• 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

It depends. I have supported conservative nominees when I felt the court was out of balance.

The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court should not be left or right. That said....whenever the court is out of balance, then that balance needs to be restored.

But wouldn't the balance be restored by appointing a logical and objective nominee that doesn't legislate from the bench? Ultimately their ruling would be in favor of what is lawful, wouldn't that be better then having a liberal vote against or for anything that is convenient for the liberal ideology? A liberal is retiring, so appointing another liberal just keeps the court the same. I don't mind a liberal being appointed so long as they out their liberalism on the shelf and make rulings apart from their ideology and according to what the law and Constitution say.
 
I don't mind a liberal being appointed so long as they out their liberalism on the shelf and make rulings apart from their ideology and according to what the law and Constitution say.

I agree with this 100%...and I would say the same for a Conservative justice as well. That is all we can really hope for.
 
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.
 
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.





It's the name calling and the insults that make your posts seem so intelligent and insightful. :roll:
 
It's the name calling and the insults that make your posts seem so intelligent and insightful. :roll:

for me, it is the factual presentation
whatever blows your skirt up, i guess
 
for me, it is the factual presentation
whatever blows your skirt up, i guess




Factual is she has no judicial experience. We don't even know where she stands. This has potential for a highly activist judge. to which you all would love that. But it's repugnant to the US Constitution.....


Blow that up your skirt, jack. :pimpdaddy:
 
That might be true, except for the fact that GWB tilted the court to the hard right by appointing right-wing activist judges (Roberts and Alito). We need to restore balance to the court. Kagan doesn't restore that balance. We need a true liberal.

He nominated two men who uphold The Constitution.

They don't go on fishing expeditions for foreign law, they don't have a social agenda other than upholding the law of the land, The Constitution.

Men who do that, and support such behavior tend to be Republicans.

What does that say about Lib's and their judicial activism?

.
 
Ya ever notice....how some of the 'Libertarians' sound and act like Republicans?

You ever notice how the far left is incapable of seeing their messiah criticized by anyone and will smear them mercilessly in attempt to cloud the issue?

Just sayin'.

Just sayin'.

LINO= Libertarian in name only
FLIBS

Lame and pathetic. Some people just don't like your man-crush; get over it.
 
While slightly off topic, I'm going to post an article that was in the Washington Post last week. It is a very interesting read, IMO.

Funny how only conservative judges seem to be labeled as being strict constructionists.

The doctrine of original intent rests on a set of implicit assumptions about the framers as a breed apart, momentarily allowed access to a set of timeless and transcendent truths. You don't have to believe that tongues of fire appeared over their heads during the debates. But the doctrine requires you to believe that the "miracle at Philadelphia" was a uniquely omniscient occasion when 55 mere mortals were permitted a glimpse of the eternal verities and then embalmed their insights in the document.

Any professional historian proposing such an interpretation today would be laughed off the stage. That four sitting justices on the Supreme Court -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- claim to believe in it, or some version of it, is truly strange. We might call it the Immaculate Conception theory of jurisprudence. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the very justices most disposed toward wrapping their opinions in the protective armor of original intent have consistently voted in support of the conservative political agenda championed by the Republican Party.

Joseph J. Ellis - Immaculate misconception and the Supreme Court

Yes, and anyone who doesn't vote that way is an activist judge.
 
Last edited:
If original intent is a misnomer, we wouldn't need a constitution at all. :shrug:
 
If original intent is a misnomer, we wouldn't need a constitution at all. :shrug:

I'm guessing at how quickly you responded to my post means that you did not read the entire article, unless you're an amazing speed reader.
 
I'm guessing at how quickly you responded to my post means that you did not read the entire article, unless you're an amazing speed reader.





I am amazing in all sorts of ways shorteh. :pimpdaddy:
 
Factual is she has no judicial experience. We don't even know where she stands. This has potential for a highly activist judge. to which you all would love that. But it's repugnant to the US Constitution.....


Blow that up your skirt, jack. :pimpdaddy:

So we agree that Rehnquist was not qualified and made a bad Supreme Court Justice?
 
