Export thread

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

unfortunately she has never BEEN a judge. Bad call, Obama!

That... he... what? That's... what? Why?

She was dean of Harvard Law and was once called "the most brilliant legal mind that's never held the position of judge." Don't act like she's completely unqualified.

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?

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 )

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.

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.

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

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I apologize that you got the "selective stupid" as leveled at you, Matt. It was not. It was at Republican pundits. Of course, if you believe them....:biggrin:

Steven Soderburgin said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Well, I guess if both sides don't like her, maybe she's OK.

What am I saying?!

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.

sixpackshaker said:

She looks like she will be a fence sitter, a swing vote that will vote her conscience and by the law.

Click to expand...

On what are you basing this?

Steven Soderburgin;383967][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:

She looks like she will be a fence sitter, a swing vote that will vote her conscience and by the law.

Click to expand...

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.

Steven Soderburgin;383967][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:

She looks like she will be a fence sitter, a swing vote that will vote her conscience and by the law.

Click to expand...

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.

I like her because when they make a movie about the Supreme Court she can be played by Kevin James.

Dave said:

I like her because when they make a movie about the Supreme Court she can be played by Kevin James.

Click to expand...

When I first saw her pic, I wondered why Al Gore was wearing earrings.

sixpackshaker;383975][QUOTE=Dave said:

I like her because when they make a movie about the Supreme Court she can be played by Kevin James.

Click to expand...

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..

Matt²;384002][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;383975][QUOTE=Dave said:

I like her because when they make a movie about the Supreme Court she can be played by Kevin James.

Click to expand...

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]

.

I think she'd do a good job, but if you don't see the Kevin James thing you're not looking!

.

Man, that guy needs to eat some Jenny Craig or something.

hmm...................

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.

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)

People are stupid. Story at 11.

Yahoo commenters are nothing but trolls and ignorant idiots.

Dave said:

People are stupid. Story at 11.

Yahoo commenters are nothing but trolls and ignorant idiots.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

Dave said:

The partisanship and petty bickering for the sake of bickering disgusts me. If Obama cured cancer the Republicans would be against it.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit;384119][QUOTE=Dave said:

The partisanship and petty bickering for the sake of bickering disgusts me. If Obama cured cancer the Republicans would be against it.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave;384120][QUOTE=GasBandit;384119][QUOTE=Dave said:

The partisanship and petty bickering for the sake of bickering disgusts me. If Obama cured cancer the Republicans would be against it.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit;384128][QUOTE=Dave;384120][QUOTE=GasBandit;384119][QUOTE=Dave said:

The partisanship and petty bickering for the sake of bickering disgusts me. If Obama cured cancer the Republicans would be against it.

Click to expand...

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.

Maybe. Doesn't stop the Supreme Court from pushing to the right on almost every issue. I guess the right is more effective in their smear campaigns.

Krisken said:

Maybe. Doesn't stop the Supreme Court from pushing to the right on almost every issue. I guess the right is more effective in their smear campaigns.

Click to expand...

Or maybe just that supreme court justices are OLD.

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Krisken said:

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Click to expand...

They can, once dementia sets in.

I think I'll stop now before Calleja comes in and complains about us Gas.

Where's the fun in THAT?

GasBandit;384188][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Click to expand...

They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]

But what does Scalia have?

@Li3n;384400][QUOTE=GasBandit;384188][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Click to expand...

They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]

But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]

"I am the law."

@Li3n;384400][QUOTE=GasBandit;384188][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Click to expand...

They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]

But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]

A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.

GasBandit;384479][QUOTE=@Li3n;384400][QUOTE=GasBandit;384188][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Click to expand...

They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]

But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]

A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.[/QUOTE]

So did Bush, but i still wouldn't let him run a lemonade stand.

@Li3n;384508][QUOTE=GasBandit;384479][QUOTE=@Li3n;384400][QUOTE=GasBandit;384188][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Click to expand...

They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]

But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]

A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.[/QUOTE]

So did Bush, but i still wouldn't let him run a lemonade stand.[/QUOTE]

Before his election to president, Obama hadn't even run so much as a lemonade stand in his life

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

But just because nominating/appointing lawyers with no judge experience has been done 40-some times (as stated above), why is that a good idea?

As a lawyer arguing a position, you need to advocate for your client. Sometimes you have the luxury of choosing clients with your viewpoint, but often not. And even then, there's going to be a few things you argue for that are NOT your own views. Being a judge is different. You generally do NOT get to choose what's presented in front of you, and thus your decision-making record shows a lot more about your individual position than your advocacy (as a lawyer, not extra-curricular activities) does. And she doesn't have a bench record, and thus what she believes herself has little evidence.

And then as above, why not take somebody with bench experience? There has to be vast differences between being a judge and arguing in front of them. Even if it's been done 40-some times, that doesn't mean it was a good decision those other 40-some times, even if the candidate worked out. I'd rather have somebody with bench experience to begin with.


Though if you want insanity, check out the proposal (by the official opposition) in Canada to have a requirement that Supreme Court judges be bilingual. Yes, disregard legal experience, best for the position, etc. Bilingual is the most important requirement in the opposition's opinion. (For the politically savvy, it's also a way to say "fuck you" to western Canada, where the VAST majority of people and jurists are NOT bilingual. Which is also true for the rest of the country, but especially out west).

Supreme Court justices must know and understand the law thoroughly. That's it. That can be obtained through different routes, not just being a lower court judge. That's why it doesn't matter if she hasn't been a judge before. Everything else is just bullshit.

GasBandit;384512][QUOTE=@Li3n;384508][QUOTE=GasBandit;384479][QUOTE=@Li3n;384400][QUOTE=GasBandit;384188][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Never mind that Stevens is the oldest and most progressive voice on the court.

OMG, old people can't be progressive!

Click to expand...

They can, once dementia sets in.[/QUOTE]

But what does Scalia have?[/QUOTE]

A bottomless barrel of absolute awesome.[/QUOTE]

So did Bush, but i still wouldn't let him run a lemonade stand.[/QUOTE]

Before his election to president, Obama hadn't even run so much as a lemonade stand in his life [/QUOTE]

And he still inspires more confidence in me when he opens his mouth then when Bush did... i mean the guy reminds me of a guy in highschool who i tricked into saying "I am stupid!" in english class when he had to make a sentence with "I am..." even though the word stupid means the same thing in our language and is pronounced the same.

If he was an absolute leader you guys would have been fucked (well ok, Cheney as the grey eminence might have worked too).

@Li3n said:

And he still inspires more confidence

Click to expand...

You know who else inspired a lot of confidence in unsuspecting voters?

And there's a reason we don't have absolute leaders. In fact, we used to not even have absolute government... but that's kinda fallen by the wayside in recent decades.

GasBandit;385003][QUOTE=@Li3n said:

And he still inspires more confidence

Click to expand...

You know who else inspired a lot of confidence in unsuspecting voters?[/QUOTE]

JFK?

No, wait, you're talking about Tony Blair, aren't you?

... Maggie Thatcher?