Does it really matter about Kagan?

#5
#5
It matters greatly, especially if something were to happen to one of the five judges who have their heads on straight in interpreting the constitution correctly and who think logically.
 
#6
#6
She will get confirmed, there are just enough weak Rs to let her get confirmed. Not sure how much it really matters, she is a liberal nut replacing a liberal nut.
 
#7
#7
It always matters when you put a Justice on the Court that DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE USC.

The Dems have amazingly gotten away with advocating and even implementing to a large degree a nation ruled by men rather than laws.
 
#8
#8
It always matters when you put a Justice on the Court that DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE USC.

The Dems have amazingly gotten away with advocating and even implementing to a large degree a nation ruled by men rather than laws.

And by and large the American voter has given them a proverbial pat on the back and an atta boy by re-electing them, allowing Constitutional Amendments that empower them (such as the 16th and 17th), and granting them a Congressional majority.

We can say what we want about out of control politicians, but in this country, it has been and still is the American voter that is empowering them, and that, to me, is what is so depressing. Americans are doing this to themselves, in spite of the blood and suffering of those rebels that first gave them that liberty.
 
#9
#9
She will get confirmed, there are just enough weak Rs to let her get confirmed. Not sure how much it really matters, she is a liberal nut replacing a liberal nut.

Take a look a Kagan's replacement;

CNSNews.com - Acting U.S. Solicitor General Represented Osama Bin Laden?s Driver; Denied That Battle Against Terrorism Is A War

Katyal is one of nine attorneys in the Justice Department who previously represented a Guantanamo detainee. That’s the bigger problem, Burlingame said.

“With respect to attorneys representing Gitmo detainees, Katyal is probably the best of the bunch as far as bona fides. It is alarming that the Obama administration has installed so many lawyers that represented Gitmo detainees,” Burlingame said. “He wasn’t just advocating the law, but he tried to advance a narrative (that) Hamdan was just a driver. This guy was transporting weapons aimed at American troops.”

To which side does the present administration lean??


In a March 2006 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, Katyal and Swift argued, “The president seeks not merely to detain temporarily, but to dispense life imprisonment and death thorough a judicial system of his own design.

That simply is not true, the president was prosecuting the terrorists under rules previously mandated by congress.

As far a political theater goes concerning Kagan, we can only hope some Republican will step forweard who is willing to filibuster.

I don't believe the democrats can muster 60 votes.
 
#11
#11
It always matters when you put a Justice on the Court that DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE USC.

The Dems have amazingly gotten away with advocating and even implementing to a large degree a nation ruled by men rather than laws.

Examples;

Obama's contempt for the governed | CapeCodOnline.com

First: The labor and leasing costs of an oil rig is many millions of dollars a day. Even if the oil companies win, their choice will be to stop drilling or be faced with an Obama "or else!" (This is where Obama's Chicago "or else" training comes in handy — the use of political power, threats, intimidation, character assassination, pay to play, incentives, etc.; remember, we saw it all in the health care vote.)
--------------------------------

Second: Obama has taken effective control of the banking, mortgage, auto manufacturing, health care and student loan businesses, as well as the finance industry through "finance reform," and now the oil industry. He will, if not stopped, control all businesses through his union partners with "card check." He will give amnesty to illegal aliens and register them to vote (Democratic, of course).
-----------------------------------

He is indeed bringing about "change" as he promised. From a constitutional republic with the leadership of the government based on the "consent of the governed," he is changing it to a leadership with "contempt for the governed." (Voter polling strongly opposes virtually every one of his positions and actions. He knows it and doesn't care!)
 
#13
#13
It matters greatly, especially if something were to happen to one of the five judges who have their heads on straight in interpreting the constitution correctly and who think logically.

Well the supreme court voted 5-3 (Roberts recused himself because a prior appeals panel decision in which he was involved,) to stop the military tribunals at Guantanamo that were sanctioned by congressional act on very dubious grounds and went with the ACLU.

So thinking the SCOTUS has a conservative majority is a bit shaky and most of the liberals on the panel are ultra liberal.



She will get confirmed, there are just enough weak Rs to let her get confirmed. Not sure how much it really matters, she is a liberal nut replacing a liberal nut.

I disagree.

Kagan is a lot more of a danger than we realize.

Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions

A MUST READ FOR ANYONE REALLY INTERESTED IN THE MAKEUP OF THE SCOTUS.

To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap: the substitution of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history. A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court. And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.
-------------


Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court.

Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:
 
#14
#14
All I can guess is that it is about their own re-election.

I do not see why they even hold these hearings anymore, I doubt that their vote changed one way or the other during these hearings, and nobody will be swayed by what is said for the vote. Most of them had their vote before she even said one word, and they will not change now. Anything they will say will be for their voters.

Also, I do not think the Republicans will filibuster, the Democrats did not filibuster Bush's nominees and the Republicans will not filibuster Obama's.
 
#15
#15
if Obama is going to nominate women to the SC, could he at least find a good looking one? Kagan looks like the love child of Janet Reno and Patton Oswalt.
 
#16
#16
if Obama is going to nominate women to the SC, could he at least find a good looking one? Kagan looks like the love child of Janet Reno and Patton Oswalt.

Good luck finding a liberal politician that is hot.
 
#18
#18
I wonder if the CA and AZ renderings will have any effect on anyone's vote.

It's actually sad that so many elected officials just take this with such little regard as to the effect this decision has on people...and for years. Souter is a good example of the Right buying into a few lines and a GOP Presidential nomination.
 
