View Poll Results: Should the Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    30 51.72%
  • No

    26 44.83%
  • I don't know

    2 3.45%
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 107

Thread: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

  1. #71
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Your browsing history is a digital log, if it weren't digital it would be in paper form.
    Technological development makes no difference.
    But it isn't in paper. You're just interpreting the document to say things that clearly aren't on the paper of the constitution.

    The government was clearly limited to what it could do.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Look at the wording, it was specifically not specific as to what could or could not be searched.
    "Effects" or "Papers" definitely count as part of your protection.
    But a log in cyberspace of my browsing history isn't papers I own, and it isn't an effect of mine. It's physically on someone else's server and isn't anything I ever owned.


    Or for another example: I wear a black wristband as a sign of protest. My college says that it's a disruption, I say it's free speech. They respond that since I'm not saying anything or writing anything, it's not technically "speech" and isn't protected. Who is right?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  2. #72
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,340
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    But all of them to my knowledge had some sort of record to review. She's a blank slate, and the slight record she does have does not look good but she explains it away as having only been serving other peoples policies. And of course she thinks the state has the right to ban books.
    I believe it's 100's of thousands of pages of records. It's not a blank slate, it's that she has no record as a judge, which has never been a disqualifier. As some one posted here, about 1/4 of all SCOTUS judges have not been judges and therefore have no record on rulings.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #73
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well hopefully you DON'T derive your political views from them, as most of them believed in some pretty detestable and/or ridiculous things (by today's standards).
    Blah, blah, blah, more of this trite over argued, straw man crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    1. You are assuming that studying the writers means that one would share their views. I'm pretty sure that every single person on the Supreme Court has studied the Founding Fathers...probably more in depth than you have.
    So, I guess I'm smarter because I don't need to over study something written in dated but plain English.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    2. You are assuming that YOU share their views. As I said above, I certainly hope not, as many of them believed in things like slavery, gender discrimination, genocide, oligarchy, autarky, wars of conquest, and mercantilism.
    Yes, I believe in all of those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    3. You are assuming that it is POSSIBLE to share their views. They were not a monolithic entity who all thought alike on every issue. Furthermore, 221 years have elapsed since the Constitution was written. If they were still alive today, what makes you think that THEIR views wouldn't have evolved since then, just because YOURS haven't?
    I'll give you 3 guesses on something that they all agreed on.

    221 years is a blip in terms of human development.
    Human behaviors are largely still effected by the exact same things.

    Further, if you want to change The Constitution, there is a process for you to do so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    4. You are assuming that interpreting the document as the writers intended, even if it were possible, is the only "proper" way to interpret the Constitution.
    There is 1 way to interpret the law, that is why it is law and not a guideline.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #74
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    11-20-17 @ 01:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    346

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Yeah, but Bush still put 2 of them on the Supreme Court...
    Funny thing about that, Bush not longer is in office. Oh, that's right, business as usual, got it.

  5. #75
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,340
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbeard View Post
    Funny thing about that, Bush not longer is in office. Oh, that's right, business as usual, got it.
    Saying something true that has no relation to what you respond to does not refute in any way what you respond to.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    But it isn't in paper. You're just interpreting the document to say things that clearly aren't on the paper of the constitution.
    It is a digitized version of something that would be on paper.
    Technological development makes no difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    But a log in cyberspace of my browsing history isn't papers I own, and it isn't an effect of mine. It's physically on someone else's server and isn't anything I ever owned.
    That somebody else has the same protections as you do.
    It makes no difference.
    It is their "effects."

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Or for another example: I wear a black wristband as a sign of protest. My college says that it's a disruption, I say it's free speech. They respond that since I'm not saying anything or writing anything, it's not technically "speech" and isn't protected. Who is right?
    Is the college privately owned and funded?
    If so, they can do what they want in regards to speech.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #77
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Blah, blah, blah, more of this trite over argued, straw man crap.
    Well then don't claim that you derive your political opinions from theirs, when you quite obviously do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    So, I guess I'm smarter because I don't need to over study something written in dated but plain English.
    Yes yes. It's very obvious that yours is the correct interpretation. The overwhelming majority of legal scholars who disagree are just blinded by their own personal views...but fortunately YOU are able to see past your personal views and interpret the document correctly. If the correct interpretation happens to match your personal politics, it's just a happy coincidence.

