Jason Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 [size="5"][b]President Obama to Senate: Act fast[/b][/size] Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36989.html By JOSH GERSTEIN & CAROL E. LEE | 5/9/10 11:23 PM EDT Updated: 5/10/10 12:23 PM EDT President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court Monday – calling her a legal trailblazer who would embody “that same excellence, independence, integrity and passion for the law” as the man she would replace, retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Obama said the court with Kagan on it will be more representative of the country – and it would have for the first time three female justices, if Kagan is confirmed. [b]"I hope that the Senate will act in a bipartisan fashion,"[/b] [color="#FF0000"][b] (Why should the Republicans be bipartisan? The Democrats have always been very vocal in their opposition to Republican appointments over ideological matters, regardless of qualifications! Remember Robert Bork?)[/b][/color] Obama said, "and that they will do so as quickly as possible so she can get busy." Kagan, 50, who was the first female dean of Harvard Law School, called the court an “extraordinary institution” that can help people in their everyday lives, “because law matters, because it keeps us safe, because it protects our most fundamental rights and freedoms and because it is the foundation of our democracy.” Kagan’s choice is a by-the-books pick straight from the top of Obama’s short list that seems designed to avoid a major confirmation battle with Republicans. And in his first comment on the selection, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell steered clear of any hint that Republicans would seek to block Kagan’s nomination but suggested they will focus their questions on whether she has the “requisite experience” to serve on the court. “We will carefully review her brief litigation experience, as well as her judgment and her career in academia, both as a professor and as an administrator. Fulfilling our duty to advise and consent on a nomination to this office requires a thorough process, not a rush to judgment,” McConnell said in a statement. He also warned that judges like Kagan “must not be a rubberstamp for any administration. Judges must not walk into court with a preconceived idea of who should win. Their job is to apply the law ‘without respect to persons,’ as the judicial oath states; it is not to pick winners or losers.” As solicitor general, Kagan serves as the nation’s top lawyer arguing cases before the high court. [b]Yet Kagan is highly unusual in one way – she has never been a judge. [color="#FF0000"](And people thought Clarence Thomas was unqualified??)[/color][/b] It’s the first time in nearly four decades that someone would join the court, if confirmed, without any prior judicial experience. The last to do so was William Rehnquist, who went on to become chief justice. Obama made his decision Sunday and called Kagan at 8 p.m. Sunday to let her know he had selected her, a White House official said. He also called the other three candidates he had interviewed to inform them of his decision. Kagan was one of the last candidates Obama interviewed. The White House official said he interviewed her on April 30. Vice President Joe Biden played a significant role in the process, the official said, including having breakfast with Kagan at the Naval Observatory on April 27. Obama also discussed candidates with Biden last Tuesday during their weekly lunch. At 8:30 a.m. Monday Obama called and spoke with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, and he tried unsuccessfully to reach Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, the official said. But Kagan’s lack of judicial experience – and a readily available paper trail of legal arguments and decisions – has some on the left, in particular, nervous about whether she is the kind of down-the-line liberal that they dreamed Obama would appoint. In addition, she has centrist bona fides from her work in the Clinton administration’s domestic policy shop, and has drawn worries from the left over her apparent willingness to give some Bush administration war-on-terror tools to the Obama White House. One commentator, The Nation’s Ari Melber, told POLITICO: “As a lawyer, I think there is no doubt that: 1. Kagan is supremely qualified and merits confirmation by any standard 2. Replacing [Justice John Paul] Stevens with Kagan moves the Court to the Right. Ergo 3. The sum consequence of Obama's first term appointments will be to advance qualified nominees through a respectable selection process that ultimately tilts the Court a bit more to the Right. Not the end of the world, but not what most Obama voters had in mind, either.” Former White House counsel Greg Craig on Monday morning challenged the criticism that Kagan is inexperienced, saying she has an “extraordinary record” of government service and teaching experience at top law schools. “I think you don’t have to have judicial experience to be a highly qualified candidate,” he said. “She’ll be a good judge no question about it.” Craig also called Kagan “as mainstream as they get. So there may be opposition but I cannot determine it would be serious opposition given her qualifications.” Kagan’s friend and fellow Princeton University graduate, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said she is a moderate who is “unbelievably smart and thoughtful and careful” and therefore has “the perfect temperament to be a justice.” “She is