• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court

Isn't it obvious? He picked her because she knew her confirmation would be so contentious that it would tie up the Senate for weeks or months and nothing would get done. It's all part of his master plan to destroy America and replace it with a communist dictatorship wherein illegal day laborers come and take your firstborn child away and teach them Mexican.
 
American said:
She is a HUGE lefty that banned the military from recruiting at Harvard University.
Click to expand...

FWIW, most major law schools did the same thing, because most schools have a non-discrimination policy that forbids any interviewers from coming on campus if they discriminate against gays.

chevydriver1123 said:
Oh I read in Politico that Rehnquist didnt have any prior experience to being Chief Justice. Politico was wrong then.
Click to expand...

Rehnquist had judicial experience as a Justice before being named Chief Justice, but he had no judicial experience before being nominated for the SC in the first place.

disneydude said:
Alito and Roberts had a history that preceded their appointment to the court.
They routinely rule in favor of the state when the decision involves the state vs. the individual. They routinely rule in favor of the corporation when the decision involves an individual vs. corporation.

One perfect example is their positions on the fairly recent decision that Corporations are "persons" under the Constitution. Talk about stretching that "strict constructionism"...:doh
Click to expand...

Go read First National Bank v. Boston and then come back and talk about how it's the right-wingers who are claiming that corporations are persons.

hazlnut said:
I love all these far righties who think they're now experts on SCOTUS history and qualifications because they can repeat the talking points of the hour from Fox or talk radio.

  • 1981 Princeton University, summa cum laude
  • editorial chair of the Daily Princetonian.
  • received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Memorial Scholarship, one of the highest general awards conferred by the university
  • earned an M.Phil degree from Oxford University
  • magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School
  • Supervisory Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Law clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dean of Harvard Law School and Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law at Harvard University.
Professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Anybody who really thinks she is not qualified to be nominated and given strong consideration is an idiot--or lives in some backwoods pocket of this country that doesn't understand what things like Harvard Law School mean in the real world.

Lack of intellectual rigor and sub-par credentials are what made Harriet Miers a total joke of a nomination.
Click to expand...

Magna at HLS is not in and of itself sufficient to qualify someone for the SC. I know a few kids on the HLR who are certainly not the nations best or brightest, and plenty of others whom you wouldn't be too happy to see nominated.
 
disneydude said:
Oh please! Where in the Constitution does it define corporations as "persons" entitled to the same rights as individuals.

Alito and Roberts have a clear right-wing agenda. I guess thats what you guys call "activist" judges.
Click to expand...


I guess the same place we find that abortion on demand is a right....:shock:


j-mac
 
"As the Harvard Law School dean, Kagan openly railed against the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy regarding gay service members. She called it discriminatory and barred military recruiters over the matter until the move threatened to cost the university federal money."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/09/politics/main6470468.shtml

The fact that Kagan was so against DADT is not troubling in itself. The Supreme Court has typically deferred military issues that are not expressly stated in the Constitution to the legislative branch. The problem is that we have no way of knowing if she would let her personal views interfere with her duties as a Justice because she has never been a justice at any level.

I understand that we cannot know everything about a nominee, but we know absolutely nothing substantial about Kagan's judicial philosophy. At least we knew something about other nominees in recent times.

The more I think about this nominee, the more I dislike her nomination. There are plenty of other people to chose from who have solid judicial experience at the federal level. That is important when considering the impact a ruling on the Supreme Court has on an entire population of people.
 
j-mac said:
I guess the same place we find that abortion on demand is a right....:shock:


j-mac
Click to expand...


But see J-mac....that's the difference. We don't pretend to be something that we aren't.

Most liberals believe that Constitution is a living document that has to adapt to changing technology and culture.

When you claim to be a "strict constructionist" and then manipulate and mold the opinion without keeping with that "strict constructionism"....you are a hypocrite.

I have no problem with them and their decisions as long as they are honest about their rationale.
 
disneydude said:
But see J-mac....that's the difference. We don't pretend to be something that we aren't.

Most liberals believe that Constitution is a living document that has to adapt to changing technology and culture.

When you claim to be a "strict constructionist" and then manipulate and mold the opinion without keeping with that "strict constructionism"....you are a hypocrite.

I have no problem with them and their decisions as long as they are honest about their rationale.
Click to expand...

So rationale is a means to it's own ends? Jesus... maybe Beck is right after all.
 
disneydude said:
But see J-mac....that's the difference. We don't pretend to be something that we aren't.

Most liberals believe that Constitution is a living document that has to adapt to changing technology and culture.

When you claim to be a "strict constructionist" and then manipulate and mold the opinion without keeping with that "strict constructionism"....you are a hypocrite.

I have no problem with them and their decisions as long as they are honest about their rationale.
Click to expand...

But see by saying the Constitution is "living" what you really mean, is that the orginal Constitution just needs to go away and a new one created. If it can be considered "living" then that also means it can be "killed".

