She is like the guy that selected her, a liberal. she will lie to get in and then do what she wants which will be to help destroy this country,
Just like obama.
If she said what she really was thinking, she would be ran out of town.
by syslmod June 29, 2010 8:36 AM EDT What's your point?
syslmod - Because she is very liberal she will allow "no absolutes" to guide her decisions. Because she is very political she will allow "the blindfold" to sag enough to see what others think and compromise. Because she has no experience she will not be a contributor and she cannot instruct these with experience.
sys - 1. No absolutes? How will her final decisions be stated? She has to come to a Supreme Court conclusion with an absolute answer. Right/Wrong or Yes/No in over 90% of the cases that would come before her. 2. Many or not many? Why would the president use a person who is extremely political with no experience in lieu of much experience with his ratings so low? Obama should recommend someone with a great track record instead of one of those close to him. Every State has 100's of great judges to choose from. Not an inner circle.
If the Constitution were not open to interpretation, all Supreme Court decisions would be 9-0. Of course each justice has his or her own interpretation. That's why the votes are so scattered.
Anyone can say that! Reagan, Clinton, Martin Luther King, Obama, Malcom X, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Husan, Mr. Rogers, Captian Kangaroo, The Muppets, Mickey Mouse, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Princess Diana and Jesus Christ.
But all have a different morality that guides the final outcome.
syslmod - Because she is very liberal she will allow "no absolutes" to guide her decisions. Because she is very political she will allow "the blindfold" to sag enough to see what others think and compromise. Because she has no experience she will not be a contributor and she cannot instruct these with experience.
The same "Evenhandedness and Impartiality" she used when she forced military recruiters off the campus of Harvard? Here actions speak much louder than words.
Interesting article in the Washington Post. Seems like some Republicans - Cornyn,Kyl and Sessions, for example - spent some of their time attacking, not Kagan, but Thurgood Marshall, the iconic Supreme Court justice she clerked for. For example:
According to Kyl, "In 2003, Ms. Kagan wrote a tribute to Justice Marshall in which she said that, 'in his view, it was the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government,' "
So Marshall is guilty of protecting the unprotected. Wow. And this:
"Kagan also emphasized Marshall's "unshakable determination to protect the underdog," Kyl said, according to the Post. Now that is mean, wouldn't you say.
Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html?nav=rss_email/components
Read the article; it seems as if these enlightened senators are attempting to go after Marshall. Interesting strategy. Happy reading.
by Liberalism_Is_Illness June 28, 2010 8:06 PM EDT *********************** How can a liberal be impartial?She will rule always in favor of homosexuality,abortion,same-sex marriage,pot legalization,etc,etc. And she looks more like a liberal with down syndrome to me. --------
Lovely, in a concise fashion, this poster details all these great Republican talking points and, in a comparison, brings up people with severe birth defects. What a proud representative of conservatives everywhere.
Republicans feel emboldened? EVERYONE should feel EMBOLDENED to ask questions of ANYONE whom any President offers as his nomination to such a prestigious position. This article makes it seem as though it's us against them again. Republicans against Democrats that is. It's nothing of the sort. It is Kegan against us all! SHE is the one who must WOW us over. She is the one who should be able to convince HARD questioners as to what her intentions are should she be confirmed. People who say she "deserves" this position simply because she was nominated are sheep. No deserves a lifetime position adjudicating our Laws just because. Democrats as well as Republicans should grill these people on both sides equally so we are sure that they will do what they are supposed to do if confirmed. We were fooled many times in the past by politicians and supreme court justices who will say anything to get that lifetime job only to show their ass once they get it and "Do their own thing" once there. FOR LIFE. That means just what it does. They keep that job till they Die or quit. Better be sure!
Kagan was purposely nominated because of her striking resemblance to Rush Limbaugh. It is impossible for most Republican senators to resist this kind of subliminal stimuli and she should have no problems getting confirmed.
"Far-left" does not evoke fear, maybe "extreme-left" or "ultra-radical-left". You know, like the "left" of the French Revolution who killed Kings and executed Religious leaders. Then again, the Puritans also killed a King...it is so confusing, thank "god" we have you to sort everything out with one liner invective.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Just like obama.
If she said what she really was thinking, she would be ran out of town.
What's your point?
syslmod - Because she is very liberal she will allow "no absolutes" to guide her decisions. Because she is very political she will allow "the blindfold" to sag enough to see what others think and compromise. Because she has no experience she will not be a contributor and she cannot instruct these with experience.
Anyone can say that! Reagan, Clinton, Martin Luther King, Obama, Malcom X, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Husan, Mr. Rogers, Captian Kangaroo, The Muppets, Mickey Mouse, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Princess Diana and Jesus Christ.
But all have a different morality that guides the final outcome.
How about rulings based on constitutional law?
According to Kyl, "In 2003, Ms. Kagan wrote a tribute to Justice Marshall in which she said that, 'in his view, it was the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government,' "
So Marshall is guilty of protecting the unprotected. Wow. And this:
"Kagan also emphasized Marshall's "unshakable determination to protect the underdog," Kyl said, according to the Post. Now that is mean, wouldn't you say.
Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html?nav=rss_email/components
Read the article; it seems as if these enlightened senators are attempting to go after Marshall. Interesting strategy. Happy reading.
***********************
How can a liberal be impartial?She will rule always in favor of homosexuality,abortion,same-sex marriage,pot legalization,etc,etc.
And she looks more like a liberal with down syndrome to me.
--------
Lovely, in a concise fashion, this poster details all these great Republican talking points and, in a comparison, brings up people with severe birth defects. What a proud representative of conservatives everywhere.
She has been nominated by Obama to do his far-left bidding - something we've already received quite an overdose of!