• 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!

Elena Kagan news: Sen. Jeff Sessions calls Kagan a 'dangerous' nominee

TurtleDude said:
how would you know-you have admitted bias and a lack of knowledge on the topic
Click to expand...

And whether you admit to it or not, you have a strong bias as well. I at least am honest about that bias.
 
The federal government possesses only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the role of the courts is strictly limited. Their job is neither to make laws nor amend the Constitution but to interpret the laws and the Constitution as written, guided by the plain meaning of the words and the intent of the Framers.


snip


The liberal elite are desperate to keep the Supreme Court on their side to advance liberal policy priorities that lack the popular support to win approval from state legislatures or Congress. It was not elected lawmakers who expelled God from the public square, conferred due process rights on al Qaeda terrorists and forced states to educate illegal aliens. It was unelected justices on the Supreme Court. For decades, this is the way the American left has won its most important political battles—not at the ballot box, but in court.

www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopFrame.aspx?frame=http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/human events.htm
Click to expand...


Good article. So is this really what it boils down to? Circumventing the will of the people for unpopular measures from the left? How is that not tyranny?


j-mac
 
Sessions, the man who thought the KKK were alright, until he found they smoked pot Sessions?

Between him and those who believe that the Supreme Court of the United States of America contains a leftist cabal, conspiring against the people.... words can't express it.
 
Objective Voice said:
How can you bring yourself to make such an outlandish accusation? Where's the evidence? Your basic rights still exsist! You still have the freedom to say what you want, go where you want, do pretty much anything you want, dress how you like, eat wherever you prefer, obtain any kind of job without the need for a work permit (unless you're an illegal alien), obtain just about any kind of weapon that's legally permissable to purchase, own and carry under the law, worship as you please.

What basic right has been taken away from you, apdst? WHAT!?!

It's this kind of hyper-partisian BS that just drives me crazy!!! :censored Enough already!!! :stop:

:rantoff: To the thread topic...

Every once in a while even the Judiciary needs to have a balance of power within its ranks. The confirmation of Sotomeyer and Kagen helps to even out things within the Judicial Branch somewhat. It's been mostly Conservative for a very long time and until the recent SC ruling to overturn campaign financial contribution from corporations, I really didn't have a problem with the decisions made by that judicial body. I do believe the President has the right afforded him under the Constitution to appoint whomever he sees fit to sit on the SC. It's kind of like what happens with Congress from time to time in that every once in a while one side of the political spectrum holds the reigns until their time is done. Only problem with SC nominees is that once appointed they sit for life! So, a "replacement" isn't nominated unless and until one dies or retires (usually due to health reasons). And when that does happen nobody really knows for sure which side of the political spectrum the next President will be on.

The nation can only hope that when the time comes the next SC nominee will be someone who will render a decision moreso to uphold the law rather than merely imposse their moral stamp on it or rule from within their own political ideology. To that, I think both Sotomeyer and Kagan are very capable of rendering decisions within the spirit of the law.
Click to expand...

Hyper partisan? It's hyper partisan to expect the Supreme Court to vote unanimously in favor of The Bill of Rights?
 
apdst said:
Hyper partisan? It's hyper partisan to expect the Supreme Court to vote unanimously in favor of The Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...


Ofcourse silly! That old piece of paper? Pfft! I don't know why we don't just throw it out and start over.....{Sarcasm off}


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
YouTube - Sessions to Dem Senators: Don't Rubberstamp Kagan Nomination for Obama


So, Is Sessions right? Is Kagen really nothing more than a mirror of Obama's ideological, and purely political appointment? She will serve for decades, will her vote be constitutionally based, or will she vote strictly along "Progressive" lines? And doesn't the sitting President have the right to appoint anyone he wants?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Now Sessions comes off sounding like a moron as nothing in her testimony and/or record supports that.

Someone should remind dummy Sessions that Scalia said she would make a great addition to the court.

What an idiot.
 
hazlnut said:
Now Sessions comes off sounding like a moron as nothing in her testimony and/or record supports that.

Someone should remind dummy Sessions that Scalia said she would make a great addition to the court.

What an idiot.
Click to expand...


Wow! Really? I never saw that, do you have a quote?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wow! Really? I never saw that, do you have a quote?


j-mac
Click to expand...


I think he is referring to this: Justice Scalia: Kagan's lack of judicial experience no bar to Supreme Court

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's lack of judicial experience got a high-profile defense Wednesday night from a prospective colleague: Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia said the court would benefit from having someone who has not been a judge.

"Currently, there is nobody on the court who has not served as a judge -- indeed, as a federal judge -- all nine of us," he told an audience at the Ceremonial Courtroom at the U.S. Courthouse in Washington. " . . . I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge -- and not a judge at all."
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Thanks.

That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of her in particular though.....I should have known....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Realize that Scalia and Kagan are also friends to an extent.
 
Redress said:
Realize that Scalia and Kagan are also friends to an extent.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt it...Intellectuals always seem to befriend those with opposing views...Makes for stimulating conversation. Still, I see him endorsing the concept of someone that has never been a judge being nominated more so than he is saying she should be one....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh, I don't doubt it...Intellectuals always seem to befriend those with opposing views...Makes for stimulating conversation. Still, I see him endorsing the concept of someone that has never been a judge being nominated more so than he is saying she should be one....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. I think he made a more glowing recommendation somewhere, I seem to remember it, but I cannot find it. The link in the article I linked does not work either, which had more on Scalia talking about Kagan.
 
Redress said:
Yes, this is true. I think he made a more glowing recommendation somewhere, I seem to remember it, but I cannot find it. The link in the article I linked does not work either, which had more on Scalia talking about Kagan.
Click to expand...


That's ok. It doesn't matter if he came out and said she was the smartest woman in the world, it still doesn't mean that he doesn't also think that her particular philosophy judicially would be a danger to this country's constitution.

See, hazelnut tried as he always does, to make a disingenuous point to stamp down any opposition, and also as usual the quotes he is using, which are never provided right off I might add, are never quite what was actually said.

This is why often I don't even respond.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
YouTube - Sessions to Dem Senators: Don't Rubberstamp Kagan Nomination for Obama


So, Is Sessions right? Is Kagen really nothing more than a mirror of Obama's ideological, and purely political appointment? She will serve for decades, will her vote be constitutionally based, or will she vote strictly along "Progressive" lines? And doesn't the sitting President have the right to appoint anyone he wants?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes he does.... but especially if he owes her...

“Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court…. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesnt it?”
Click to expand...

Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court - Breakdown of America

:lamo
 
Is no thread safe from Birther crap?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom