Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[Procrustes Stretched]

And here's the oppositions' opening salvo:

In the latest evidence that National Review Online's Ed Whelan is just throwing everything he can at the wall and hoping something sticks to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Whelan is now attacking her for... not learning to drive until her late 20s. According to Whelan, this "nicely captures Elena Kagan's remoteness from the lives of most Americans."

Huh?

Putting aside for a second the deeply bizarre idea that one's ability to drive should be a qualification or disqualification for high office, as the article Whelan quotes from points out, Kagan grew up in New York City, which is one of the most walkable cities in the country and has one of the best public transportation systems nationwide. You don't need a license if you live in NYC, and in fact a large percentage of New Yorkers don't have one: New York City has 5.6 million residents over age 25, but only 3.3 million residents have drivers' licenses.

Yes folks, Ed Whelan is bagging on Ms. Kagan because of her driving. There are other gems in his opinon piece, too. What a fun fight this is gonna turn out to be!




Ed Whelan smears New Yorkers in attack on Kagan | Media Matters for America

yes it will be a 'fun fight.'

the right won't be able to hold back---they will expose themselves as their hysterics get out of control. The right got looney with the Tea Party folks and they lost control of the 'throw the bums out' message' (they meant only liberal bums). Now watch them get crazy and rip this woman apart. America loves a good fight, but always ends up turning on the bullies.

 

[DiamondDave]

wrong....

you are missing the point and have no understanding of the manner in which constitutional construction has been done. I'd suggest you start with Marbury v Madison so you understand the construct and then feel free to review the cases that elaborate and rely upon Marbury.

this BS pretend 'originalism' is a crock.

And we have indeed gone over this many times... and with the history we have with various questions and stances about law/courts, we have all read this numerous time

Judicial review does not mean that the judiciary gets to expand their constitutional powers without the amendment process... nor does it mean that they get to make up 'guarantees' (that jokey has put forth as being in our government setup) that are not granted within the constitution or law...

Now if you were arguing that Marbury v Madison was pertinent in a statute that was proclaimed in law that this was a power granted... you would have a point that they would review.... but there is indeed no statute stating this power... and the only one stating that this power exists to 'guarantee prosperity under the American Dream' is jokey himself... and the little buffoon cannot cite from any single place that this power has even been granted, so as to bring up any hint for judicial review of the power or statute

You see jill... the SC has the power to declare some statute unconstitutional.. they do not have to power to add a power to the constitution

And you have never, ever proved that SCOTUS has ever done such a thing, and in truth you wish to turn our constitutional republic into a majoritarian state.

You are a fool if you do that, because the unlimited democratic tyranny that emerges will put your kind first against the wall to be shot. Why? You are a very small minority, and the tyrannical majority will tolerate your kind. Be careful what you ask for.

I did not state it... but what YOU are stating is a power not granted.... and what you are stating is that they have the power to do such a thing... and the SC or any other court does not get to do so because of judicial review.. for powers are not given by judicial review, but thru the constitution and the amendment process

Again... please cite your legal source for the power you said existed, and for the job that you said that the judicial has for 'guaranteeing prosperity in the American Dream'

You have supported nothing

 

[DiamondDave]

DiamondDave, you waste your own time on an issue about which you understand nothing.

Sorry asshole.. it has been shown that you know nothing on this issue whatsoever...

At least jill backs up some of her assertions... you have not backed up anything with any legal statement in support of the power that you stated exists or the job description tied to that power

You state there is this power

I state it does not exist in legal text or in the constitution

I state that while the SC can and does review constitutional question on law and statute, that the SC does not get to grant a power not given to itself

I state from the constitution where it does show that powers lie, and when those powers are not granted of where those powers fall to...

Simply start off where the power you said exists, is documented... please.. I beg you....

 

[DiamondDave]

The job of a judge is to make sure the American Dream prospers under the Constitution.

human guarantees in the Constitution

Again... these are your assertions

1) Show this power
2) Show these "human guarantees" or even the mention of a guarantee in the constitution beyond guaranteeing a republican form of government to/for every state

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DiamondDave, you waste your own time on an issue about which you understand nothing.

Sorry asshole.. it has been shown that you know nothing on this issue whatsoever...

At least jill backs up some of her assertions... you have not backed up anything with any legal statement in support of the power that you stated exists or the job description tied to that power

You state there is this power

I state it does not exist in legal text or in the constitution

I state that while the SC can and does review constitutional question on law and statute, that the SC does not get to grant a power not given to itself

I state from the constitution where it does show that powers lie, and when those powers are not granted of where those powers fall to...

Simply start off where the power you said exists, is documented... please.. I beg you....

Marbury vs Madison -Marbury vs Madison

 

[DiamondDave]

DiamondDave, you waste your own time on an issue about which you understand nothing.

Sorry asshole.. it has been shown that you know nothing on this issue whatsoever...

At least jill backs up some of her assertions... you have not backed up anything with any legal statement in support of the power that you stated exists or the job description tied to that power

You state there is this power

I state it does not exist in legal text or in the constitution

I state that while the SC can and does review constitutional question on law and statute, that the SC does not get to grant a power not given to itself

I state from the constitution where it does show that powers lie, and when those powers are not granted of where those powers fall to...

Simply start off where the power you said exists, is documented... please.. I beg you....

Marbury vs Madison -Marbury vs Madison

Dante... judicial review is supported in Marbury v Madison... not the right of the judiciary to grant itself a power not listed... the courts do not get to expand their own constitutional power or to change the constitution without the amendment process

The ability to declare something unconstitutional and to be the arbiter of the constitution is not the same as the ability to grant a power to to change the constitution itself....

 

[bodecea]

You can Deval Patrick to that list. Also Hillary. Also Bill. The list of possible disasters is unlimited.

Nominating basically an academic is interesting. Scalia made a comment during a hearing about a legal theory that showed a disdain for academic discussion of the subject vs those held by practicing jurists. In the ivory tower you can afford to be "creative."

I don't see a lot of opposition to her appearing. I also don't think she will do a very good job.

Governor Earl Warren (Cal-R), whom Eisenhower later called his "worst" appointment of his administration, somewhat fits The Rab's concerns. However, Warren's court put the legal end to segregation. He did by building consensus in a court that would have not overturned Plessy even as early as two years before.

A very good point.
ANd Brown was a terrible decision judicially. It had little to no precedent. Its arguments were terribly flawed to get the right policy decision, which is the provence of legislatures, not courts.
Kagan has written that the job of a judge is to stick up for the oppressed and despised. That is not the job of a judge. The job of a judge is to administer fair impartial justice, whether the litigant is IBM or Rose Selavy.

Not surprised to hear you think so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And we have indeed gone over this many times... and with the history we have with various questions and stances about law/courts, we have all read this numerous time

Judicial review does not mean that the judiciary gets to expand their constitutional powers without the amendment process... nor does it mean that they get to make up 'guarantees' (that jokey has put forth as being in our government setup) that are not granted within the constitution or law...

Now if you were arguing that Marbury v Madison was pertinent in a statute that was proclaimed in law that this was a power granted... you would have a point that they would review.... but there is indeed no statute stating this power... and the only one stating that this power exists to 'guarantee prosperity under the American Dream' is jokey himself... and the little buffoon cannot cite from any single place that this power has even been granted, so as to bring up any hint for judicial review of the power or statute

You see jill... the SC has the power to declare some statute unconstitutional.. they do not have to power to add a power to the constitution

And you have never, ever proved that SCOTUS has ever done such a thing, and in truth you wish to turn our constitutional republic into a majoritarian state.

You are a fool if you do that, because the unlimited democratic tyranny that emerges will put your kind first against the wall to be shot. Why? You are a very small minority, and the tyrannical majority will tolerate your kind. Be careful what you ask for.

I did not state it... but what YOU are stating is a power not granted.... and what you are stating is that they have the power to do such a thing... and the SC or any other court does not get to do so because of judicial review.. for powers are not given by judicial review, but thru the constitution and the amendment process

Again... please cite your legal source for the power you said existed, and for the job that you said that the judicial has for 'guaranteeing prosperity in the American Dream'

You have supported nothing

You have made a claim, but you can't support it with evidence. I said the American dream prospers. How you change into individual prosperity, I have no idea.