Which is the intent of progressive liberalism.
 
disneydude said:
But see J-mac....that's the difference. We don't pretend to be something that we aren't.

Most liberals believe that Constitution is a living document that has to adapt to changing technology and culture.

When you claim to be a "strict constructionist" and then manipulate and mold the opinion without keeping with that "strict constructionism"....you are a hypocrite.

I have no problem with them and their decisions as long as they are honest about their rationale.
Click to expand...






If the USC is a living document, subject to the whims of current society, it is a useless document and should be trashed.
 
Is she gay? Just thought I would ask.
 
TheHat said:
But see by saying the Constitution is "living" what you really mean, is that the orginal Constitution just needs to go away and a new one created. If it can be considered "living" then that also means it can be "killed".

Which is the intent of progressive liberalism.
Click to expand...

wasn't 'kill the Constitution' the lead-off item on the 2008 national demo platform
clearly, somebody doesn't understand the term 'living document' ... look it up hat. hope you are not still home schooling
 
TheHat said:
Is she gay? Just thought I would ask.
Click to expand...

Not that there's anything wrong with that....


I'm still getting my head around she's a she...
 
justabubba said:
wasn't 'kill the Constitution' the lead-off item on the 2008 national demo platform
clearly, somebody doesn't understand the term 'living document' ... look it up hat. hope you are not still home schooling
Click to expand...

Ah, look at bubba, still can't help but to throw out a wantabe insult about my homeschooling. I would do that to if I had nothing worth a crap to say too. I am embarassed for you, really I am.:3oops:

I understand the terminolgy just fine, except for the fact that when a liberal utters words in quotations, it somehow forms its own definition and when put into practice, winds up creating unintended consequences. But hey, I am preaching to the choir on that one.:2wave:
 
hazlnut said:
Anybody who really thinks she is not qualified to be nominated and given strong consideration is an idiot--or lives in some backwoods pocket of this country that doesn't understand what things like Harvard Law School mean in the real world.
Click to expand...

Right -- the same school that gave us President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and President Ma Ying-jeou.... Lord save us from Harvard Law School...
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
If the USC is a living document, subject to the whims of current society, it is a useless document and should be trashed.
Click to expand...

No...what it means is that you can't expect a document that was written over 200+ years ago to have been able to take into account new technology and things that we have learned in the last 2 centuries.

I would argue that expecting a document that was written over 200 years ago to have been a crystal ball which could interpret the issues that present themselves today is foolish.
 
TheHat said:
But see by saying the Constitution is "living" what you really mean, is that the orginal Constitution just needs to go away and a new one created. If it can be considered "living" then that also means it can be "killed".

Which is the intent of progressive liberalism.
Click to expand...

Why is it any time some one "explains" what some one else means, it ends up being nothing at all like what they are actually saying? Congratulations, you just misrepresented those who disagree with you. Are you being dishonest, or just don't understand?
 
TheHat said:
Is she gay? Just thought I would ask.
Click to expand...

What in the **** does that have to do with anything? Why would it matter? Why is it any of your business?
 
disneydude said:
No...what it means is that you can't expect a document that was written over 200+ years ago to have been able to take into account new technology and things that we have learned in the last 2 centuries.

I would argue that expecting a document that was written over 200 years ago to have been a crystal ball which could interpret the issues that present themselves today is foolish.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, it seemed to take it into account by providing a means to AMEND the Constitution.
 
Redress said:
What in the **** does that have to do with anything? Why would it matter? Why is it any of your business?
Click to expand...

Its all that the right-wing is left with these days.

You will see their anti-gay social agenda come out vigorously in this confirmation.

The one issue other than abortion that the right-wingers care about is preventing gays from enjoying civil rights.....just watch...they will show their colors loud and clear.
 
disneydude said:
Its all that the right-wing is left with these days.

You will see their anti-gay social agenda come out vigorously in this confirmation.

The one issue other than abortion that the right-wingers care about is preventing gays from enjoying civil rights.....just watch...they will show their colors loud and clear.
Click to expand...

Two of the "right wing" who are posting in this thread are gay. The problem is not the right wing, who in heir entirety minus one have not even mentioned it, it is in one particular post.
 
Redress said:
Two of the "right wing" who are posting in this thread are gay. The problem is not the right wing, who in heir entirety minus one have not even mentioned it, it is in one particular post.
Click to expand...

I'm not specifically talking about this thread. Just wait....the right-wing is going to go ape over her sexuality on this confirmation. There is no way they are going to hide their true colors.
 
TheHat said:
Is she gay? Just thought I would ask.
Click to expand...

What does it matter if she's gay? She also can't help the fact that she was born with more masculine features. No one deserves to be made fun of for things that are out of her control.
 
Obama keeps hammering his progressive agenda...get as much passed, get as many appointed, do as much damage to the Constitution and America as possible before November.

Despicable charlatan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom