Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[DiamondDave]

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.

It is not a flawed question... you have asserted that the judiciary has the power granted to grant itself constitutional powers

You want to have me show you the findings of Marbury v Madison again, and nowhere in the findings is it stated that the judiciary is given the power to grant itself or any other branch constitutional powers??...

and the constitution states SPECIFICALLY how the amendment process works. The amendment process is indeed the process wherein powers, rights, or limitations are made within the constitution. The constitution itself is what grants and dictates the powers and responsibilities of our federal government (and this is indeed without dispute)

Again.. since you are indeed dense.... judicial review or 'interpretation' is not the same as the power to grant powers... declaring something unconstitutional in terms of a law, decision, or statute, is in no way the same as adding to the constitution

And please, AGAIN, I ask for you to show anywhere where your premise is supported that the judiciary is to ensure prosperity under the 'American Dream' or that the 'American Dream prospers'... any legal finding or rule of law will do..... ANY AT ALL

 

[Samson]

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.

Read through the first three pages of the thread to find an intelligent post regarding qualifications of this nominee:

On the one hand, she has no experience (but neither does Obama).

On the other, if her confirmation is approved, it would piss off Rabbi.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservative arguments against a SCOTUS nominee

so what? ....your post should have your opinion about the news. Otherwise it's just spam.

Give Spam A Chance!

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

and this radibd guy wants to be taken seriously?






another example of hypocrisy.

keeper

they weren't even like that in 1955 as far as i know.

he can't help being a loser. is what he is.

You're just jealous that Obama didnt nominate you. I guess you aren't enough of a dyke to qualify.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

It is not a flawed question... you have asserted that the judiciary has the power granted to grant itself constitutional powers. <Snip>

No, I did not. Perfect your question first, otherwise you continue to default.

 

[Contumacious]

I would think people see the importance of having a Federal judge appointed to the Supreme Court instead of someone who will have to learn on the job and has never proven she can even be a judge. Heck we don't even have any opinions to judge from!

Yes, we do:



Kagan Nomination Launches Constitutional Debate

Senators should thus ask questions about the meaning of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause, to name but three provisions under which courts have ratified incredible assertions of federal power divorced from those the Constitution discretely enumerates. If Elena Kagan refuses to answer such queries substantively – employing the usual dodge that she may be called upon to interpret these clauses as justice – we can rightfully hold that response against her, as she herself counseled in a law review article 15 years ago.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Read through the first three pages of the thread to find an intelligent post regarding qualifications of this nominee:

On the one hand, she has no experience (but neither does Obama).

On the other, if her confirmation is approved, it would piss off Rabbi.

Where did I indicate it would "piss me off"? Please post the quotation.
Actually I expect her to lie her way through confirmation, like Sotomayor did.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

It is not a flawed question... you have asserted that the judiciary has the power granted to grant itself constitutional powers. <Snip>

No, I did not. Perfect your question first, otherwise you continue to default.

Yes.. you did...

You have asserted that the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers" exists for the judiciary
I have shown that the constitution is where the branches of our federal government derive their power
I have also shown that nowhere within the constitution, does your power exist in any text
You have asserted via your opposition, that they have that power (to make sure the American dream prospers) due to precedent in Marbury v Madison wherein they gave themselves to power to give themselves power without the amendment process
I have shown that nowhere in the findings, that I have read over an over, does Marbury v Madison grant the power to grant powers to the judiciary
I have stated my assertion and opinion that judicial review and declaring something unconstitutional, is not the same as adding a constitutional power or saying that a power is granted

Now... again.. please state where the judiciary has the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers".... and please, if this power is not found in the constitution, cite where this power is derived from... state it for the record, jokey.. instead of beating around the bush... cover your whole list of assertions, in order

oh... and while you are at it.. please show us these "human guarantees" within the constitution, that you say exist

 

[The Rabbi]

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....

Another first: I get a positive rep with 'funny" from one member and a negative rep with 'dickwad" from Dante for the exact same post.
Guess which one has a sense of humor.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Robert Bork was an excellent constitutional scholar and SCOTUS candidate but whether or not he was the best candidate ever is opinion, and most likely ideologically biased, only.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is she the UGLIEST nominee ever?

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

Another first: I get a positive rep with 'funny" from one member and a negative rep with 'dickwad" from Dante for the exact same post.
Guess which one has a sense of humor.

you thought the rep was for the individual post?


you truly are a dickwad: "A stupid person." it basically means a complete ass

 

[Gunny]

This thread was dumb to begin with. I'm struggling with the fact that it keeps getting dumber.

You people so believe in cowtowing the party's lines in pathetic.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

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.

He clearly claimed she was NOT qualified to recieve the postion.

He did that because he hates her for being appointed by Obama.

He did not know that 40 scotus members including Rehnquist had never been a judge.


Its pure partisan hackery

 

[Truthmatters]

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?

Robert Bork was an excellent constitutional scholar and SCOTUS candidate but whether or not he was the best candidate ever is opinion, and most likely ideologically biased, only.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The was FAR right of the pweson he was replacing, it would have changed the court to the far right for decades.

That is why he was fought so hard against.

He hated some of our setttled laws and would have sought to change them.

 

[Defiant1]

How is it not OK for her to be left of you in her politics?

If she was right leaning you would say she was fine.

Do you think left leaning people should be banned from the SCOTUS?

Not necessarily, but since she has committed actions against our military while we are at war she belongs in Gitmo not on the bench.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are insane

 

[JakeStarkey]

How is it not OK for her to be left of you in her politics?

If she was right leaning you would say she was fine.

Do you think left leaning people should be banned from the SCOTUS?

Not necessarily, but since she has committed actions against our military while we are at war she belongs in Gitmo not on the bench.

That statement qualifies Defiant for a one-time trip to gitmo.

 

[Gunny]

How is it not OK for her to be left of you in her politics?

If she was right leaning you would say she was fine.

Do you think left leaning people should be banned from the SCOTUS?

Not necessarily, but since she has committed actions against our military while we are at war she belongs in Gitmo not on the bench.

How is it not OK for her to be left of you in her politics?

If she was right leaning you would say she was fine.

Do you think left leaning people should be banned from the SCOTUS?

Not necessarily, but since she has committed actions against our military while we are at war she belongs in Gitmo not on the bench.

That statement qualifies Defiant for a one-time trip to gitmo.

You are insane

None of the 3 of you should be allowed to vote.

 

[Political Junky]

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?

After all, Scalia is such a hottie .... As long as you're judging on looks.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its what they do to women who are on the left.

Note the women they love in the republican party, they all have to look good.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Along with the usual RW echo chamber - as predicted - another loonie posts this:

ihopehefails posts:
"How can Obama pick this person for the Supreme Court?

"Why Obama is picking this new person to be on the supreme court is beyond me. Doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest of having a member of the prosecuting team be on the supreme court. Every case that is going to be argued will have a supreme court justice that has sympathies for the prosecuting team. This would not be a fair and balanced jury in any case"

Can someone on the right please explain (he is one of yours)?