Now you are lying as well.

 

[bodecea]

I can only go off my opinions. I don't know her position, nor do I care. What I care about is that she has no Federal judicial service and that urks me!

I understand your position completely, and I do not disagree with you necessarily. But I also recognize that she is not the first SCOTUS nominee with no judicial experience and, should she be approved, not the first to serve.

The truth is, I am not sure what all the fuss is about. The fact of the matter is, it is the prerogative the sitting President who is nominated and it is the job of the Senate to approve, or not, the nominee. There is nothing we as citizens can do except hope that a particularly onerous nominee is struck down. Kagan does not appear to be particularly onerous thus far, unless the fact that she is an Obama nomination makes it so.

No, I would be far more concerned if we were facing a scenario in which the current balance was in jeopardy.

This is just politics.

The Senate's role is to offer "advise and consent." Since Bork though the paradigm has shifted to an all out political battle on every judicial nominee. So everything becomes an issue.
Bork was probably the best-qualified nominee for the Supreme Court we have ever had. But the Dums wanted to make an example of him and flex their muscles. Since then it's payback time.
And that is just politics.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sorry asshole.. it has been shown that you know nothing on this issue whatsoever...

At least jill backs up some of her assertions... you have not backed up anything with any legal statement in support of the power that you stated exists or the job description tied to that power

You state there is this power

I state it does not exist in legal text or in the constitution

I state that while the SC can and does review constitutional question on law and statute, that the SC does not get to grant a power not given to itself

I state from the constitution where it does show that powers lie, and when those powers are not granted of where those powers fall to...

Simply start off where the power you said exists, is documented... please.. I beg you....

Marbury vs Madison -Marbury vs Madison

Dante... judicial review is supported in Marbury v Madison... not the right of the judiciary to grant itself a power not listed... the courts do not get to expand their own constitutional power or to change the constitution without the amendment process

The ability to declare something unconstitutional and to be the arbiter of the constitution is not the same as the ability to grant a power to to change the constitution itself....

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marbury vs Madison -Marbury vs Madison

Dante... judicial review is supported in Marbury v Madison... not the right of the judiciary to grant itself a power not listed... the courts do not get to expand their own constitutional power or to change the constitution without the amendment process

The ability to declare something unconstitutional and to be the arbiter of the constitution is not the same as the ability to grant a power to to change the constitution itself....

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

Why, golly, you are right. But JethroDiamond and his brother aren't a gonna git it.

 

[bodecea]

Yet you call Palin with a demeaning name. Hypocrite.
I never suggested she wasnt qualified either. Just that she's an ugly troll and with Nappy on the scene who needs more of them in the media?

demeaning? perhaps in your eyes, but it certainly implies that she is a hottie and not an "ugly troll".

and regardless, YOU were the one whose first impulse regarding Kagan was to criticize her appearance.... that shows me that you are both stupid AND shallow.

And who CARES what public servants LOOK like? Why do you feel that the president needs to appoint beautiful women to public office? what do LOOKS have to do with qualifications for such a position?

Are you saying he should use FOX's hiring technique?

 

[DiamondDave]

Marbury vs Madison -Marbury vs Madison

Dante... judicial review is supported in Marbury v Madison... not the right of the judiciary to grant itself a power not listed... the courts do not get to expand their own constitutional power or to change the constitution without the amendment process

The ability to declare something unconstitutional and to be the arbiter of the constitution is not the same as the ability to grant a power to to change the constitution itself....

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

Review of an existing charge within the constitution "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

This was a case in law under the constitution (Marbury v Madison)... and IMHO (notice here jokey, when I have an opinion I state it as such, unlike you who likes to proclaim your opinion as fact) this clarified the power given

What jokey is trying to do is say the SC has the power and the ability to add a power not granted, as a granted power

We can sit here and argue whether the SC was right in interpreting it that way without an amendment.. but what was interpreted was not the power to grant a new power or change the constitution (according to everything I have read)... now... would I have preferred that because of Marbury v Madison, that the government spell out that power in a better way thru a constitutional amendment?? Yep

Anyone can state their stance on what they think the government or a specific branch SHOULD do... whether i agree or disagree is not important.... but if they wish to enact change for that to happen, all that has to be done is already set forth in the constitution itself.... make and pass the amendment

But again.. I do stand by my statement that declaring something unconstitutional is not the same as changing the constitution or adding a constitutional power

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante... judicial review is supported in Marbury v Madison... not the right of the judiciary to grant itself a power not listed... the courts do not get to expand their own constitutional power or to change the constitution without the amendment process

The ability to declare something unconstitutional and to be the arbiter of the constitution is not the same as the ability to grant a power to to change the constitution itself....

