M
Matt²
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court
unfortunately she has never BEEN a judge. Bad call, Obama!
unfortunately she has never BEEN a judge. Bad call, Obama!
- Status
S
Soliloquy
That... he... what? That's... what? Why?
S
Steven Soderburgin
Can I still act like she's a bad choice because of the whole supporting Obama's indefinite detentions thing, or the incredibly vague and kind of troubling comment she made regarding same sex marriage?
C
Chibibar
I remember reading an article yesterday (there were lots) that the republican was trying to get a judge that is outside the Judicial monastery (I remember that word) so Obama nominate one and the republican is going nuts over it (I guess cause they didn't pick the one THEY want 
)
)
S
Steven Soderburgin
The Republicans were going to go nuts over whoever Obama nominated regardless of history or qualifications because that is the Republican strategy. Even if Obama nominated a conservative that the Republicans liked, they would be dead-set against it. Who it is doesn't matter to them as much as the fact that Obama chose them.
Dave
Staff member
41 previous Supreme Court Justices weren't judges before they were appointed. William Rehnquist being the latest. Who put him there, anyway? Oh yeah! Republicans.
Ah selective stupidity! You just know they will make a point out of this and people will buy into it and repeat it like it's detrimental to the office. Yes, I'm looking at you, Matt. I know you don't like Obama and that's okay. But if you are going to hold things against him, make sure you are doing it for your own reasons, not because others tell you what he's doing is bad. Research and critical thinking are your friends.
Ah selective stupidity! You just know they will make a point out of this and people will buy into it and repeat it like it's detrimental to the office. Yes, I'm looking at you, Matt. I know you don't like Obama and that's okay. But if you are going to hold things against him, make sure you are doing it for your own reasons, not because others tell you what he's doing is bad. Research and critical thinking are your friends.
C
Chibibar
From my limit knowledge of the law, I think the candidate looks pretty good. I mean if Harvard LAW praise her, how can she NOT be good. Sure she lacks the court room experience, but I don't think she lacks the RESEARCH experience. Most of Supreme court level you research the laws vs the Constitution and vice versa. Does it hold up to the Constitution? Were there previous law/cases to this? etc etc.
Thanks Dave for looking it up. I figure a few Supreme Court Judges are not judges before they were appointed by 41? wow. that is quite a bit
Thanks Dave for looking it up. I figure a few Supreme Court Judges are not judges before they were appointed by 41? wow. that is quite a bit
M
Matt²
Well in my own defense of being "selectively stupid", I was a child when Reagan appointed Rehnquist, so no, I've never looked at or paid attention to these kinds of things before. .. but before that he (Rehnquist) was indeed an associate judge. Secondly, I still say it's a stupid move for any President, republican or democrat, to appoint someone to be one of the nation's judges, that has never judged in their life, nor been responsible for those hefty decisions. Being a dean of a law school doesn't really cut it because it's not practical experience, it's theory. Thirdly, I made my own decision, thank you, so quit inferring I'm a fucking dittohead.
I think Steven brings up two good points on why progressives would be upset about this nomination. I also think it is unlikely we would have seen a nomination of a more activist lawyer/judge for the position. There is this notion that Supreme Court judge nominees need to be staunchly conservative in social views, which sometimes leads to really bad interpretations of the constitution.
Matt- Kagan is certainly not another Harriett Miers. The qualifications and experience with constitutional law are not just in theory, but in practice as Solicitor General. One thing I certainly can not do is argue against her qualifications.
Matt- Kagan is certainly not another Harriett Miers. The qualifications and experience with constitutional law are not just in theory, but in practice as Solicitor General. One thing I certainly can not do is argue against her qualifications.
No no you can't. She is the Solicitor General she is not there to argue her beliefs or her conscience she is there to be a good soldier and defend the President on the legal front in anyway she can. Whether that is her actual opinion or not you can debate but the fact that she took those positions shouldn't be a reason to believe she is a bad choice.
She looks like she will be a fence sitter, a swing vote that will vote her conscience and by the law. I hope she does not become a partisan hack like half of the bench.
S
Steven Soderburgin
On what are you basing this?
On what are you basing this?[/QUOTE]
Because she does not come down entirely on Liberal or Conservative issues. Like the detainees issue is a more right wing stance, and trying to kick the military recruiters off campus for discriminatory practices is a more liberal approach.
GasBandit
Staff member
On what are you basing this?[/QUOTE]
Because while she says there's no constitutional right to same sex marriage, she also kicked military recruiters off campus because of don't-ask-don't-tell?
Edit: Damn, too slow. This is what I get for having 4 threads open at once.
When I first saw her pic, I wondered why Al Gore was wearing earrings.
M
Matt²
When I first saw her pic, I wondered why Al Gore was wearing earrings.[/QUOTE]
I honestly thought it was Mike Meyers (Wayne's World) at first!..thought it might be another Austin Powers movie upcoming..
E
Element 117
When I first saw her pic, I wondered why Al Gore was wearing earrings.[/QUOTE]
I honestly thought it was Mike Meyers (Wayne's World) at first!..thought it might be another Austin Powers movie upcoming..[/QUOTE]
M
Matt²
hmm...................
Dave
Staff member
What I think is really funny is that she'll be a Jewish woman, bringing the number of women to 3, Jewish people to 3 and quite possibly (if the unsubstantiated rumors are correct) the first gay judge. Frankly I think the woman thing won't mean a thing to anyone, the Jewish thing will cause the skinheads to riot and the gay thing is long overdue and would be a great addition. If she is gay, which again is nothing more than a rumor (smear attempt?) at this point.
She's definitely qualified and would be a great addition to the court. I just hope she doesn't have too many cards stacked against her from the start.
She's definitely qualified and would be a great addition to the court. I just hope she doesn't have too many cards stacked against her from the start.
C
Chibibar
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:edu...63b25a25526/Elena-Kagans-Education-Background
Wow... gotta read the comment (well first couple then you might want to stop cause some of you might want to beat the living daylight out of them for being stupid)
Wow... gotta read the comment (well first couple then you might want to stop cause some of you might want to beat the living daylight out of them for being stupid)
C
Chibibar
Heh. Will it be any different from the last appointment?
I saw some of the videos and news. All the Senates are going to do is question her ability to interpret the law via the Constitution. Her background choices/decision she has made (especially the army recruiter deal) and such. I personally think it is just the Senates way of seeing if She is going to "play ball" with the Senate or might go against them when court cases appear before her. That is how I see it.
Her qualification (education wise) is pretty impressive and she is brilliant (as said in other news) in law. I think she will be a good addition. I believe the Republican fear her cause she might vote "yes" to allow recognition (U.S. wise) on same sex.
A co-worker told me that Texas currently does NOT recognize same sex marriage that are done from another state and Texas Supreme court rule in favor of that decision (no recognize) I am too lazy to double check at this time.
Dave
Staff member
My biggest issue with the whole thing is everyone's laser approach to the fact that she's never been a judge and using that against her and Obama. For God's sake! This is nothing new! It's been done so much people who actually bother to educate themselves will roll their eyes and say "So what?" But legions of idiots will look at this like it's something new and scary just because the pundits tell them to. And the reason why they are all Harvard and Yale grads is because that's generally regarded (correctly or incorrectly) as the two top legal schools in the country.
I'd be willing to bet that this goes straight down party lines just like everything else. Our "representatives" in the government are no longer giving two shits about what's best for the country and are instead more worried about how they are perceived by their political parties.
The partisanship and petty bickering for the sake of bickering disgusts me. If Obama cured cancer the Republicans would be against it.
I'd be willing to bet that this goes straight down party lines just like everything else. Our "representatives" in the government are no longer giving two shits about what's best for the country and are instead more worried about how they are perceived by their political parties.
The partisanship and petty bickering for the sake of bickering disgusts me. If Obama cured cancer the Republicans would be against it.
Football politics, Dave. Football politics. Wave your little elephant or donkey banner and paint your face blue and red. Don't forget to watch the game recap on MSNBC or Fox News!
GasBandit
Staff member
Indeed. And if a Republican nominates a justice, he/she practically has to perform a partial-birth abortion on the Senate floor to get confirmation.
Dave
Staff member
Indeed. And if a Republican nominates a justice, he/she practically has to perform a partial-birth abortion on the Senate floor to get confirmation.[/QUOTE]
Which would be perfectly legal of them to do.
GasBandit
Staff member
Indeed. And if a Republican nominates a justice, he/she practically has to perform a partial-birth abortion on the Senate floor to get confirmation.[/QUOTE]
Which would be perfectly legal of them to do.[/QUOTE]
Not so much. Well, I guess it would if he first injected salt into the fetal heart.
But that's all beside the point. I'm actually pro-legal-abortion. What I was trying to say was if the nominee so much as even parts their hair on the right, they ain't getting confirmed.
Indeed. And if a Republican nominates a justice, he/she practically has to perform a partial-birth abortion on the Senate floor to get confirmation.[/QUOTE]
Which would be perfectly legal of them to do.[/QUOTE]
Not so much. Well, I guess it would if he first injected salt into the fetal heart.
But that's all beside the point. I'm actually pro-legal-abortion. What I was trying to say was if the nominee so much as even parts their hair on the right, they ain't getting confirmed.[/QUOTE]
Are you daring to imply that the democrats are as bad as republicans when it comes to treating presidential nominees like crap? That sounds totally nutso buddy.
- Status