• 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!

Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

Should the Senate Confirm Elena Kagan


  • Total voters
    49
There is no such thing as "bias free."
The Constitution was written with bias, towards a freedom based society.
So in that regard, I am absolutely biased.

But if I'm understanding you correctly, the reason that such an easily-understandable document is misunderstood by so many intelligent people is because they let their personal morality and personal politics cloud their judgment. But you (and anyone who agrees with you) can see past your personal views and interpret it correctly? I suppose it's just a coincidence that the correct interpretation of the Constitution so closely mirrors your own political views. ;)
 
I willing to wager that 99.999% of all judges understand exactly what it means but many of them would rather impart their personal beliefs over written law because there are no consequences when they do so.

Yeah, all the judges who disagree with you are just dishonest...suuurrrrreeeeee...
 
But if I'm understanding you correctly, the reason that such an easily-understandable document is misunderstood by so many intelligent people is because they let their personal morality and personal politics cloud their judgment. But you (and anyone who agrees with you) can see past your personal views and interpret it correctly? I suppose it's just a coincidence that the correct interpretation of the Constitution so closely mirrors your own political views. ;)

If I derive my political views from the people who wrote The Constitution, how could it be anything but that?

You act like it's a surprise that someone who studies the writers of the document, would interpret the document as the writers intended.

Well no ****.:doh
 
Yeah, all the judges who disagree with you are just dishonest...suuurrrrreeeeee...

I didn't say that.
Don't put words into my mouth.

Even with the recent supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment, they added their own qualifications, not supported by the original intent which is clearly in the wording of the document.
It's not dishonest per se, it's adding their own personal morality, stereotypes, political beliefs, etc.
 
I didn't say that.
Don't put words into my mouth.

Even with the recent supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment, they added their own qualifications, not supported by the original intent which is clearly in the wording of the document.
It's not dishonest per se, it's adding their own personal morality, stereotypes, political beliefs, etc.

But you said that 99.9 % understood things as you think them, but a large number act otherwise. It's easier to believe that maybe your understanding is flawed, and not that it is every one else.
 
But you said that 99.9 % understood things as you think them, but a large number act otherwise. It's easier to believe that maybe your understanding is flawed, and not that it is every one else.

Not likely because how can a judge derive things from something when there is no evidence to support whatever they find?
Precedent can be used to do such a thing and all it takes is one judge to start the chain of screw ups.
 
If I derive my political views from the people who wrote The Constitution, how could it be anything but that?

You act like it's a surprise that someone who studies the writers of the document, would interpret the document as the writers intended.

Well no ****.:doh

What do you think should be the basis of decisions on things that there might have not been any historical analogue to, such as electronic privacy rights?
 
Yeah, it's sort of like my view on the 2008 election. It wasn't who I thought was best, it was who I thought wasn't worst and had a chance of winning.
 
Privacy is privacy, electronic or otherwise.
It is derived from the 4th amendment.

Except the fourth discusses "unreasonable searches and seizure", so one could argue that a transcript of my browsing history doesn't count. Or that browsing history doesn't count as "persons houses papers and effects". It's not always up or down.
 
Yes she should. She is qualified, intelligent, and has no disqualifying characteristics which I am aware of. Generally I think the Senate should let the president appoint whoever he wants, as long as they meet those criteria and aren't too far outside the judicial mainstream. (Cue comparisons of Kagan to Chairman Mao...now. :mrgreen:)

How the **** is she qualified? She has absolutely no judicial experience.
 
I think someone with a background other than a judge would be refreshing. Justices from all sorts of backgrounds have gone on to be effective at their job.

lol, ya appoint a non-judge to the highest court in the country for life, it's not like the people deserve to know who the nominee is, wouldn't want someone with a judicial record to review.
 
If I derive my political views from the people who wrote The Constitution, how could it be anything but that?

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).

Harry Guerrilla said:
You act like it's a surprise that someone who studies the writers of the document, would interpret the document as the writers intended.

There are several flawed assumptions here:

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.

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.

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?

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.
 
Last edited:
lol, ya appoint a non-judge to the highest court in the country for life, it's not like the people deserve to know who the nominee is, wouldn't want someone with a judicial record to review.

CJ Marshall had no judicial experience. Rehnquist had no previous experience. I think a cross-section of experiences and backgrounds is good for the institution
 
Except the fourth discusses "unreasonable searches and seizure", so one could argue that a transcript of my browsing history doesn't count. Or that browsing history doesn't count as "persons houses papers and effects". It's not always up or down.

Your browsing history is a digital log, if it weren't digital it would be in paper form.
Technological development makes no difference.

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.
 
Not all justices have had judicial experience and gone on to be effective justices

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.
 
Excuse my ignorance, but can someone explain to me why judicial experience is necessary? I'm not saying it isn't I'm just wondering why other people feel it is necessary. I mean it's not like she hasn't studied law or anything. And please don't say "so we can review her decisions" because lets be honest, you can research her opinion on certain subjects and it isn't like people who are judges have ruled on every subject out their. Every judge has yet to decide on every subject.
 
How the **** is she qualified? She has absolutely no judicial experience.

That's a good thing. We need some non-judges on the court for a diversity of viewpoints. It's not like she's a legal novice; why is being a judge necessary? Is there any empirical evidence at all that indicates that non-judge appointees make inferior Supreme Court Justices?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.:roll:

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.

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. :roll:

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.


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom