Kagan confirmed

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Robert Snow, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    This is not a confirmation process I've been happy with over the past several months. I mean, how many of us can say we have an informed position on who Kagan is and how she might rule? This whole thing has been swept under the rug of media obscurity.

    I read over the transcripts of the confirmation proceedings and she just ducked and dodged too many questions to be comfortable with her. As well, her record (I scholars get records too) at Harvard is not a good one.

    While she has a formidable legal mind (her academic credentials shouldn't be underscored) there is more than a bit of room for concern. Imho, the best judges/justices are the ones familiar with practice of the law and not just legal theory. Her placement on the Court is akin to taking a DPhil theologian from Oxford and putting them at the head of a mega-church.

    It seems this is a last ditch effort by an enfeebled administration to get one last big one through before the midterms change everything.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >I mean, how many of us can say we have an informed position on who Kagan is and how she might rule?

    Asking that question demonstrates the goofiness of the American system.
     
  4. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to the United States Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 2) it is the President of the United States, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate", who appoints "Judges of the Supreme Court". There is no mention of the public's opinion of the person. We are a Republic, we elect representatives to represent us, they are the ones who make the laws and select judges (mainly, the President).

    She is certainly not the first, and probably will not be the last, Supreme Court nominee to duck and dodge questions he/she does not wish to answer. It happens all the time.

    While I would not support her for the Court we must learn that elections have consequences. Obama was elected President and thus he will nominate candidates to the Supreme Court.

    Don't count your chickens before they hatch. The Republicans are wonderful at putting both feet in their mouths and then wondering why they can't walk. If you want my opinion, the nation would be better if we walked away from this corrupt two party system. Basically we flip between two corrupt political parties that care nothing about doing what is right. We need a viable third party or independent candidates. Until people wake up and stop voting the same politicians into office, this cycle will continue.
     
  5. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    One more nail in the coffin of the US as we've known it!!
     
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,641
    Likes Received:
    158
    How much do we ever know about a person who is confirmed to the Supreme Court. Remember Eisenhower admitted, in so many words, that he was sorry he selected Warren to be the Chief Justice. Surely Eisenhower thought he knew Warren well, else he would not have nominated him.

    I watched the last three or four nominees and all said, under oath, in their hearings they felt precedence was and is very important and they would take it into consideration for all cases. And yet, the current court has been the most activist court in the history of our country in ignoring precedence.

    We never really know what we are getting when a new person sits on the court.
     
  7. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    This is not a case of "not knowing"!:tear:

    This is a case of ignoring the welfare of the nation for political gain.:tear:

    (And yes Crabby, it cuts across the aisle, so don't employ that retort!)
     
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,641
    Likes Received:
    158
    I beg to differ. We will not know what we have until she has a voting record.

    No one could have guess that the current court with the current chief justice would trample precedence. Certainly that was not indicated in his testimony under oath. He is heading the most activist court in our history. Again, that was not even a consideration during his testimony. Giving weight to precedence is to avoid activism.


    I agree. But the most activist chief justices we have had, Warren and Roberts were both nominated by Republican presidents. Just a thought.
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Pity.

    Another liberal ideologue with no regard for the Constitution now sits on SCOTUS.

    The good part is that the balance is not affected since she's replacing another liberal ideologue.
     
    #9 carpro, Aug 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2010
  10. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    I thoroughly distrust this Maria McSolomon court. If the California Prop 8 case makes it all the way there, how do you think they will rule? Can states define marriage as one man/one woman or can they not? If precedence is important, they should consider that Utah was not allowed to become a state until they defined marriage that way.
     

Share This Page

Loading...