Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[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.

Excellent point but the fact remains the Constitution set up the seperation of powers allowing a duly elected executive, and specifically granting them the power and the right, to appoint the Federal judiciary.

All very true and with none of it do I have a problem.

 

[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.

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

You're right. I don't believe the judiciary has the power to enforce the American Dream, like you do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

SCOTUS is final decision maker.

Now if you want to state the question sensibly and logically within the contexts of American history and jurisprudence go for it. But if you won't or can't, I will cut your stupidity to pieces again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You're right. I don't believe the judiciary has the power to enforce the American Dream, like you do.

The right word is "interpret", not "enforce". You are right about that. And your idea of the Dream will never be a part of SCOTUS, Rab, never.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some kind of record.
Less than a day into the nomination and I am already sick of hearing about Kagan. Isn't the internet great or what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am curious to see if she is qualified. I wasn't excited about Sotomayor, but who cares.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

You're right. I don't believe the judiciary has the power to enforce the American Dream, like you do.

The right word is "interpret", not "enforce". You are right about that. And your idea of the Dream will never be a part of SCOTUS, Rab, never.

You;re right. I don't think the judiciary has the power to interpret the American Dream. They have the power to intepret laws and decide cases based on facts and legal principles, something Kagan has never done in her life.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

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

SCOTUS is final decision maker.

Now if you want to state the question sensibly and logically within the contexts of American history and jurisprudence go for it. But if you won't or can't, I will cut your stupidity to pieces again.

I will continue to ask until you cite the legal source for the power you say is granted to the judiciary

And you will most probably continue your refusal to answer

The other question is simple and I will ask again...

The Legislative and Executive within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process (I do not see you arguing that this is the procedure in place)... Does the Judicial branch get 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???

 

[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

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.

You just dont get it do you?


I proved that the hack who was claiming that she cant serve because she was never a judge was wrong and you spin off into some alternate world.


Tell me right now why she should be aposed as a candidate because you think she has a left bent?

If she was right leaning you would think her fine, why is left leaning a negative?

 

[Samson]

Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?

I'm guessing you're not the deepest thinker in the swamp.

I don't know shit about the nomineee, but I do know that good judgement has nothing to do with appearance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Bork was a threat to all that America has ever stood for.

Saying No to Bork, Southern Democrats Echo Black Voters

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

SCOTUS is final decision maker.

Now if you want to state the question sensibly and logically within the contexts of American history and jurisprudence go for it. But if you won't or can't, I will cut your stupidity to pieces again.

I will continue to ask until you cite the legal source for the power you say is granted to the judiciary

And you will most probably continue your refusal to answer

The other question is simple and I will ask again...

The Legislative and Executive within the government wanting a change or added power to the constitution, must go thru the amendment process (I do not see you arguing that this is the procedure in place)... Does the Judicial branch get 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???

According to your flawed question, the answer is Marbury v. Madison.

Until you can perfect the question, you have lost this discussion. But you are used to it.

 

[DiamondDave]

To reiterate jokey's assertions

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

and the other is that there are "human guarantees in the Constitution"

Again.. cite where this power is legally given... and where such guarantees exist within the constitution... and I will reiterate that the only guarantee within the constitution is the guarantee for a republican form government to/for all states

 

[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.

Bork was a threat to all that America has ever stood for.

Saying No to Bork, Southern Democrats Echo Black Voters

And you expect to be taken seriously? You are about as serious as your sig line character.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Bork was a threat to all that America has ever stood for.

Saying No to Bork, Southern Democrats Echo Black Voters

Bork's constitutional reasoning stopped about 1798 or 1799. At least Scalia got to the 1820s.

 

[hjmick]

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.

You just dont get it do you?


I proved that the hack who was claiming that she cant serve because she was never a judge was wrong and you spin off into some alternate world.


Tell me right now why she should be aposed as a candidate because you think she has a left bent?

If she was right leaning you would think her fine, why is left leaning a negative?

I don't think the "hack" was saying she can't serve, I think he was saying she shouldn't serve. There are more than a few people who, rightly or wrongly, believe one qualification for service on SCOTUS should be some judicial experience.

 

[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

This is what I am wondering about...

In 1856, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Scott v. Sandford. That case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who sued in federal court for his and his family's freedom. Scott contended, in part, that his family became free when they were taken into the free portion of the Louisiana territory where Congress had prohibited slavery.

The Supreme Court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds. Chief Justice Taney explained that the parties were not citizens of different states because the Constitution did not consider blacks to be citizens. The Chief Justice also added that the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude in certain parts of the Louisiana Territory, violated the Fifth Amendment because it deprived slaveowners of their property without the due process of law.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions

 

[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.

You just dont get it do you?


I proved that the hack who was claiming that she cant serve because she was never a judge was wrong and you spin off into some alternate world.


Tell me right now why she should be aposed as a candidate because you think she has a left bent?

If she was right leaning you would think her fine, why is left leaning a negative?

Excuse me, who was claiming she can't serve? Please quote the post and cite the number on this thread.

Ever since Bork a candidate's stance on issues is fair game for discussion. Bork was the best qualified candidate for SCOTUS we've ever had and the Left made him out to be monster. So Kagan's record is an issue. She has very little record and no experience on any court of any kind. Don't the American People deserve more than a pig in a poke? Should we just trust Obama when he tells us that she'll make a great justice?

 

[xotoxi]

Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?

So Rabbi, how is it living in 1955?

He's right. She puts the UGH in Ugly.

Is she the UGLIEST nominee ever?

 

[The Rabbi]

So Rabbi, how is it living in 1955?

He's right. She puts the UGH in Ugly.

Is she the UGLIEST nominee ever?

I hear Obama is going to nominate Rachel Maddow for something next....