    Do you realize you sound EXACTLY like a religious fundamentalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Yes, I believe in all of those things.
    If you don't, then stop saying that you share their political opinions. Who specifically were you referring to, when you said that you derive your political views from theirs? Adams? Jefferson? Hamilton? Madison?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    I'll give you 3 guesses on something that they all agreed on.
    I really don't know what you're referring to, but whatever it is, they certainly didn't agree on everything, which makes it patently ridiculous to try to interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers would want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    221 years is a blip in terms of human development.
    Human behaviors are largely still effected by the exact same things.
    You just can't even fathom the concept that some of us believe that an urban, technological society of 300 million people should be governed differently than an agrarian, uneducated society of 10 million, can you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Further, if you want to change The Constitution, there is a process for you to do so.
    The problem is that the process on paper (a constitutional amendment) is generally too difficult to make important changes, hence all of the interpretations of the Constitution. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers were thinking about a nation of 50 states with a relatively homogeneous culture when they wrote the amendment process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    There is 1 way to interpret the law, that is why it is law and not a guideline.
    Good thing we have you to show us the one true way.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-02-10 at 07:37 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #78
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It is a digitized version of something that would be on paper.
    Technological development makes no difference.
    Why would it be on paper? it's an electronic file? you're putting your own spin on words in the constitution when they don't clearly say that.


    That somebody else has the same protections as you do.
    It makes no difference.
    It is their "effects."
    What if the government is making a log of every website I go to? that's the scenario I was suggesting


    Is the college privately owned and funded?
    If so, they can do what they want in regards to speech.
    Assuming its a public college
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  9. #79
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    11-20-17 @ 01:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    346

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Saying something true that has no relation to what you respond to does not refute in any way what you respond to.
    I know, it went right over your head.

  10. #80
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well then don't claim that you derive your political opinions from theirs, when you quite obviously do not.
    Says the guy wearing the stripes of a party who has had a history of segregation and slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes yes. It's very obvious that yours is the correct interpretation. The overwhelming majority of legal scholars who disagree are just blinded by their own personal views...but fortunately YOU are able to see past your personal views and interpret the document correctly. If the correct interpretation happens to match your personal politics, it's just a happy coincidence.
    Legal scholars don't hold a candle to the guys who actually wrote the document.
    I've already explained this, if my political ideology is derived from the writers of the document, then why are you so surprised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Do you realize you sound EXACTLY like a religious fundamentalist?
    Except I'm not telling anyone to follow a specific religion.
    I'm asking people to follow the law as written.
    Which means, don't make me participate in egalitarian, fantasy, social programs that don't work.
    Don't ban things based on your morality, as long as I'm not hurting anyone.
    That kind of thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If you don't, then stop saying that you share their political opinions. Who specifically were you referring to, when you said that you derive your political views from theirs? Adams? Jefferson? Hamilton? Madison?
    The people who all agreed on the defining legal document of the U.S. government.
    The writers and signers of The Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I really don't know what you're referring to, but whatever it is, they certainly didn't agree on everything, which makes it patently ridiculous to try to interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers would want.
    They all agreed on the limitations set out in The Constitution.
    That's why they signed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You just can't even fathom the concept that some of us believe that an urban, technological society of 300 million people should be governed differently than an agrarian, uneducated society of 10 million, can you?
    It makes no difference.
    What should be changed?
    Why?

    You do know that The Constitution explicit limits the feds but not necessarily the states, which are free to do a lot of whatever they want.
    You seem to want national conformity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The problem is that the process on paper (a constitutional amendment) is generally too difficult to make important changes, hence all of the interpretations of the Constitution. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers were thinking about a nation of 50 states with a relatively homogeneous culture when they wrote the amendment process.
    There is good reason for that.
    So the Federal government doesn't become an abusive monolith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Good thing we have you to show us the one true way.
    Yea, I mean if we didn't, we'd be in debt with a flopping economy.
    Ohh wait.....
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •