On the record: Every one in agreement Kagan is Obama's lapdog?

[OrangeEmpire]

Obviously, is she were straight, she would get on her knees any time Obama wanted her too.

This is on the level of Harriet Miers.

 

[gsvol]

Obviously, is she were straight, she would get on her knees any time Obama wanted her too.

This is on the level of Harriet Miers.

I have to disagree, some of them are pussycats.

BTW, Harriet Miers was ten times as qualified as is Kagan the pagan.

 

[IPorange]

Lapdog? No. But I do believe her to be far left and likely a Judicial activist. Obama can't necessarily control her, though. She is more like a mad dog that is being unleashed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Really, she had repeatedly stated how much she adores/loves/appreciates/would do him if she were straight.........

 

[volinbham]

Her non-answers are troublesome. Her inability to say if a Federal law requiring everyone eat 3 vegetables a day was a violation of the Commerce clause is staggering.

Hell, even Arlen Specter is getting fed up with her non-answers.

 

[MG1968]

with all the hubbub concerning Rahm Emmanuel and the Blago trial, Obama needs another token Jew on his side to obscure his selling out of Israel.

 

[droski]

Her non-answers are troublesome. Her inability to say if a Federal law requiring everyone eat 3 vegetables a day was a violation of the Commerce clause is staggering.

Hell, even Arlen Specter is getting fed up with her non-answers.

she was obviously told to be non commital. if she told people her true views on things undoubtably she'd have no chance of getting confirmed.

 

[tvolsfan]

I'm praying justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito stay healthy and decide not to retire until we have a conservative president...

 

[volfanjustin]

I'm praying justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito stay healthy and decide not to retire until we have a conservative president...

Amen.

Kagan is a far left radical,but she is replacing a far left radical. She is unqualified for her job, but so is Barry.

 

[sjt18]

If a GOP President had nominated someone so political and with so weak of a resume... the press wouldn't have allowed it to get to a confirmation hearing.

Bork and Miers were both more qualified than Kagan. Bork may have been the most qualified candidate in the 20th century.

Until Rep Senators stop being polite and stop being afraid of the MSM, conservative nominees are going to get slammed and libs are going to get a free pass.

 

[sjt18]

Amen.

Kagan is a far left radical,but she is replacing a far left radical. She is unqualified for her job, but so is Barry.

That means that we are one untimely death from having not just a leftist court but a far left, activist majority... and Obama is tied into the old Chicago Machine so "things happen".

The GOP could have pushed him to someone better and didn't. Several of them are either frauds or cowards or both.

 

[lawgator1]

she was obviously told to be non commital. if she told people her true views on things undoubtably she'd have no chance of getting confirmed.

I am in Vegas, so naturally not sitting glued to Senate confirmation hearings, but will say this:

1) I am not surprised that the board is complaining about her.

2) Nominees should never be "commited" in their answers to much of anuthing. They are always vague, and its on purpose. For one thing, the opposition party is always looking for something to pounce on, no matter how benign. The surest way to drag this thing out and give the enemy some ammo, is to take a hard line on something, anything. Last nominee I remember being very didactic about things was Robert Bork.

3) Why are people surprised she's overall left of center? Its a Democrat POTUS.

4) She's going to be confirmed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

she was obviously told to be non commital. if she told people her true views on things undoubtably she'd have no chance of getting confirmed.

Yea, I am glad we know her views on which Twilight character she likes and what she had for dinner on Christmas. The Softballs thrown at her were a disgrace

 

[GAVol]

I am in Vegas, so naturally not sitting glued to Senate confirmation hearings, but will say this:

1) I am not surprised that the board is complaining about her.

2) Nominees should never be "commited" in their answers to much of anuthing. They are always vague, and its on purpose. For one thing, the opposition party is always looking for something to pounce on, no matter how benign. The surest way to drag this thing out and give the enemy some ammo, is to take a hard line on something, anything. Last nominee I remember being very didactic about things was Robert Bork.

3) Why are people surprised she's overall left of center? Its a Democrat POTUS.

4) She's going to be confirmed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Can't disagree with any of that. As much as I disagree with her down the line, this is why elections matter.

 

[hmanvolfan]

Can't disagree with any of that. As much as I disagree with her down the line, this is why elections matter.

And that's why I'll never understand how this president got elected.

 

[volinbham]

2) Nominees should never be "commited" in their answers to much of anuthing. They are always vague, and its on purpose. For one thing, the opposition party is always looking for something to pounce on, no matter how benign. The surest way to drag this thing out and give the enemy some ammo, is to take a hard line on something, anything. Last nominee I remember being very didactic about things was Robert Bork.

I don't disagree but she is the one who blasted these hearings as vapid, etc. and said SCOTUS nominees should be much more forthcoming.

She is taking non-committal to a whole new level though which is hypocritical at the least given her writings on the process (and I know how much you hate hypocrisy).

At least Roberts in particular and Alito to some extent gave answers by citing law and showed command of relevant rulings. She basically has just bailed on many questions.

That said I agree it's no surprise she's left, that she will be confirmed and that in the end I don't have a problem with that given my view of advise and consent.

I do believe however that she will judge based on her beliefs rather than on the law.

 

[droski]

I am in Vegas, so naturally not sitting glued to Senate confirmation hearings, but will say this:

1) I am not surprised that the board is complaining about her.

2) Nominees should never be "commited" in their answers to much of anuthing. They are always vague, and its on purpose. For one thing, the opposition party is always looking for something to pounce on, no matter how benign. The surest way to drag this thing out and give the enemy some ammo, is to take a hard line on something, anything. Last nominee I remember being very didactic about things was Robert Bork.

3) Why are people surprised she's overall left of center? Its a Democrat POTUS.

