Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kagan to be nominated for Supreme

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kagan to be nominated for Supreme

    Court. That is what they are saying on the news. Based on what I have heard, good. Of those he was thinking of, she is supposed to be the most moderate. The guy is the President. As long as he doesn't nominate a radical, I am fine. Elections have consequences.

    This will be 3 of the 9 being women. I think that's enough.

  • #2
    She seems like a cool cat.

    My guess is liberals fervently support her, conservatives wail and gnash their teeth, and moderates are torn between her conciliatory reputation and lack of judicial experience.
    "I don't know the origin of said bitch booming."-Art Vandelay
    "Hot Lunch posted awhile back on this. He knows more than anyone except for maybe BO."-Seattle Ute

    Comment


    • #3
      Here's the NY Times write-up on her:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us...wt&twt=nytimes
      "I don't know the origin of said bitch booming."-Art Vandelay
      "Hot Lunch posted awhile back on this. He knows more than anyone except for maybe BO."-Seattle Ute

      Comment


      • #4
        I didn't know Kevin James had a twin!

        "Nobody listens to Turtle."
        -Turtle
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          So let's say underneath she's a raving liberal. Does this really change the composition of the court all that much?
          Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
          God forgives many things for an act of mercy
          Alessandro Manzoni

          Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

          pelagius

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by byu71 View Post
            This will be 3 of the 9 being women. I think that's enough.
            I didn't know you were a quota guy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
              So let's say underneath she's a raving liberal. Does this really change the composition of the court all that much?
              not really

              I suppose, to convservitives, she is the best you can hope for from this president. It will be interesting if the more conservitive members of the senate threaten a filibuster, esp after what they said with Bush II nominies

              I may be small, but I'm slow.

              A veteran - whether active duty, retired, or national guard or reserve is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to, "The United States of America ", for an amount of "up to and including my life - it's an honor."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BoylenOver View Post
                She seems like a cool cat.

                My guess is liberals fervently support her, conservatives wail and gnash their teeth, and moderates are torn between her conciliatory reputation and lack of judicial experience.
                Why would anyone challenge the nomination for a Supreme Court Justice when she has no judicial experience? Same rationale for our congressman having no healthcare experience and passing healthcare reform. Or mandating business rules and regulations when they haven't run a business?

                Is there any other place you can get a specific job without requisite experience outside of government?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Surfah View Post
                  I didn't know Kevin James had a twin!

                  Sad when a woman looks more like a man than a woman.

                  I am beginning to understand why so many liberal women are ......... let's say, beauty challenged? They hate conservative, nice looking women. That's a very general statement but is probably spot on. Who's that congresswoman that looks like a witch?
                  Last edited by Hallelujah; 05-10-2010, 08:43 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hallelujah View Post
                    Why would anyone challenge the nomination for a Supreme Court Justice when she has no judicial experience? Same rationale for our congressman having no healthcare experience and passing healthcare reform. Or mandating business rules and regulations when they haven't run a business?

                    Is there any other place you can get a specific job without requisite experience outside of government?
                    I'm sold on her now.
                    "In conclusion, let me give a shout-out to dirty sex. What a great thing it is" - Northwestcoug
                    "And you people wonder why you've had extermination orders issued against you." - landpoke
                    "Can't . . . let . . . foolish statements . . . by . . . BYU fans . . . go . . . unanswered . . . ." - LA Ute

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      With the exception of the fact that she's never been a judge (I don't think it's that big of a deal, especially for someone who's the solicitor general), her credentials and experience is outstanding. Supposedly she's also somewhat moderate. Obama won't have trouble getting her confirmed.

                      The shot across the bow that took place with Bennett being ousted ensures that at least 35 GOP Senators won't vote for her. But there's still 59 Democrats and I'd be shocked if Snowe, Collins and Brown got on board with any filibuster move, not to mention guys like Judd Gregg.
                      Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
                        So let's say underneath she's a raving liberal. Does this really change the composition of the court all that much?
                        Of course it does. It puts a "raving liberal" on the court for the next 30+ years, when before the raving liberal is almost certain to be dead or incapacitated in less than 5. That's a huge change in the composition in the court.

                        I don't know much about her, but she banned the military from the campus at Harvard. That's something that I find despicable and is often the calling card of a "raving liberal."

                        If anyone has any evidence that she is moderate, or holds some conservative views, i'd be interested in seeing it. Since Obama has promised to nominate dedicated liberals, and he knows her well, I'll assume that's what she is until I see contrary evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          HER!!!!



                          then the next nominee!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            She certainly doesn't up the sex appeal of the court.

                            I'm still waiting to hear the conservative and liberal talking points on her. I'm assuming the conservatives go the route of "She has no judicial experience" which is incredibly lame. She was the dean of Harvard law and the solicitor general, I think she can cut it on the SC.

                            Liberals will probably use the tried and true "She's not that liberal, in fact she's very moderate" which is probably a correct statement.
                            "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Eddie Jones View Post
                              She certainly doesn't up the sex appeal of the court.

                              I'm still waiting to hear the conservative and liberal talking points on her. I'm assuming the conservatives go the route of "She has no judicial experience" which is incredibly lame. She was the dean of Harvard law and the solicitor general, I think she can cut it on the SC.

                              Liberals will probably use the tried and true "She's not that liberal, in fact she's very moderate" which is probably a correct statement.
                              Hugh Hewitt seemed pretty happy about the selection under the circumstances. I guess she was known for being very good to the conservative members of the Harvard Law faculty. He speculates that many members of the conservative bar will support her.

                              I've heard she was just about the best that conservatives could expect from Obama. Democrats, post Kennedy, have batted a 1000 on their selections. Republicans have a more spotty record (Stevens, Blackmun, Souter). I'm wondering if there's a little big of wiggle room with Kagan on some issues that no one foresaw being the case Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
                              Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X