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

Why, golly, you are right. But JethroDiamond and his brother aren't a gonna git it.

After Jethro gradeates from 3rd grade, we gonna have us a party out at the cement pond.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Never been a Judge, no idea how she rules. Didn't the left have a fit when Bush Nominated a person that was never a Judge before?

 

[DiamondDave]

Dante... judicial review is supported in Marbury v Madison... not the right of the judiciary to grant itself a power not listed... the courts do not get to expand their own constitutional power or to change the constitution without the amendment process

The ability to declare something unconstitutional and to be the arbiter of the constitution is not the same as the ability to grant a power to to change the constitution itself....

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

Why, golly, you are right. But JethroDiamond and his brother aren't a gonna git it.

Funny... no legal writeup I can see asserts that at all... but I do see plenty of assertion that it formalizes judicial review

 

[Gadawg73]

Kagan had the support of 7 Republican Senatorsfor confirmation as Solicitor General including Orin Hatch. The woman is a constitutional scholar. The executive has the right to appoint who they want.
Starting with The Democrats slandering Borg and Thomas expect many kook Republicans to do the same with this woman.
"Well qualified" used to be the only requirement for acceptance to the bench. Sad that partisan politics has now taken over civility amongst sitting politicians.
Dumbass partisan civilian hacks that spend all day listening to a talk radio host to tell them how to think and act is the problem. Ignorance from 30 second sound bites has taken the place of common sense and decency.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante... judicial review is supported in Marbury v Madison... not the right of the judiciary to grant itself a power not listed... the courts do not get to expand their own constitutional power or to change the constitution without the amendment process

The ability to declare something unconstitutional and to be the arbiter of the constitution is not the same as the ability to grant a power to to change the constitution itself....

I think some people argue that the Judicial Review established in MvM, is the first example of the SCOTUS granting itself powers.

Review of an existing charge within the constitution "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

This was a case in law under the constitution (Marbury v Madison)... and IMHO (notice here jokey, when I have an opinion I state it as such, unlike you who likes to proclaim your opinion as fact) this clarified the power given

What jokey is trying to do is say the SC has the power and the ability to add a power not granted, as a granted power

We can sit here and argue whether the SC was right in interpreting it that way without an amendment.. but what was interpreted was not the power to grant a new power or change the constitution (according to everything I have read)... now... would I have preferred that because of Marbury v Madison, that the government spell out that power in a better way thru a constitutional amendment?? Yep

Anyone can state their stance on what they think the government or a specific branch SHOULD do... whether i agree or disagree is not important.... but if they wish to enact change for that to happen, all that has to be done is already set forth in the constitution itself.... make and pass the amendment

But again.. I do stand by my statement that declaring something unconstitutional is not the same as changing the constitution or adding a constitutional power

Semantics? When the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, has it ever struck down one part of the constitution over another part of the Constitution?

 

[hjmick]

Kagan had the support of 7 Republican Senatorsfor confirmation as Solicitor General including Orin Hatch. The woman is a constitutional scholar. The executive has the right to appoint who they want.
Starting with The Democrats slandering Borg and Thomas expect many kook Republicans to do the same with this woman.
"Well qualified" used to be the only requirement for acceptance to the bench. Sad that partisan politics has now taken over civility amongst sitting politicians.
Dumbass partisan civilian hacks that spend all day listening to a talk radio host to tell them how to think and act is the problem. Ignorance from 30 second sound bites has taken the place of common sense and decency.

Keeping in mind, of course, that support for a temporary position is different than support for a lifetime appointment.

 

[saveliberty]

The only thing I have learned as fact so far is this is the lady that tried to ban the military from recruiting on campus at Harvard.