4) She's going to be confirmed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

i didn't expect any better out of obama. it's just disgusting the media completely ignores she is a left wackjob.

 

[BigPapaVol]

i didn't expect any better out of obama. it's just disgusting the media completely ignores she is a left wackjob.

dramatically farther left than anyone wants to even begin talking about, save GS.

She's also replacing a dramatically left lunatic. So be it.

 

[lawgator1]

A few more observations, in light of above comments:

1) The number of R Senators who genuinely thinks she is unqualified probably numbers less than five.. And I mean unqualified, as in not competent. The number that dislike her views certainly higher. But if issue was purely can she do the job, very few would argue she can't. But, with the far right of the party in near epileptic seizure, I wouldn't be surprised if every single R votes against her in a collective nod to the TP. If the roles were reversed, the D's would do the same thing.

2) The politics to rise to the level of a US federal judge, at any level, are alarming to me, because it means that judges, like congresspeople, are effectively career politicans. And that's bad, no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

3) I congratulate Limbaugh and Fox for restraining themselves on the gay card. I know its tempting the bejesus out of them to go there, but they really gain very little by doing it and in fact would likely undermine what little credibility they have left with the social policy left of the Republican party (which, incidentally, I am becoming increasingly convinced is a lot larger than previously thought simply because they've been drowned out by what used to be the Evangelicals).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[dan4vols]

The trailer park view...It was ridiculous to hear these well spoken well read politicians turn a interview into a gagfest. In private I'm sure Kagan laughed her ass off in her hotel room at these ignorant ugly ass tards asking obvious questions and giggling with her like a selection of ufo enthusisasts at a star trek convention. She probably phoned Obama afterward laughing her ass off how in the bag it was with these tired old tight assed suits asking questions their wives said were good.

 

[joevol320]

she's the jew version of hussein's mini-me

 

[joevol320]

A few more observations, in light of above comments:

1) The number of R Senators who genuinely thinks she is unqualified probably numbers less than five.. And I mean unqualified, as in not competent. The number that dislike her views certainly higher. But if issue was purely can she do the job, very few would argue she can't. But, with the far right of the party in near epileptic seizure, I wouldn't be surprised if every single R votes against her in a collective nod to the TP. If the roles were reversed, the D's would do the same thing.

2) The politics to rise to the level of a US federal judge, at any level, are alarming to me, because it means that judges, like congresspeople, are effectively career politicans. And that's bad, no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

3) I congratulate Limbaugh and Fox for restraining themselves on the gay card. I know its tempting the bejesus out of them to go there, but they really gain very little by doing it and in fact would likely undermine what little credibility they have left with the social policy left of the Republican party (which, incidentally, I am becoming increasingly convinced is a lot larger than previously thought simply because they've been drowned out by what used to be the Evangelicals).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

just another example to prove how ignorant you are. it's not conservatives who are obsessed by race, gender, etc... it's the traitorous left.

 

[sjt18]

2) Nominees should never be "commited" in their answers to much of anuthing. They are always vague, and its on purpose. For one thing, the opposition party is always looking for something to pounce on, no matter how benign. The surest way to drag this thing out and give the enemy some ammo, is to take a hard line on something, anything. Last nominee I remember being very didactic about things was Robert Bork.

Yes they should be "committed" when presented with cases that reveal their judicial philosophy and temperment. At a minimum, they should offer what rationale would be used to govern a ruling.

She is being more evasive than most... because she can. The MSM won't put it out so there will only be the pressure generated from the supposed "right wing" media.

3) Why are people surprised she's overall left of center? Its a Democrat POTUS.

No one is surprised... and it wouldn't matter if she would declare originalism. Originalism not surprisingly is the explicit Constitutional mandate for interpretation of the Constitution. Also not surprisingly, progressives have trampled this clear principle for over 100 years now.

4) She's going to be confirmed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes... because too many Senate Republicans are either frauds, cowards, or pragmatists. Experience has taught them with the Clinton scandals that you can be absolutely correct in your charges and positions... and the MSM will STILL spin it to make you look bad if you are a conservative.

 

[sjt18]

A few more observations, in light of above comments:

1) The number of R Senators who genuinely thinks she is unqualified probably numbers less than five.. And I mean unqualified, as in not competent. The number that dislike her views certainly higher. But if issue was purely can she do the job, very few would argue she can't. But, with the far right of the party in near epileptic seizure, I wouldn't be surprised if every single R votes against her in a collective nod to the TP. If the roles were reversed, the D's would do the same thing.

It is funny that progressives attack the judicial philosophies and character of conservative nominees aided of course by a sympathetic press... and that's considered fair game. Qualifications don't matter. Philosophy and pinning them down on specific issues do.

OTOH, only "qualifications" matter when it is a liberal... and they do all they can to shield the public from what their philosophies mean in practice.

3) I congratulate Limbaugh and Fox for restraining themselves on the gay card. I know its tempting the bejesus out of them to go there, but they really gain very little by doing it and in fact would likely undermine what little credibility they have left with the social policy left of the Republican party (which, incidentally, I am becoming increasingly convinced is a lot larger than previously thought simply because they've been drowned out by what used to be the Evangelicals).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Convince yourself of whatever helps you sleep at night. Just because the left has demonized "evangelicals" with Nazi like zeal does not mean everyone buys it.

 

[volinbham]

1) The number of R Senators who genuinely thinks she is unqualified probably numbers less than five.. And I mean unqualified, as in not competent. The number that dislike her views certainly higher. But if issue was purely can she do the job, very few would argue she can't. But, with the far right of the party in near epileptic seizure, I wouldn't be surprised if every single R votes against her in a collective nod to the TP. If the roles were reversed, the D's would do the same thing.

Kinda like Obama voted against Roberts and Alito - even saying they were qualified but he didn't agree with their views?