You know, I’m not such a fan of Kagan.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 5:58 AM GMT
    There’s such little public information about her independently held policy views that Obama could only have nominated her if he had had private information on those views. Since he evidently liked that private information, her preferences are most likely similar to his, meaning she’ll prioritize pragmatism over philosophical rigor (something her policy background suggests as well), which is something that certainly doesn’t fit my ideal Supreme Court Justice profile.

    It seems like surprisingly many liberals are just eating her up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 7:33 AM GMT
    Hmmm true. And like Obama she could just be a fake Liberal. But being Jewish statistically I don't think she'll venture too far conservative.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 14, 2010 8:29 AM GMT
    Well, you'll have about 40 years to get to know her, because I guarantee she'll be confirmed...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 8:41 AM GMT
    But she won't live until 90. Again, she's Jewish. She's most likely neurotic and will die of a heart attack in her 70s. I know I will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 3:45 PM GMT
    JakeBenson saidBut she won't live until 90. Again, she's Jewish. She's most likely neurotic and will die of a heart attack in her 70s. I know I will.


    No Jewish U.S. Supreme Court Justice has lived to 90 years of age but three have lived into their 80's:

    Louis Brandeis (84 yrs.)
    Felix Frankfurter (82 yrs.)
    Arthur Goldberg (81 yrs.)
    Abe Fortas (71 yrs.)
    Benjamin Cardozo (68 yrs.)

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg (currently 77 yrs.)
    Stephen Breyer (currently 71 yrs)

    I doubt there's any possibility of Jake Benson ever making it to the bench.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 4:13 PM GMT
    Satyricon331 said

    It seems like surprisingly many liberals are just eating her up.



    That's not true. I know many liberals that aren't eating her up, though it appears Kagan has a voracious appetite, so she'll likely eat them up if they get too close to her. Personally, I don't trust her as far as I could throw her, and given Kagan's weight, I doubt I would be able to throw her at all.

    I don't like Kagan in the least. She says she's straight. Straight? She says she's against gay marriage. What? I don't like hypocrites. That dyke is a walking, talking hypocrite.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 14, 2010 4:27 PM GMT
    reppaT saidShe says she's against gay marriage. What? I don't like hypocrites. That dyke is a walking, talking hypocrite.


    I'm not defending Kagan, but merely pointing out that I don't believe she has come out specifically against gay marriage --- she only stated that the constitution, as it stands now, does not guarantee the right to gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 4:56 PM GMT
    True, Kagan does not believe there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. Doesn't that tell you something? Not to over-simplify this, but I would argue that Kagan doesn't believe it is a matter for political process, either.

    I am aware of the need for any SPJ nominee's Q&A sessions to be as opaque as possible, but this is ridiculous.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 14, 2010 5:02 PM GMT
    reppaT saidTrue, Kagan does not believe there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. Doesn't that tell you something?


    Yes it does, it tells me that Kagan stated what is fact in terms of how the "Constitution" is currently written, and that is that there is currently no constitutional right to "Gay Marriage". That's not necessarily her opinion, it's a fact. We can change the constitution at some point to include the right to gay marriage, but currently there is no such right as protected under the constitution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 5:19 PM GMT
    I'd still rather have Obama picking Supreme Court justices than McCain, which is why I voted for Obama in the first place. I never bought into all that hopey-changey nonsense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2010 5:50 PM GMT
    paradox saidI'd still rather have Obama picking Supreme Court justices than McCain, which is why I voted for Obama in the first place. I never bought into all that hopey-changey nonsense.


    I prefer his picks to McCain's too, but the problem here is that her expected ideology is more centrist than Obama would have picked if he wanted to make amends with progressives,
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2010 1:04 AM GMT
    i see yo been stripping while im gone.....look at u dawg.....looking all hommie with them booty call undies.....u go gurl icon_cool.gif now shake it fast!!

    two-thumbs-up.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2010 2:44 AM GMT
    ^_^

    I still dislike Kagan.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 27, 2010 7:05 PM GMT
    Satyricon331 saidThere’s such little public information about her independently held policy views that Obama could only have nominated her if he had had private information on those views. Since he evidently liked that private information, her preferences are most likely similar to his, meaning she’ll prioritize pragmatism over philosophical rigor (something her policy background suggests as well), which is something that certainly doesn’t fit my ideal Supreme Court Justice profile.

    It seems like surprisingly many liberals are just eating her up.




    Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas
    What positive qualifications did these religious nuts and corporate whores have to become Supreme Court justices ?

    Regardless, Kagan will be confirmed.
    Good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2010 7:21 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Yes it does, it tells me that Kagan stated what is fact in terms of how the "Constitution" is currently written, and that is that there is currently no constitutional right to "Gay Marriage". That's not necessarily her opinion, it's a fact. We can change the constitution at some point to include the right to gay marriage, but currently there is no such right as protected under the constitution.


    If that is true, for that matter, there is no constitutional right to straight marriage either.

    Why would she single out gay marriage then? It was unnecessary and probably reflective of her real views on the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2010 7:23 PM GMT
    Satyricon331 said
    I still dislike Kagan.


    Me too. I also dislike Obama, come to think of it, and for similar reasons.
  • darkeyedresol...

    Posts: 171

    May 27, 2010 7:26 PM GMT
    She is just a by product of a process that penalizes people with long careers, they less of a paper trail the less opposition can be raised. It doesn't really bother me she isn't a judge, about a third of all Supreme Court Justices weren't judges prior. I am just bothered by the trend she represents, that you now want some one with less experience so they can't be picked apart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2010 7:45 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    reppaT saidTrue, Kagan does not believe there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. Doesn't that tell you something?


    Yes it does, it tells me that Kagan stated what is fact in terms of how the "Constitution" is currently written, and that is that there is currently no constitutional right to "Gay Marriage". That's not necessarily her opinion, it's a fact. We can change the constitution at some point to include the right to gay marriage, but currently there is no such right as protected under the constitution.


    Actually, her statement that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage could have meant that she thinks there is no such right given the current Supreme Court precedents, in which case the Court could create one. It would depend on her theory of constitutional interpretation, which might be favorable for us, but I don't have much confidence in. I just don't trust Obama's "fierce advocacy" that much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2010 7:46 PM GMT
    viveutvivas saidWhy would she single out gay marriage then? It was unnecessary and probably reflective of her real views on the issue.


    As I recall, she was responding to a Congressional query that specifically asked her opinion regarding gay-marriage rights.
  • BlackBeltGuy

    Posts: 2609

    May 27, 2010 8:12 PM GMT
    we'll see the true colors of obama soon enough. thats all im saying
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 28, 2010 9:28 AM GMT
    KARATE1974 saidwe'll see the true colors of obama soon enough. thats all im saying




    (rolls eyes...)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2010 2:22 PM GMT
    Surprise. Just like Obama, Kagan has a strange bias in favor of interpersonal religious impositions.

    Wrote Kagan in the memo:The plurality’s reasoning seems to me quite outrageous almost as if a court were to hold that a state law does not impose a substantial burden on religion because the complainant is free to move to another state...[G]iven the importance of this issue to the President and the danger this decision poses to [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s] guarantee of religious freedom in the State of California, I think there is an argument to be made for urging the Court to review and reverse the decision.


    Kagan’s position in the memo is troubling. Since courts do not, except in rare circumstances, examine the substance of a religious belief, they need a blanket rule whether claimed religious beliefs can trump an anti-discrimination law or not. Forget sexual orientation; Kagan’s position, that this type of housing anti-discrimination statute “impose[s] a substantial burden on religion,” would I think entail allowing people to discriminate commercially against others for their race, or most particularly for their religious beliefs. So rather than promoting religious freedom, it would make small religious minorities face extensive difficulty just trying to live their lives ordinarily, such as by finding a job or an apartment.

    I haven't been able to find the full memo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2010 2:04 AM GMT
    I dont like her either, but as i said to my much more conservative brother: the new qualification for supremes is to have recently been approved by the senate for a similar post. otherwise its a bloodbath, see: harriet myers. this has been true at least since john roberts, who had recently been confirmed by the same groups of senators for a lower court, how could they say no, when they just said yes? thats the new rule for senate confirmations.i dont like it but that's washington.

    second issue: i hear tell that when she was harvard law school dean she was out as a lesbian and attended functions with her partner. that story has disappeared along with any evidence of her personal life...
    way to go obama? ( i voted macain.icon_cool.gif)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2010 2:13 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidWell, you'll have about 40 years to get to know her, because I guarantee she'll be confirmed...


    Yup.. you're right about that. The conservatives like her, so I don't
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 18, 2010 6:11 AM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    Satyricon331 said
    I still dislike Kagan.


    Me too. I also dislike Obama, come to think of it, and for similar reasons.




    Obama's a LESBIAN ?!