not an ideologue of the left or the right and that is clear from what she did as dean of Harvard Law School,” Spitzer said in an interview on CBS’s “Early Show.” And in fact, the early reading on Republican sentiment seems to be that there isn’t an appetite to mount a filibuster fight to derail Kagan at this stage. Seven Republicans already voted for her for solicitor general, and she drew praise at the time for conservative legal luminaries like Ted Olson and Ken Starr. One Senate Republican aide told POLITICO: “'A third of the Senate said she was unqualified for the [solicitor general] post. It will be hard to ask them to turn around and say she now qualified, for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And we'll be busy in the coming months looking over her whole year of courtroom experience.” Seven Republican senators voted for Kagan at the time: Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Orrin Hatch of Utah. But there could still be a substantial culture war dust-up over her actions at Harvard to exclude military recruiters because of the ban on gays in the armed services. Conservatives have indicated that one line of argument against Kagan is that her tireless efforts against the military recruiters shows Kagan is more activist and advocate than fair-minded judge – and such an argument could also nick Obama, who has had to defend his toughness on national defense matters from attacks by the GOP. White House aides also have signaled that Obama believes Kagan could provide a forceful, effective counterweight to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, and perhaps even be the bridge to bring Justice Anthony Kennedy onto the liberal side in narrow 5-4 decisions. As a White House official, , she worked with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in negotiating anti-tobacco legislation. And in her current job, Kagan argued the White House position in Citizens United, the decision that opened campaigns to more corporate funding. Obama had made clear he hopes to roll back that decision through legislation – and Democrats are expected to champion Kagan’s role in the case as proof she’ll fight efforts by the Roberts Supreme Court to favor corporate interests – even though, in the end, Kagan lost the case. Yet Kagan could also draw significant fire from the left. And as the likelihood of her selection grew in recent days, some on the left questioned her brief work on an advisory board to Goldman Sachs – the Wall Street bank now facing civil fraud charges – and her record of hiring minorities at Harvard. And in picking Kagan, Obama passed over at least one short-lister who is a favorite of the left, 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood. Kagan has never been on the bench, so her views on issues likely to come before the court are presently less well known than nominees with a lengthy list of opinions drafted as judges. A short paper trail tends to dampen contention during the confirmation process, but the information vacuum could also raise anxiety among some of the president’s backers about whether Kagan will be a reliably liberal vote. While Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, served as dean of Harvard law and won tenure both at Harvard and the University of Chicago, her body of published work is thin, consisting of three major articles and a handful of other pieces. “It’s absolutely imperative given her lack of a track record of any kind that she not be allowed to get away with this kind of ritual that people have engaged in…for the last 25 years where you get away with basically not saying anything,” said Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, said ahead of her selection by Obama. “We don’t have anything to judge her on.” Kagan’s reticence or caution in her public statements extends beyond her formal writings. “I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade,” Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein wrote on his blog. Kagan’s own criticism of modern-day judicial confirmation hearings could make it difficult for her to maintain the public ambiguity about many of her views. In a 1995 book review, she complained that the process had become a “vapid and hollow charade.” Kagan called it an “embarrassment [that] senators today do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues." Kagan was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by Clinton in 1999, but was never given a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, said they were unsure the vacancy needed to be filled. Democrats contended that the GOP deliberately stalled the nomination in order to prevent another Clinton appointee from reaching the appeals court considered the nation’s most powerful because it hears key issues involving the federal government. Kagan’s nomination as solicitor general last year got a warmer response from the Republican legal establishment. A wide array of conservative lawyers backed Kagan for solicitor general, including Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton; Olson, Bush’s solicitor general, along with Bush White House lawyer Brad Berenson. Most cited determined efforts she made to bring conservative faculty to Harvard Law and to make sure that conservative legal groups such as the Federalist Society felt welcome on campus. However, Kagan’s outreach to conservatives was so concerted that it has underscored concerns that she would not be the liberal firebrand on the court that some of Obama’s supporters had hoped for. While those concerns are expected to temper some liberal groups’ enthusiasm about her nomination, no major organizations on the left are likely to oppose her and most expect her to easily win majority support in the Senate. “She’s very smart and very thoughtful, really wanting to hear all sides of things and wanting to understand what the other side thought,” said Richard Socarides, an attorney who served as the Clinton administration’s liaison to the gay community. “I always found her very progressive,” he said. While conservatives may find Kagan more palatable than some other possibilities for the high court, that may not translate into substantial GOP support in the Senate, particularly in an election year. In the 61-to-31 vote last March on her confirmation as solicitor general, Kagan won the support of only seven Republicans. One Republican vote against her confirmation came from Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who joined the Democratic Party a few weeks later. He complained that she had been unduly evasive in answering questions from the Judiciary Committee. Some critics also complained at the time that Kagan lacked courtroom experience. She has never tried a case in court and had never argued before the Supreme Court prior to assuming the Solicitor General’s job. Reviews of the arguments she made in the past year or so have been less than stellar. While some have encouraged Kagan’s nomination to the court by arguing that she could win the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, as an advocate she has shown no particular ken at winning him over. Given the higher stakes of a Supreme Court nomination, it seems doubtful Kagan will be able to hold all the Republican votes she won last year. Obama also considered Kagan for his first Supreme Court vacancy, but ultimately nominated 2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who won 68 votes in the Senate. One point of contention likely to resurface during Kagan’s confirmation hearings is her vocal opposition to the military’s ban on openly gay servicemembers. In an open letter to the Harvard community in 2003, she labeled the policy as “a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order.” When a federal appeals court struck down the so-called Solomon Amendment, which cut off federal funding to educational institutions which denied access to military recruiters, Harvard Law, under Kagan, became the first major law school to ban official recruiting on campus. Kagan also joined an amicus brief which urged the Supreme Court to find the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional. In 2006, the high court voted 8-0 to reject Kagan’s view and that of many universities which challenged the link between funding and access for military recruiting. “Kagan's actions on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and other gay-rights issues will be prominent, in part because this is one area where she's been vocal and in part because it appears that she's let her policy preferences warp her legal views,” said Ed Whelan of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “I doubt that the American public will be impressed that Kagan kicked the military off campus in wartime but welcomed law firms that were donating their services to terrorists.” While in the Clinton White House, Kagan was involved in efforts to ban discrimination against gays in federal employment. “From what I can tell and from my personal experience with her, her positions on gay rights are right in the mainstream of American thinking…When it comes to jobs, be it in the military or the private sector, you ought to be judged by your ability, not your orientation,” Socarides said. “That she believes these things passionately should not disqualify her—it makes her uniquely qualified.” Unlike some other Democratic lawyers, Kagan was not an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration’s war-on-terror policies. However, she did surface briefly in that fight in 2005, when she and other law deans signed a letter objecting to aspects of an amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that limited court challenges by Guantanamo prisoners. “When dictatorships have passed laws stripping their courts of power to review executive detention or punishment of prisoners, our government has rightly challenged such acts as fundamentally lawless. The same standard should apply to our own government,” Kagan and her counterparts wrote. Senators ultimately voted, 84-14, in favor of the bulk of Graham’s amendment. Kagan is also likely to face questioning about her service from 2005 to 2008 on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs, which has in recent days become something of a bogeyman in Washington over its actions in the financial crisis. However, Kagan’s involvement with Goldman seems to have been quite limited, involving just one meeting a year. From 1991 to 1995, Kagan taught at the University of Chicago Law School. She reportedly first met Obama during that time, when he was also teaching at the school. During her service in the Clinton White House, Kagan was widely praised for her intellect but sometimes criticized for her brusque manner. Her people-handling skills improved markedly when she headed to Harvard and assumed the dean’s post, associates said Kagan was born in New York City, got her undergraduate degree from Princeton and her law degree from Harvard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 So? There are a number of Judges that have served that haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 Big deal. There have been plenty of Justices and Chief Justices of the SP who were never judges: [quote]Chief Justices John Jay..............................Governor John Rutledge......................Governor Oliver Ellsworth....................Senator John Marshall.......................Secretary of State Roger Taney.........................Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Attorney General Salmon Chase......................Secretary of the Treasury, Governor Morrison Waite.....................Lawyer Melville Fuller.......................Representative Edward White.......................Lawyer William Howard Taft..............U.S. President Charles Hughes....................Secretary of State Harlan Stone........................Attorney General Fred Vinson..........................Secretary of the Treasury Earl Warren..........................Governor Associate Justices William Cushing...................Member, Continental Congress James Wilson......................Member, Continental Congress William Paterson..................Governor Samuel Chase.....................Member, Maryland General Assembly; Continental Congress Bushrod Washington............Lawyer William Johnson..................Representative, S.C. House Henry B. Livingston.............Military Gabriel Duvall.....................Representative Joseph Story.......................Representative Smith Thompson.................Secretary of the Navy John McLean.......................Unknown Henry Baldwin....................Representative James M. Wayne.................Mayor, Representative Philip P. Barbour..................Representative John McKinley.....................Senator, Representative Levi Woodbury....................Governor, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of the Navy Benjamin Curtis..................Lawyer John Campbell....................Lawyer Nathan Clifford....................Attorney General Noah Swayne......................Member, Ohio Legislature, U.S. Attorney Samuel Miller......................Lawyer David Davis........................Senator Joseph Bradley....................Lawyer John M. Harlan (I)...............Kentucky Attorney General Stanley Matthews................U.S. Attorney, Military Horace Gray........................Lawyer Lucius Lamar.......................Member, Georgia House, Secretary of the Interior George Shiras, Jr.................Lawyer Howell Jackson....................Member, Tennessee House Edward D. White..................Lawyer William Henry Moody............Attorney General Mahlon Pitney.....................Congress (office unspecified) James McReynolds...............Attorney General Louis Brandeis.....................Lawyer George Sutherland...............Congress (office unspecified) Pierce Butler.......................Lawyer Edward Sanford...................Attorney General Owen Roberts......................Assistant District Attorney Hugo L. Black......................Senator Stanley Forman Reed...........Solicitor General Felix Frankfurter..................Lawyer William O. Douglas...............Law Professor, Chairman of SEC Frank Murphy......................Mayor, Governor, Attorney General James Francis Byrnes...........Secretary of State Robert H. Jackson................Attorney General Harold Hitz Burton................Senator Tom Clark...........................Attorney General John M. Harlan (II)..............Lawyer Arthur J. Goldberg...............Secretary of Labor Abe Fortas..........................President and Chairman of the SEC Thurgood Marshall...............Lawyer Lewis F. Powell....................Lawyer[/quote] My beef with her is that she's not liberal enough in comparison to the justice she would be replacing. The court took a hard turn to the right during shrub's tenure (hell, over the last 30 years for that matter) and I think it needs nudged back towards the middle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html [quote]Experience needed? The long history of nonjudge justices. John Marshall is widely revered as "the great Chief Justice," but before joining the Supreme Court in 1801 he had never served a day in judicial robes and lost the only case he argued at the high court. Earl Warren had worked for 18 years as a prosecutor and was three times elected governor of California. But he had no prior judicial experience. Nor did William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis. The nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has sparked debate over her qualifications. Does she have the intellectual heft and constitutional dexterity necessary for the job? And how does her experience compare to the résumés and stature of prior justices? "People are still learning about Harriet Miers. Hers was not a name that quickly came off everybody's lips when people [asked] who are the most qualified people for the court," says David Yalof, a political science professor and expert on Supreme Court nominations at the University of Connecticut. But Professor Yalof adds, "The issue has never been most qualified, the issue is qualified." Who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is a determination made on a nominee by nominee basis by at least 51 US senators. There are no set rules for qualification. Although every past justice has been a lawyer, 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience. But many of the justices who lacked hands-on experience as a jurist nonetheless had achieved a high level of accomplishment and stature as intellectual or political leaders prior to their nominations. "Judicial experience is not a prerequisite, but what you look for in place of judicial experience is distinguished experience as a law professor or public official, and Miers really doesn't have either of those two," says Michael Comiskey, a political science professor at Penn State University at Fayette. One key consideration, scholars say, is the goal of the nominating president. "She clearly doesn't have the kind of symbolic significance that presidents are sometimes going for in choosing justices - those who you put on the bench because you expect them to be great justices," says Keith Whittington, a politics professor at Princeton University and visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin. President Reagan tried it, unsuccessfully, with the nomination of Robert Bork and succeeded with Justice Antonin Scalia, he says. "Earlier in the century Oliver Wendell Holmes was in that mold. Louis Brandeis was in that mold," Professor Whittington says. Other goals But naming the next Holmes or Brandeis is not the only legitimate goal in a high court nomination. "In lots of other cases you are putting people on who are reliable and have good judgment. You don't know if they are going to be great justices but you think they are going to be good justices, and she [Miers] seems to be more in that mold," he says. "She may emerge as a great justice for all we know, but that is not necessarily the point of picking her." Scholars are drawing comparisons between Miers and various former justices. Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas, and Brandeis were all lawyers with no judicial experience at the time of their nominations. Powell was president of the American Bar Association, while Miers was head of the Texas Bar Association. Fortas was Lyndon Johnson's personal lawyer prior to being named to the court. Miers was President Bush's personal lawyer and White House counsel prior to her nomination. But the least apt comparison, many analysts say, is with Brandeis. "The difference between Louis Brandeis and Harriet Miers is that Louis Brandeis was an academic lawyer," says Stefanie Lindquist, a professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University. "He wrote some very influential law review articles while he was in private practice. So he established intellectual credentials to serve on the court before he was elevated." She adds, "That is something we are missing with Harriet Miers. We really don't have any paper trail that establishes any intellectual credentials." The elitist argument Snobbery is no small part of the debate over Miers, analysts say. The fact that she attended Southern Methodist University rather than a top-tier law school like Harvard or Yale is seen by some as a mark against her. Yalof says that although a high number of justices attended elite law schools, not all justices did. Lewis Powell went to Washington & Lee. Warren Burger attended the St. Paul College of Law. Thurgood Marshall attended Howard University. Hugo Black went to the University of Alabama, and Chief Justice Fred Vinson was a graduate of Centre College in Kentucky. Yalof says the debate over who is most qualified for the Supreme Court is a false debate. Just because Miers isn't on someone's list of 100 most qualified candidates for a high court post doesn't mean she isn't qualified to do the job, he says. "No one could possibly have thought in 1956 that William Brennan was on the top 100 list of people to become a justice of the Supreme Court," Yalof says. "At the time of his appointment, William Brennan had been a little-known state supreme court judge in New Jersey for seven years. He was far and away not considered the most reputable justice on his own court," Yalof says. "Was he qualified?" Judge Brennan, appointed by President Eisenhower, went on to become one of the most influential justices of the 20th century. In contrast, some high court nominees never measure up. Charles Whittaker was an experienced litigator and corporate lawyer. He served as both a federal judge and an appeals court judge. But was unable to adjust to life as a justice. "He was one of the great failures in Supreme Court history," Yalof says. "He was overwhelmed by the job and quit after just five years." Some justices learn and grow on the job. "People now say that the [Miers nomination] is not a Scalia or Thomas nomination," says Whittington. "But at the time Clarence Thomas was nominated it wasn't clear that Thomas was that kind of nominee either." He adds, "He has emerged subsequently as somebody who has this kind of strong distinctive voice on the court. It is possible that Miers would as well." Fine - or great? Professor Lindquist says the lack of an academic or judicial paper trail makes it difficult to assess Miers' potential ability to develop or clarify legal and constitutional doctrine. "My guess is she would be a fine Supreme Court justice, but will she be a great Supreme Court justice - that seems less likely," she says. "John Roberts, on the other hand, is going to become a great Supreme Court justice. Whether or not I agree with all his politics, I think he is likely to be a brilliant Supreme Court justice."[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 Damn, there's an echo in here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Elflocko' date='10 May 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1273535976' post='887510'] Damn, there's an echo in here... [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 Taney was an [i]awesome[/i] SCJ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 I'm pretty obviously not a big fan of liberalism/socialism, and when I first started reading about this lady with no experience I thought "here we go again"... but, at this point, after a bit of history etc over the past day or so, I think its a pretty good pick, honestly. She seems like she really knows her stuff, even without judicial experience. And, we could use more "bridgers" rather than "dividers" in Washington. Of course, I also like that she isnt crazy liberal too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 lol @ retarded republican agenda... I HAVE NO IDEA OF ANY FACTS INVOLVED WHAT SO EVER BUT OMG OBAMA OMG!!!11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Bunghole' date='10 May 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1273536910' post='887518'] Taney was an [i]awesome[/i] SCJ! [/quote] Taney sucked Moose balls, imo. (Well, he sucked Andrew Jackson's balls.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='11 May 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1273550513' post='887563'] Taney sucked Moose balls, imo. (Well, he sucked Andrew Jackson's balls.) [/quote] I was being utterly sarcastic. [font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"] By all historical accounts he was an asshole racist with the [i]Sanford[/i] decision in terms of Constitutional rights for African Americans. It looks like he had that weird, Jeffersonian guilt over being a slaveholder as well, often freeing some of them. I wonder why he would feel guilty about owning slaves?[/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Elflocko' date='10 May 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1273535899' post='887508'] Big deal. There have been plenty of Justices and Chief Justices of the SP who were never judges: My beef with her is that she's not liberal enough in comparison to the justice she would be replacing. The court took a hard turn to the right during shrub's tenure (hell, over the last 30 years for that matter) and I think it needs nudged back towards the middle... [/quote] I'll agree there. I'll disagree with you there. I want a Supreme Court that frowns upon abortion and not defending lock-step (except in cases of incest, rape, mother's health). Obviously, that is my own personal opinion. [quote name='big_dish' date='10 May 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1273547817' post='887553'] She seems like she really knows her stuff, even without judicial experience. And, we could use more "bridgers" rather than "dividers" in Washington. [/quote] Seems like she pushes the court a little right of where it is now... but I like the bridge comment at this point instead of divide. We sooooooooo need that. [quote name='GoBengals' date='10 May 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1273548600' post='887557'] lol @ retarded republican agenda... I HAVE NO IDEA OF ANY FACTS INVOLVED WHAT SO EVER BUT OMG OBAMA OMG!!!11 [/quote] Good input. It is a fact that she's never been a judge. And it is a relevant fact, at that. But that has to be weighed against big picture and her other experiences... but any opportunity, right Go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='11 May 2010 - 07:00 AM' timestamp='1273586454' post='887605'] I'll agree there. [b]I'll disagree with you there. I want a Supreme Court that frowns upon abortion and not defending lock-step (except in cases of incest, rape, mother's health). Obviously, that is my own personal opinion.[/b] [/quote] Oh yeah, polar opposites there. My stance is that unless you have a vagina you have no say in the fucking matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Elflocko' date='11 May 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1273591103' post='887618'] Oh yeah, polar opposites there. My stance is that unless you have a vagina you have no say in the fucking matter... [/quote] I acknowledge your position. Don't understand it, but acknowledge it. What if you had sex with a woman and you got her pregnant... she wanted to abort, you wanted to keep the child - by all rights the baby is half yours... Just curious is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='11 May 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1273586454' post='887605'] I'll agree there. I'll disagree with you there. I want a Supreme Court that frowns upon abortion and not defending lock-step (except in cases of incest, rape, mother's health). Obviously, that is my own personal opinion. Seems like she pushes the court a little right of where it is now... but I like the bridge comment at this point instead of divide. We sooooooooo need that. Good input. It is a fact that she's never been a judge. And it is a relevant fact, at that. But that has to be weighed against big picture and her other experiences... but any opportunity, right Go? [/quote] If [url="http://www.hulu.com/watch/102972/saturday-night-live-the-rock-obama"]this[/url] wasn't as accurate as it is regarding the R agenda, then you'd have a point against Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='CincyInDC' date='11 May 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1273593949' post='887631'] If [url="http://www.hulu.com/watch/102972/saturday-night-live-the-rock-obama"]this[/url] wasn't as accurate as it is regarding the R agenda, then you'd have a point against Go. [/quote] I'm not saying that Go doesn't necessarily have a point... my whole thing is that he doesn't see that you have the same shit coming from the other direction as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='11 May 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1273592173' post='887623'] I acknowledge your position. Don't understand it, but acknowledge it. [b]What if you had sex with a woman and you got her pregnant... she wanted to abort, you wanted to keep the child - by all rights the baby is half yours...[/b] Just curious is all. [/quote] I'd say "bitch why you wanna pay for an abortion when I can push you down the stairs repeatedly for free?" I think that until technology advances to the point that we can carry a baby completely to term outside the body, the male will not and cannot have the last word on the matter. While the genetic material that created the baby is half yours...nature has shaped our species (and most) so that the female bears the biggest burden of responsibility during reproduction, thus the decision is ultimatley hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='big_dish' date='10 May 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1273547817' post='887553'] I'm pretty obviously not a big fan of [color="#FF0000"]liberalism/socialism[/color], and when I first started reading about this lady with no experience I thought "here we go again"... but, at this point, after a bit of history etc over the past day or so, I think its a pretty good pick, honestly. She seems like she really knows her stuff, even without judicial experience. And, we could use more "bridgers" rather than "dividers" in Washington. Of course, I also like that she isnt crazy liberal too. [/quote] Holy shit these are the same thing?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 http://www.politico.com/arena/ [quote] John Kerry Sen. (D-Mass.) : Massachusetts has been Elena Kagan's adopted home, but it's not for such home state boosterism, parochial reasons why I think she's a terrific choice. No, it's because I got to know her well not in Boston, but here in the Senate. In the spring of 1998, Elena was hard at work in the Clinton White House, and I was handed the assignment on the Commerce Committee to work on a bi-partisan tobacco bill - an uphill fight if there ever was one, back in the days when we were in the minority. It was a tough issue for both caucuses because the tobacco industry had jobs on the line in both red and blue states. John McCain and I were partnered together on legislation that would've restricted tobacco advertising targeting kids, brought in billions to help treat people who were sick as a result of smoking, given the FDA the ability to regulate nicotine as a drug, and so on. Elena Kagan was the Clinton Administration's point person for me, my team and our lawyers, and the Republicans helping us find a place of common sense. Heady stuff where we had to balance building a bill that could pass a difficult Senate, with the reality that neither left nor right could turn the bill into a Christmas tree of favored causes - even causes that were personally important to me. When we started out, no one gave us a hope of getting close to passage. The tobacco industry was too strong, we had a Republican Congress that was just a few months away from impeaching the President- it was a tough environment. But we fought hard and moved the ball much further down the field than anyone expected. We navigated and negotiated our way towards passing the bill out of the Commerce Committee 19-1 -- and despite an onslaught from all sides, we only missed clearing the filibuster threshold on the floor by 3 votes. It was a tough assignment and a difficult outcome - but it is with absolute certainty that I know we wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as we did without Elena Kagan. She camped out in the Vice President's office off the Senate floor, shuttling between there and the White House, and we worked together constantly, working on how to craft something that could secure as much support as we could. She worked on it night and day, working every angle, thinking through every approach. At every turn, she could keep the strategic path in mind while adapting to every move. Here's a great example: on the eve of the Commerce Committee's markup of the legislation, the whole thing seemed to be falling apart based on some objections to the authority of the FDA to regulate nicotine. Elena got together with all of the Republican Senators and staff over the issue and came up with a new strategy that gave the FDA all the authority it wanted and assuaged the Republican objections mainly by creating a new title in the bill to house it. It was classic Elena - she kept her eye on the ball and saw a path when a lot of people were assuming there was a deadlock. And it led to that 19-1 vote in favor of the bill in the committee. She was as tough as nails, and flat-out brilliant. She had a knack for knowing how to win people over, not out of a sense of compromise, but with an ability to make people see the wisdom of the argument. She could think strategically about how to present arguments that would sway folks over to her way of thinking. It's really a tough thing to do to change people's minds sometimes, but I saw then that she had the ability to do it, and the toughness to get it done. I remember lots of late nights in that ornate office in the Capital building, walking off the Senate floor to meet with my staff and Elena, and invariably, she'd have a new way to look at things, a fresh approach to getting it done. It was a tutorial in consensus-building from someone for whom that was pure instinct - and it won Elena the respect of people on both sides of the aisle. I can't help but think today that her hands-on experience working the governing process is a critical component to what makes her a terrific choice as someone who really understands the way laws are created and the real-world effects of their implementation. It's a reminder to me of why some of the greatest Justices in our history were not judges before they sat on the Supreme Court, justices with names like Frankfurter, Marshall, and Brandeis. So my bottom-line is, simply, I've seen her in the trenches - I've seen not just her smarts but how she applies them, and this is a Justice about whom we can all be excited to watch on the Court - for many, many years to come.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='11 May 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1273595780' post='887638'] I'd say "bitch why you wanna pay for an abortion when I can push you down the stairs repeatedly for free?" I think that until technology advances to the point that we can carry a baby completely to term outside the body, the male will not and cannot have the last word on the matter. While the genetic material that created the baby is half yours...nature has shaped our species (and most) so that the female bears the biggest burden of responsibility during reproduction, thus the decision is ultimatley hers. [/quote] And, yet, flip the scenario around... you have sex, she gets pregnant, she wants to keep it, you want to abort it... you're on the hook for the next 18 years... Double-standard. If she has all the say to abort it and you have no input, then you should be able to walk away if she elects to keep it and you want it aborted without financial consequences... I don't mean to argue as this is a philosophical opinion / position that most hold near and dear... I guess I'll never understand some folks thought process behind it. Just like they'll never understand mine. But, we've moved away from the primary point of the posting here which is this lady's nomination. Carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 She's so ugly it actually bothers me though. That's my biggest complaint. :0.5ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='11 May 2010 - 02:08 PM' timestamp='1273612094' post='887742'] She's so ugly it actually bothers me though. That's my biggest complaint. :0.5ninja: [/quote] The SP has never been known for hotties. Maybe you were thinking of litigants in the People's Court... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Elflocko' date='11 May 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1273612268' post='887744'] The SP has never been known for hotties. Maybe you were thinking of litigants in the People's Court... [/quote] How many fucking L's is one man permitted to have in a last name? [img]http://renchin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/doug.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='11 May 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1273595292' post='887635'] I'm not saying that Go doesn't necessarily have a point... my whole thing is that he doesn't see that you have the same shit coming from the other direction as well. [/quote] Yeah, Demo obstructionism was really in the forefront during W's administration. And if by obstructionism, you mean lying down and taking it then, yeah. It worked out pretty well for one of the parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='11 May 2010 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1273592173' post='887623'] I acknowledge your position. Don't understand it, but acknowledge it. What if you had sex with a woman and you got her pregnant... she wanted to abort, you wanted to keep the child - by all rights the baby is half yours... Just curious is all. [/quote] [quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='11 May 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1273609704' post='887721'] And, yet, flip the scenario around... you have sex, she gets pregnant, she wants to keep it, you want to abort it... you're on the hook for the next 18 years... Double-standard. If she has all the say to abort it and you have no input, then you should be able to walk away if she elects to keep it and you want it aborted without financial consequences... I don't mean to argue as this is a philosophical opinion / position that most hold near and dear... I guess I'll never understand some folks thought process behind it. Just like they'll never understand mine. But, we've moved away from the primary point of the posting here which is this lady's nomination. Carry on... [/quote] Well, as for you first point, I'll try not to sound crass, but I really wouldn't feel all that much attachment to a rapidly splitting bundle of cells that reside 100% in her uterus; she's the one that would have to carry it, get fat, and take on the risks involved in carrying a child to term. If half the cells were growing on my schlong I might see your point, but as it is it's [b]her[/b] body, it's [b]her[/b] choice whether I wanted to keep the child or not; life just isn't fair. In regard to the flip side, when you have sex you accept certain inherent risks, whether it be pregnancy or an STD. She gets pregnant and you're on the hook for the next 18 years, or she gives you herpes, you still are responsible for your own actions, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.