Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[saveliberty]

So it is your assertion that all others within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while this branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

Again...
Constitutional Amendment Process

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court any power to rule on Constitutional issues arising from legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is simple something Jefferson allowed the Court to do and it has become Precedent.

Not going to argue with that stance... and I actually agree with that more... as I fully believe any power granted that is not expressly written, should only be granted thru the amendment process

But since this IS being used as precedent.... for judicial review... I am simply arguing that judicial review indeed is not the same as a power to grant constitutional power without the amendment process

Amazing you have to argue a point like that. Big difference between interpreting the Constitution and adding to it without an amendment.

 

[Gunny]

DEAR IDIOT , 40 people have served on the SCOTUS without ever being a judge.

One was Rehnquist

Which means absolutely NOTHING. What was argument with Bush's 1st nomination? Let's see IICR .... not qualified because she was not a sitting judge?

Y'all are bunch of damned hypocrites and someone needs to get that "thing" some freakin' estrogen QUICK.

****

Nice.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Which means absolutely NOTHING. What was argument with Bush's 1st nomination? Let's see IICR .... not qualified because she was not a sitting judge?

Y'all are bunch of damned hypocrites and someone needs to get that "thing" some freakin' estrogen QUICK.

****

Nice.

at you. again.

 

[Gunny]

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Miers met with senators after her nomination was announced, and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[22] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[22] In mock sessions with lawyers, Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[23] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[24] Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional concepts senators asked of her.[24] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[25]

Obama's last nomination was unqualified as she was a biased activist. His current nomination is the same with added handicap that she is not even a justice.

The Constitution is not complicated. Not if you can read and comprehend simple English. It's merely that those of you that like to play smoke and mirrors with the facts try to pass it off as such.

 

[saveliberty]

Kagan did her cause more harm than good. When the courts reaffirmed the Solomon Amendment, it added to the government's power to tell colleges and universitys what to do. Another educator who knows all the theory, but fails miserably in practice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not to mention supporting her for Solicitor General is a long ways from supporting her for the Supreme Court. She has NEVER been a Judge. She is NOT qualified.

DEAR IDIOT , 40 people have served on the SCOTUS without ever being a judge.

One was Rehnquist

Which means absolutely NOTHING. What was argument with Bush's 1st nomination? Let's see IICR .... not qualified because she was not a sitting judge?

Y'all are bunch of damned hypocrites and someone needs to get that "thing" some freakin' estrogen QUICK.

Sheesh, your mouthy with no proof. You sound like JethroDiamond. Y'all make nothing but assertions and get mad when you are asked for proof.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kagan did her cause more harm than good. When the courts reaffirmed the Solomon Amendment, it added to the government's power to tell colleges and universitys what to do. Another educator who knows all the theory, but fails miserably in practice.

On this one issue, yes, and good for us. To draw it further without more evidence is silly.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Not to mention supporting her for Solicitor General is a long ways from supporting her for the Supreme Court. She has NEVER been a Judge. She is NOT qualified.

DEAR IDIOT , 40 people have served on the SCOTUS without ever being a judge.

One was Rehnquist




FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience

I love the Left using Rhenquist, whom they all universally hated, as an example.
So how did Rhenquist work out for you all?

 

[Truthmatters]

Are you really this stupid?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So it is your assertion that all others within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while this branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

Again...
Constitutional Amendment Process

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court any power to rule on Constitutional issues arising from legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is simple something Jefferson allowed the Court to do and it has become Precedent.

Not going to argue with that stance... and I actually agree with that more... as I fully believe any power granted that is not expressly written, should only be granted thru the amendment process

But since this IS being used as precedent.... for judicial review... I am simply arguing that judicial review indeed is not the same as a power to grant constitutional power without the amendment process

What was posted above by saveliberty applies to the swiss cheese reasoning of jethrodiamond.

Out of the Jungle: Supreme Court Ruling in Solomon Amendment Case

9-0 ruling and this lady thinks the opposite. Hmm...
__________________

 

[DiamondDave]

DEAR IDIOT , 40 people have served on the SCOTUS without ever being a judge.

One was Rehnquist

Which means absolutely NOTHING. What was argument with Bush's 1st nomination? Let's see IICR .... not qualified because she was not a sitting judge?

Y'all are bunch of damned hypocrites and someone needs to get that "thing" some freakin' estrogen QUICK.

Sheesh, your mouthy with no proof. You sound like JethroDiamond. Y'all make nothing but assertions and get mad when you are asked for proof.

