• 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!

Senate to confirm Kagan as court's 4th-ever woman

LOL!

not so long as americans vote, silly

Americans in general don't vote to confirm a SC judge. Americans in general cannot vote to remove her. Her approval rating is, therefore, irrelevant.
 
Americans in general don't vote to confirm a SC judge. Americans in general cannot vote to remove her

and water is wet

LOL!

americans vote for (or against) her appointer
 
and water is wet

LOL!

americans vote for (or against) her appointer

At the end of the day, people seem to vote with one thing in mind. Their wallets.

"Its the economy stupid!"

Forget gay marriage, radical judges and Afghanistan (anyone remember why we're there?)

If the economy improves dramatically by 2012, reelection will take place.
 
and water is wet

LOL!

americans vote for (or against) her appointer

LOl, silly.

And the odds they are going to vote for or against some one based on their vote for or against Kagan are slight.

Silly.

LOL.
 
At the end of the day, people seem to vote with one thing in mind. Their wallets.

they also very much vote on THE MAN (or woman)

and they judge him by them he keeps

hello
 
Last edited:
And the odds they are going to vote for or against some one based on their vote for or against Kagan are slight.

well, it sure doesn't help

LOL!
 
well, it sure doesn't help

LOL!

Silly.

LOL!

It will help with his base

LOL!

No one is still going to base their vote for people on Kagan.

LOL!

Silly!
 
I do not know where it started actually

really?

a first rate machiavellian doesn't know about bork?

well, knock me over with a feather boa!

LOL!
 
COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST
KAGAN AT SUPREME COURT
Judicial Watch Founder Asks High Court to Disbar Her for
Falsifying “Evidence” It Relied Upon To Strike Down
Partial Birth Abortion Legislation
Klayman Also Calls for Criminal Referral to Justice Department
(Washington, DC, July 29, 2010). Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch public interest law groups, today filed a complaint before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the high court disbar Elena Kagan.

Kagan, while she was an Associate White House Counsel in the Clinton administration, falsified an expert medical report, prepared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). In this report, ACOG had originally found that partial birth abortion was in fact not medically necessary to save the life of a woman, but Kagan changed the report’s finding to say that it was an appropriate procedure under some circumstances. This report was then relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down legislation banning partial birth abortion.

In filing the complaint this morning, Klayman issued the following statement:

“Elena Kagan, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has defrauded the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, her membership to practice before the Court should be revoked and the matter referred to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. How, then can Ms. Kagan be confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a seat on the high court, when in reality she should not even be allowed to practice in front of it?

The rules of legal ethics require her disbarment and I intend to pursue it, to set an example that prospective and sitting judges, or anyone in the legal profession or otherwise, are not above the law.”

Klayman represents the Declaration Alliance, a national non-partisan advocacy and social welfare organization. The details of Ms. Kagan’s misconduct can be found in a report prepared by the Americans United for Life Action, see http://www.aul.org/featured-images/Kagan-Ethics-Report.pdf

Declaration Alliance

:lamo
 
Wow, 44 percent already? LOL

Another abortion of an appointment by the party of Al Franken. Dems will vote for anything.
Two bits says that more Republicans voted for Sarah Palin than voted for Al Franken.
 
This will go as far as the birther crap went...nowhere.

why would anyone who doesn't know about robt bork share his or her opinions?

it's like a 4th grader chiming in on calculus
 
Second Document Has Kagan Defending Clinton Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Veto

A newly-produced document today from the Clinton archives is the second to show Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan defending ex-President Bill Clinton's veto of a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. The memo, and others, may increase Republican opposition to her nomination.

In one of the documents that comprises the 46,000 pages of material the William J. Clinton Presidential Library released today, Kagan opined on the ban for Clinton as an attorney with the administration's Office of Domestic Policy.

In a February 27, 1997 memo to top White House staff, Kagan referred to the startling admission from Ron Fitzsimmons, at the time the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

The debate then had been on whether the partial-birth abortion procedure was done for health reasons for the mother or essentially on healthy unborn children for elective reasons only.

Leading pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL made claims that flew in the face of medical practice by saying the three-day-long abortion procedure would somehow be able to save a woman's life in a life-threatening medical circumstance.

Fitzsimmons signed on to that mantra but eventually relented, saying he "lied through my teeth" about the statistics and supposed reasons for the abortion procedure.

According to CNN, the new memo showed Kagan advising Clinton, saying it "it would be a great mistake to challenge" Fitzsimmons' statements given how embarrassing they were for abortion advocates.

"The president's position today remains what it has always been," Kagan added, defending Clinton's veto in the face of the admission, "that he will sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions, but only if it has an exception that will protect those women -- even if few in number -- who need this procedure to save their lives or prevent serious harm to their health."

The Supreme Court, in 2007, eventually affirmed the constitutionality of a national partial-birth abortion ban that contained no health exception and said one was not needed.

cnn's version of the same story: Kagan documents reveal pragmatic approach on abortion controversy - CNN.com

michael kinsley's slate recounts mr fitzsimmons tortured confession: Abortion Apostate - By Franklin Foer - Slate Magazine
 
You are such a hack....... did you read this? http://www.aul.org/featured-images/Kagan-Ethics-Report.pdf Of course not.......

I would prefer to go to non hack sites for information: SCOTUSblog » Agog about ACOG

Finally, I contacted the person who was the head of ACOG at the time – Dr. Frederic Frigoletto – who confirmed my understanding of the relevant events.

Based on that review, I think the strong claim against Kagan is clearly wrong. There is considerable evidence (I think overwhelming evidence) that ACOG’s stated position – that there are times when Intact D&X is medically indicated – reflected its own expert medical conclusion, not the views of Kagan or the Clinton Administration.
 

why would anyone who doesn't know about robt bork share his or her opinions?

it's like a 4th grader chiming in on calculus

Here, since this is obviously going over your head, and you keep building a mindless straw man, let me be very clear. I never once claimed to not know who Bork is, or what happened to him. You can find this out by doing something as simple as reading. You will also discover that I do not know if that is where it started. Nothing you have said has anything to do with that, or with what I said.
 
ncap's fitzsimmons: "i lied thru my teeth"

white house counselor ms kagan: "it would be a great mistake to challenge fitzsimmons"

she's speaking politically, i presume
 
I do not know where it started actually.

answer: bork

we'll do division of fractions tomorrow

hint: you have to invert (flip)

be on time, now!
 
answer: bork

we'll do division of fractions tomorrow

hint: you have to invert (flip)

be on time, now!

Pardon me

LOL!

Silly!

if I consider you a less than

LOL!

credible source for

LOL!

unsources

and unbacked

claim.

LOL!

Silly!
 
It's a sad day when people care more about which judges from "their side" are on the bench rather than who is the most competent and qualified.
 
It's a sad day when people care more about which judges from "their side" are on the bench rather than who is the most competent and qualified.

I do, and always have, considered Supreme Court justice picks to be a perk of being president. I did not oppose any of Bush's picks.
 
Back
Top Bottom