes the point LESS valid? Nothing. He said the court wasn't as radical as people wanted to characterize it - that it didn't do those things. That kind of leaves the implication hanging that Obama thinks they SHOULD HAVE done just that. Nowhere in his statement does he say that they should not have done it - he pretty obviously believes they should have. I mean come on, if you can hold Rand Paul to task for talking about the Civil Rights movement in almost exactly the same way on the other side, then what Obama said here was just as incriminating from the other.

The only fail here RP is yours in trying to defend what he said as anything else. It is pretty obvious from his actions as President, what he really meant - he is just attempting to implement as a function of big government since the Courts are not doing it for him now.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What...like the supposed unbiased Republican
> nominated Justices? Fuck..Clarence Thomas didnt
> ask a question on the bench for almost 2
> years...he didnt need to know the facts on cases
> he had already made his mind up on! The Roberts
> COurt will go down in history as one of the worst
> in modern history...another testement to the
> stupidity of Republican dogma.

You mean this guy?

Clarence Thomas Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
"Thomas was the only black person at his high school in Savannah, where he was an honor student.[10] He was raised Roman Catholic. (He later attended an Episcopal church with his first wife but returned to the Catholic Church in the late 1990s.) He considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16, and became the first black student to attend St. John Vianney's Minor Seminary (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope.[9] He also briefly attended Conception Seminary College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Missouri. No one in Thomas's family had attended college. Thomas has said that during his first year in seminary, he was one of only "three or four" blacks' attending the school.[10] Thomas told interviewers that he left the seminary in the aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He had overheard another student say after the shooting, "Good, I hope the son of a bitch died."[5][11] He did not think the church did enough to combat racism.[9]"


"Thomas has recollected that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after graduating. He said that potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies.[17] According to Thomas, he was "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated."[18]"


"In June 1989, President George H. W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, despite Thomas's initial protestations that he would not like to be a judge.[42] Thomas gained the support of other African Americans such as former Transportation Secretary William Coleman, but said that when meeting white Democratic staffers in the United States Senate, he was "struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a black man of not caring about civil rights."[42]

Thomas's confirmation hearing was uneventful.[43] He developed warm relationships during his 19 months on the federal court, including with fellow federal judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[42][44]"


"Thomas denied the allegations, using what a biographer calls "one of the most memorable lines in American judicial history":[68]

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[69]"


"41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination. "


It's amazing to me that you would spout on all the racism in America, and then here is an example where someone overcame race to become successful - and because they don't think the way you think they should, suddenly they are a bad example. Seems like Obama had a very similar story, and yet he is ok. Yeah, fuck you (R)V - you are truly the biggest racist I have known.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Thomas is a very strange judge, extremely conservative, never says a word. I wonder what he's like during deliberations behind closed doors...probably just nods his head to everything Alito says. I know his wife has a major influence on the decisions he makes. Though I suppose anyone's SO will have an influence on who you are as a person generally.

Despite the great academics and his feelings of inadequacy..Clarence Thomas is a sexual harasser...just ask Anita Hill.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

If you are a republican zombie you blindly oppose anything democrats do, especially if it's good the US.

Because being a bitter, self-centered, ignorant, back ass redneck republican is far more important than building a better United States of America. RV is a great example.

Lopter60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are a democratic zombie you blindly oppose
> anything republicans do, especially if it's good the
> US.
>
> Because being a bitter, self-centered, ignorant,
> back ass racist democrat is far more important
> than building a better United States of America.
> Lopter and (R)V are great examples.

There, fixed it for ya.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

As the Dean of Harvard Law School Kagan gets my vote.

Looks like Lopter is getting all worked up and making things personal. Not that he had thoughts and ideas in his head to begin with, but simply hurling mud is a sign of desperation on his part. To be fair, it is really difficult to defend this turd bomb of an administration and Congress.

Lopter62 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the Dean of Harvard Law School Kagan gets my
> vote.

Did you go to Harvard Law School? Are you saying this, because you personally witnessed her leadership and legal skills while either employed by or attending Harvard Law?

Come on RV, I expected better. Where's the Kagan's mother's brother's sister in law once saw a terrorist at some meeting?

Sum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter62 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As the Dean of Harvard Law School Kagan gets my
> > vote.
>
> Did you go to Harvard Law School? Are you saying
> this, because you personally witnessed her
> leadership and legal skills while either employed
> by or attending Harvard Law?

No, and I wasn't in the delivery room when she was born but I believe she is a US citizen. So let's get that out the way too.

Lopter49 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on RV, I expected better. Where's the
> Kagan's mother's brother's sister in law once saw
> a terrorist at some meeting?


That's more the tactic you employ. Don't deny it. Don't even try. There is more than enough supporting evidence.

Loprter59 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sum Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lopter62 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > As the Dean of Harvard Law School Kagan gets
> my
> > > vote.
> >
> > Did you go to Harvard Law School? Are you
> saying
> > this, because you personally witnessed her
> > leadership and legal skills while either
> employed
> > by or attending Harvard Law?
>
> No, and I wasn't in the delivery room when she was
> born but I believe she is a US citizen. So let's
> get that out the way too.

So, you know a great deal about what a law school dean does, the prerequisites that are required to get the job and the functions that would prepared someone in that position to be a justice on the SCOTUS?