Kagan embarrasses herself in front of SCotUS: argues in favor of banning books

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JohnDeereFan, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    Wow.............
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Big Ban Theory

    "The book-banning claim against Kagan is completely spurious, based on a distortion of her remarks at a Supreme Court oral argument in the Citizens United case as well as the comments made the same week Kagan started as solicitor general by Malcolm Stewart, a career deputy solicitor general who argued the case last spring. Not only have these isolated comments blossomed into full-on hysteria over Kagan the potential book banner, but they actually have come to obscure the fact that how Kagan herself would vote in campaign finance cases is far from clear. Her own academic writings show she is deeply concerned about incumbents passing laws to protect themselves from competition, and she could well end up agreeing with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas that limits on campaign spending by corporations are unconstitutional."

    - rest at www.slate.com/id/2254830
     
  4. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction.

    Glenn Beck famously said that the only difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain wants to take the country to Hell in a horse and buggy and Obama wants to take the country to Hell in a rocket ship.

    When this woman is confirmed (and make no mistake, she will be confirmed), don't be surprised if you hear a voice that says, "Houston, we have ignition."
     
  5. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    Listen to the audio.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have access to YouTube at the moment. But I have read a transcript; is this what the video covers:

    www.nysun.com/editorials/would-kagan-ban-books/86957/


    For the record, if I was a U.S. senator I would vote against confirming Ms. Kagan because she is not libertarian in her judicial philosophy.
     
  7. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    So, in other words, you believe a Slate editorial over Kagan's own words?

    If these clames are so "spurious", then how is it that even the Supreme Court Justices understand that this is what she's saying? Scalia even mocks her for it at the end of the audio.

    So let me get this straight: the Justices are idiots, the folks at Breitbart are idiots, we're all idiots, but you alone know the truth and are here to enlighten us?
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. Never said that. I merely offered an opinion piece from someone with a different opinion about this than yours.
     
  9. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    So then you admit that they're opinion pieces and not actual refutation of Kagan's own words in the audio?
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely.
     
  11. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I question the intelligence and/or loyalty to our form of government of any senator who, without any evaluation, votes for Kagan.

    What kind of monumental stupidity must one have to not even be willing to evaluate such an important applicant? What kind of mental and ethical midget must one be--to simply say, "well, if the Prez said to vote her in...then she must be perfect for the job!"

    I want some senators with the anatomical sufficiency to actually consider critically a person who will receive a lifetime appointment.

    I want people in Congress that will have some modicum of understanding as to the train wreck someone like Kagan will be to our Constitutional Republic. A person with disdain for free speech, our Constitution, our military, unborn children, and (apparently) straight folks should never, EVER be allowed to serve in such an important position. However...because we have such abjectly stupid people involved in this confirmation process, there is no chance at all that Kagan won't be confirmed. Let's face it: Obama could nominate Sadam Husseein, and he'd get 51 votes. Because we have spineless jellyfish who are more scared of offending "the base" than doing the right thing, we'll end up with Kagan, and likely a couple more like her. Heck...if Obama gets another term, I doubt he nominates another straight person. No doubt he won't nominate anyone who has read, comprehended, or remotely appreciates our Constitution.

    We are one vote away from unprecedented nullification of our most basic freedoms...as well as virulently anti-Christian policies. 5-4 can, and likely will, become 4-5.

    Christians, pray that our court remains healthy until this freedom-hating cancer is no longer in office.
     
  12. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope Kagan is confirmed. :thumbsup:
     
  13. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    Why do you hope she's confirmed?
     
  14. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    • Because Robert would rather "stick it to right-wingers" than do what is healthy and right for our country.
    • Because Robert in his heart believes that if Obama nominates someone for SC, they must be right for our country--there's no way that Barack would ever hurt us...he is too good, too right, too perfect to do such a thing.
    • Because Robert isn't all that concerned about partial-birth abortion--and the delivery of children for the expressed purpose of brutally murdering them...well, that's just the price we pay for "reproductive rights."
    • Because it doesn't bother Robert that this "woman" has a disdain for the military unmatched by any other SC justice.
    • Because Robert thinks our right to bear arms and protect ourselves should be at the least severely curtailed--and at the most, repealed.
    • Because Robert is not at all bothered that we're about to confirm a SC justice that thinks we should refer to international law in interpreting our own.
    In summary:
    • Robert is either uninformed, unconcerned, or is more excited about "sticking it" to his political adversaries than for the good of this country and its citizenry.
    Robert, have you even bothered researching Kagan's positions?
    And...why do her positions on abortion (even partial-birth), second-amendment rights, the rights of states as enumerated by the constitution, her hostility toward the US military, her referring to international law in interpreting our own, her systemic discrimination (affinity for affirmative action and pro-gay discriminatory practices), her outright view that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, her pro-censorship views--not to mention her profound lack of experience and troubling leftist positions--not concern you?

    Are you that obsessed with supporting King Obama at all costs? Or do you simply agree with Kagan's views? Or are you that uninformed (yet apathetic to your plight)?

    I cannot believe that a rational person with a Christian worldview would take a position such as yours...especially with the mountain of evidence stacked against your view.
     
  15. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Kagan will be a good justice. I'm surprised that the President would appoint someone so moderate to replace Justice Stevens. I think it's a good thing. If Obama had appointed another Stevens I might end up opposing the nomination.
     
  16. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    Based on...?
     
  17. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    Likes Received:
    45
    More like "Houston,we have a problem".
     
  18. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    One post up from yours details Kagan's views. To ignore them suggests a complete break from reality.

    To refer to her as "moderate" is comical at best; a more accurate description of that position would be "nutso."
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782

    Oh well.That is what you get when you watch CNN and MSNBC
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Congress could pass a law with language to remove books from even being considered in this issue. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes about the Republicans and Democrats in the Congress.

    The solution? Vote Libertarian candidates into the Congress.
     

Share This Page

Loading...