He nominated two men who uphold The Constitution.

They don't go on fishing expeditions for foreign law, they don't have a social agenda other than upholding the law of the land, The Constitution.

Men who do that, and support such behavior tend to be Republicans.

What does that say about Lib's and their judicial activism?

.

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.
 
You ever notice how the far left is incapable of seeing their messiah criticized by anyone and will smear them mercilessly in attempt to cloud the issue?

Far left? Hardly. Welcome to DP, BTW...

Fact-based criticisms about specific policies, I got no problem with...

Regurgitating mindless talking points is what we mostly see from the far-righties around here...

My point was how quickly some Libertarians have taken to adopting GOP partisan positions...and the sometimes thin talking points that go along with those positions.

I'm wondering if they, the Libertarians, will be happy with any President.



Lame and pathetic. Some people just don't like your man-crush; get over it.

Um... note to 1984 from 1984...

...smear them mercilessly in attempt to cloud the issue?

Now, you be careful with them rocks in that glass house.
 
Last edited:
Far left? Hardly. Welcome to DP, BTW...

Fact-based criticisms about specific policies, I got no problem with...

Regurgitating mindless talking points is what we mostly see from the far-righties around here...

My point was how quickly some Libertarians have taken to adopting GOP partisan positions...and the sometimes thin talking points that go along with those positions.

I'm wondering if they, the Libertarians, will be happy with any President.

Yea, libertarians could never agree with anything the GOP says or does without there being some kind of nefarious alliance.

You have a man-crush on Obama, that's nice, but that doesn't mean a common criticism between libertarians and Republicans is a "mindless talking point".
 
You have a man-crush on Obama, that's nice, but that doesn't mean a common criticism between libertarians and Republicans is a "mindless talking point".

You've mistaken my distain for partisan hackery for a 'crush'.

And most of the hyper-partisan posts that appeared in this thread prior to us really knowing anything about the nominee are mindless because it takes no thought or real effort to copy/paste them from Drudge or whatever blog the sheep currently get their 'news' from...
 
You've mistaken my distain for partisan hackery for a 'crush'.

I've actually lurked here for a while. I know your history, and it's been nothing but mindless partisanry.

And most of the hyper-partisan posts that appeared in this thread prior to us really knowing anything about the nominee are mindless because it takes no thought or real effort to copy/paste them from Drudge or whatever blog the sheep currently get their 'news' from...

The nominee doesn't have any judicial experience. That is what us non-partisans call a "fact". That you would accuse someone of being a "partisan" for making a factually-based criticism of your man-crush is both ironic and telling...
 
1-Not a damn sould has heard of her until she was nominated and now watch how many people suddenly 'know' her... and...

2-Its immaterial. She is replacing an outgoing left leaning supreme court nominee. The catfight wont likely start until the balance of power is threatened.

And as a side note...EVERYONE ought to be just plain ol PISSED about the tendency of BOTH SIDES to use politics as a nominating factor. The judicial check and balance exists for a REASON. They are SUPPOSED to be beyond politics...hence the lifetime appointment.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is about Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court and the relative merits thereof. It is not about the relative merits of other posters.
 
No matter who Obama selects most Republicans will have a problem with it.
 
You've mistaken my distain for partisan hackery for a 'crush'.

And most of the hyper-partisan posts that appeared in this thread prior to us really knowing anything about the nominee are mindless because it takes no thought or real effort to copy/paste them from Drudge or whatever blog the sheep currently get their 'news' from...

You are the epitome of what you say you are against. You've got Alinsky down to an art, just like your poster pin-up boy.

You and Obama remind me of my 12-year-old daughter and Justin Bieber. Except she doesn't keep the crusty beach towel under her bed.
 
You are the epitome of what you say you are against. You've got Alinsky down to an art, just like your poster pin-up boy.

You and Obama remind me of my 12-year-old daughter and Justin Bieber. Except she doesn't keep the crusty beach towel under her bed.

Your kid listens to Justin Bieber? You're a horrible parent. That is all.
 
Back
Top Bottom