#19
#19
A conservative group is petitioning the SCOTUS to dis-bar Kagan for falsifying reports used to strike down a partial birth abortion ban. Won't be reported by the MSM... but it could get interesting if SCOTUS agrees to hear them.
 
#20
#20
A conservative group is petitioning the SCOTUS to dis-bar Kagan for falsifying reports used to strike down a partial birth abortion ban. Won't be reported by the MSM... but it could get interesting if SCOTUS agrees to hear them.


In other news, a conservative group is making crap up and, what it doesn't make up, is taking out of context and manipulating, see eg Breitbart.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

monty-python-taunting.jpg
 
#21
#21
In other news, a conservative group is making crap up and, what it doesn't make up, is taking out of context and manipulating, see eg Breitbart.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

The irony is the "most intelligent president" fell for the video. There IS a huge difference between someone in the media doing this and the government itself doing this. I'm more inclined to say it is far more dangerous and destructive in what Obama is doing than what Breitbart is doing.
 
#22
#22
In other news, a conservative group is making crap up and, what it doesn't make up, is taking out of context and manipulating, see eg Breitbart.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

monty-python-taunting.jpg

Oooo... I'm really intimidated now by the guy who hand waves at facts that contradict what he wants to believe.

The group is going to bring the text of the arguments she made along with the actual text of the study she cites to demonstrate that a study that said partial birth abortion is never a necessity was misconstrued to say that partial birth abortion is sometimes the only option.

I know guys like you hate facts... but this is really as black and white as words on paper. Politically, who knows? Factually, either she lied or she didn't.

Of course that doesn't matter to the left either. Clinton committed a felony while President and acts that in any other organization (or that organization had he been a Republican) would have been hailed as sexual harrassment... the left deflected and defended him to the end. They demagogued those who tried to enforce the law.

Truth is LG... you guys are too easy to win debate with because your positions so seldom hold up to objective review.
 
#23
#23
Oooo... I'm really intimidated now by the guy who hand waves at facts that contradict what he wants to believe.

The group is going to bring the text of the arguments she made along with the actual text of the study she cites to demonstrate that a study that said partial birth abortion is never a necessity was misconstrued to say that partial birth abortion is sometimes the only option.

I know guys like you hate facts... but this is really as black and white as words on paper. Politically, who knows? Factually, either she lied or she didn't.

Of course that doesn't matter to the left either. Clinton committed a felony while President and acts that in any other organization (or that organization had he been a Republican) would have been hailed as sexual harrassment... the left deflected and defended him to the end. They demagogued those who tried to enforce the law.

Truth is LG... you guys are too easy to win debate with because your positions so seldom hold up to objective review.

Let hope they are successful.

If a president (Clinton) can be disbarred then surely a supreme court justice can also be disbarred, there is certainly evidence in Kagan's case that could bring that same result.

Also:

Shall Shariah Reign Supreme? :: Accuracy In Academia

Among other things:

1. “With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated ‘to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems,’” Brim shows. “In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies,” Brim continues. “In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools (inaugural panel audio here).”

2. “When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the middle east were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack,” Brim reminds us. “Guiliani stated flatly, ‘There is no moral equivalent for this act.’ But – when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law. As Newt Gingrich has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.”

3. “In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School,” Brim recounts. “On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article ‘Why Shariah’ in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted ‘Islamists’—the Muslim Brotherhood—as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: ‘In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…’” On September 16, 2008, Kagan honored him with the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law. “Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, ‘outward interpretation’ of the Constitution that could ‘require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,’ and allow for an ‘experimental Constitution.’”

4. “On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Shariah Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s,” Brim reveals. “The goal towards which I am striving is that there will be an Arab civil code derived primarily from the Islamic Shari’a,” al-Sanhuri himself states in his book The Arab Civil Code. “Kagan presided over four of the al-Sanhuri lectures before her departure to become Obama’s Solicitor General,” Brim notes.

5. “On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan,” Brim reveals. “Chaudry had been deposed from his post in 2007 by President General Pervez Musharraf in a complex dispute that included the issue of independence of the judiciary. Musharraf later resigned, and on March 16, 2009, the Prime Minister Gilani re-appointed Chaudhry as Chief Justice.”

“Contrary to the constitution of Pakistan, Chaudhry usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president…In a previous ruling, Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of Parliament, the president and all ministers of the cabinet from serving if they violate ‘Islamic injunctions,” or do not engage in ‘teaching and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam,”

"Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world"

?????????????????????

Only a fool or a liar would utter such and only a fool or a liar would profess to believe such nonsense.

The five Republicans who voted to confirm Kagan were: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine),
Lindsey Graham (S.C.),
Judd Gregg (N.H.),
Richard Lugar (Ind.) and
Olympia Snowe (Maine).

(I think Collins and Snowe got funding put back into the budget to keep US Navy Maine shipyards open, don't know what Graham, Gregg and Lugar got.)
 
#24
#24
In other news, a conservative group is making crap up and, what it doesn't make up, is taking out of context and manipulating, see eg Breitbart.

Rachel Maddow Edits 'Factor' Video to Make Bill O'Reilly Look Racist | NewsBusters.org

Unfortunately, in the most damning clip, Maddow's minions conveniently edited out that O'Reilly was referring to a recent Gallup poll about how blacks and whites have differing views of President Obama.
 

VN Store



Back
Top