Funny... I cited the basis for my stance.. yet you have cited no place in the constitution or other law that gives the judicial branch the power that you state it has

Again...

The Legislative and Executive within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while the Judicial branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

Does the judicial branch have the executive authority to proclaim a power or the power to legislate this power into a legal document?

Please cite the place where the power you state exists, is granted

you have continually asserted without any citation whatsoever

You wish for me to cite the constitution again? Or even the findings of Marbury v Madison and what it concluded?

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you really this stupid?

You're asking Jake or yourself?
The answer is obvious: No. You clowns are even more stupid than that.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court any power to rule on Constitutional issues arising from legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is simple something Jefferson allowed the Court to do and it has become Precedent.

Not going to argue with that stance... and I actually agree with that more... as I fully believe any power granted that is not expressly written, should only be granted thru the amendment process

But since this IS being used as precedent.... for judicial review... I am simply arguing that judicial review indeed is not the same as a power to grant constitutional power without the amendment process

What was posted above by saveliberty applies to the swiss cheese reasoning of jethrodiamond.

Out of the Jungle: Supreme Court Ruling in Solomon Amendment Case

9-0 ruling and this lady thinks the opposite. Hmm...
__________________

Funny... that is judicial review, reaffirming a legal decision.. not the granting of a constitutional power

Nice try though

Please state your source for the power you say is granted

 

[Truthmatters]

Rabbi , this asshole complained that Kagen was never a judge, so I showed him that that has NEVER been a criteria for Scotus.

You then suggested what?

you are a fucking idiot hack

 

[Gadawg73]

I told you he would not get it.

The kooks have trouble being told their narrow niche minority kook view is wrong. But that is the way of the world.

So it is your assertion that all others within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process... while this branch gets to define and grant its own powers and not even have to change them within the very document that grants them their powers under the federal government???

Again...
Constitutional Amendment Process

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court any power to rule on Constitutional issues arising from legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is simple something Jefferson allowed the Court to do and it has become Precedent.

Congress passes Federal law and amends the USCA accordingly. Those laws are ONLY valid if they are held to be Constitutional.
The Marshall Court ruled itself to be the supreme arbitrer of Constitutional issues dealing with the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Who else would make those rulings?
The Supreme Court was dominated by John Marshall who established that the court was entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Marshall made sure that the judiciary would be independent from political ideology and be an influential branch of gpovernment protecting the Constitution from rogue state statutes which were against the Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi , this asshole complained that Kagen was never a judge, so I showed him that that has NEVER been a criteria for Scotus.

You then suggested what?

you are a fucking idiot hack

Actually there are no legal criteria for being a judge. But taking a justice who was anathema to the left and making him the great example for Kagan is laughable hackery that only the Left would engage in.

So yes you really are even more stupid than that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Not what is being argued.. this not not something being argued of one constitutional power that is written, over another power that is written....

Question for you then... is it indeed the same to declare a writ or statute unconstitutional, as it is to add to the constitution or to grant a power?

no, to your question---it is not the same. But I believe there are distinctions with a difference. It is why I ask if some of this is really about semantics.

 

[saveliberty]

Not going to argue with that stance... and I actually agree with that more... as I fully believe any power granted that is not expressly written, should only be granted thru the amendment process

But since this IS being used as precedent.... for judicial review... I am simply arguing that judicial review indeed is not the same as a power to grant constitutional power without the amendment process

What was posted above by saveliberty applies to the swiss cheese reasoning of jethrodiamond.

Out of the Jungle: Supreme Court Ruling in Solomon Amendment Case

9-0 ruling and this lady thinks the opposite. Hmm...
__________________

Funny... that is judicial review, reaffirming a legal decision.. not the granting of a constitutional power

Nice try though

Please state your source for the power you say is granted

Seems to be some real lack of understanding with terminology from Jake.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Miers met with senators after her nomination was announced, and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[22] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[22] In mock sessions with lawyers, Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[23] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[24] Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional concepts senators asked of her.[24] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[25]

Obama's last nomination was unqualified as she was a biased activist. His current nomination is the same with added handicap that she is not even a justice.

The Constitution is not complicated. Not if you can read and comprehend simple English. It's merely that those of you that like to play smoke and mirrors with the facts try to pass it off as such.

biased activism is a new boogey man?

like any of the conservative nominees over the last 50 years have not been biased activists


gawd, Gunny---you really should quit your day job and take your act on the road.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you really this stupid?

You're asking Jake or yourself?
The answer is obvious: No. You clowns are even more stupid than that.

You simply don't have what it takes to make a positive impact on America, Rab.