Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[random3434]

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

The right wing must be so proud to have you on their side!

 

[QUENTIN]

Looks like it's the Harriet "My Little Crony" Meyers redux.

She's much more experienced than Miers (she was Dean of Harvard Law and Solicitor General)... but yeah, compared to the rest of the people he was seriously considering, she's got a practically Miers level of experience (judicially none) and lack of record.

The question now is whether Democrats, who often (appropriately) chide Republicans for being lock-step behind their leaders, will have the integrity and conviction to oppose Kagan's nomination on the same grounds Republicans opposed Miers and force Obama to choose someone qualified and reliably representative of his party's judicial philosophy and Stevens' rulings. If not, they're revealed as huge hypocrites and worse, the court is rendered even less interested in protecting civil rights and Constitutional protections.

I'll give odds that they blindly fall in line.

Any takers?

Me too. One of the reasons Obama has gotten away with supporting practically no progressive policies since taking office is because Democratic voters are still so enamored by his cult of personality they support him no matter how much they ideologically oppose what he does.

She'll be easily confirmed and tomorrow morning, millions of Democrats who didn't even know Kagan existed before now will be championing her as a brilliant choice and fantastic justice based solely on the fact that Obama picked her.

 

[Oddball]

Me too. One of the reasons Obama has gotten away with supporting practically no progressive policies since taking office is because Democratic voters are still so enamored by his cult of personality they support him no matter how much they ideologically oppose what he does.

What, are you nuts?

All we've got from him since day one has been one "progressive" (read: Fabian socialist) policy position after another.

He moves any farther left and he'll make Castro look like Goldwater.

 

[Avatar4321]

Me too. One of the reasons Obama has gotten away with supporting practically no progressive policies since taking office is because Democratic voters are still so enamored by his cult of personality they support him no matter how much they ideologically oppose what he does.

What, are you nuts?

All we've got from him since day one has been one "progressive" (read: Fabian socialist) policy position after another.

He moves any farther left and he'll make Castro look like Goldwater.

No not nuts. Just seriously misinformed.

 

[DavidS]

So Rabbi, how is it living in 1955?

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.

Hey, bro. How are you? Good to see a fellow Jew on my board. Now that the pleasantries are over with... unless you want to find your dick stuck down your nostrils, don't you ever speak to Jillian like that again.

 

[QUENTIN]

Actually, it appears you two are the seriously misinformed ones. And, in all likelihood, just as many Obama supports stand behind whatever decision he makes regardless of what it is, you oppose any decision he makes regardless of what it is.

Progressives want, and progressive policies would ensure, a single-payer health system, an end to the occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and illegal attacks in Pakistan, charges and trials for everyone detained in the War on Terror, an increase in social services and a progressive tax code, a reduction in exorbitant defense spending for obsolete weapons and no more deals with private-military contractor mercenaries like Blackwater, a reigning in of the power and scope of the surveillance state and end to Patriot Act privacy abuses, investigation and prosecution of all those who authorized or engaged in torture as defined and prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture which we signed into law and compels us to investigate and prosecute anyone even suspected of being involved in it, a return to respecting the Rule of Law, legalization of gay marriage and repeal of DADT, limits placed on lobbyists, donations, and corporate influence in government decisions, and the "most transparent administration in history" Obama promised.

Instead, not only did single-payer never get a shot but Obama assured the extremely popular public option would never pass, and instead we got a bailout for private insurance companies that those companies wrote the legislation for which legally mandates every American buy private insurance from those companies (that's corporatism, the opposite of socialism), we're still in Iraq, we've increased troop presence and casualities threefold in Afghanistan and ramped up illegal bombing campaigns and presence in Pakistan, are using Blackwater in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle East despite full knowledge they recklessly kill civilians, Obama has created an even more Orwellian unConstitutional justification for holding prisoners of the War on Terror forever without trial (which conservatives widely support and progressives widely oppose) in a scheme called "indefinite detention," Obama is putting an all out freeze on hundreds of government programs and social services yet exempting spending for the military-industrial complex and asked for the second-largest defense budget in world history, meanwhile the tax rate for the wealthy went up 3% to still be substantially lower than it was under Reagan, Ford, Nixon, or Eisenhower (almost 50% lower than under Eisenhower!), continues to spy on Americans and curtail their civil rights via the renewed Patriot Act and protects those who illegally spied even under its expanded powers, repeatedly asserts an inane doctrine of "look forward, not backward" at torture, murder, and other heinous crimes that reach from hundreds of lowly functionaries to the top echelons of power in the previous Administration and Congress (he and his Attorney General committing a crime themselves by refusing to investigate it) yet is fine with looking backward to prosecute whistleblowers who did no more than expose government corruption or incompetence, flaunts the Rule of Law in his decision to revoke Constitutional rights for both detainees and the basic right to a trial for American citizens with his decision to assassinate on presidential decree an American cleric in the middle east who has been neither charged nor convicted with any crime nor linked by anyone but the Administration to terrorist acts, gays still can't marry or serve in the military, lobbyists wrote the healthcare bill and Goldman Sachs orchestrated a multi-trillion dollar bailout it was the primary recipient of, and the Administration functions behind a wall of secrecy when it comes to every important decision they make.

And now, instead of nominating a qualified progressive with a long and exemplary record, he nominates the loyal Administration insider with no judicial experience who is more sympathetic to expansions of executive power, supports illegal revocation of Constitutional rights using the war on terror as an excuse, has no judicial experience, and moves the court to the right.

Obama's given progressives almost nothing and on a whole host of issues given in to conservative demands (and gotten nothing in return). Obama's policies have been as progressive as Goldwater's and only someone not paying attention believing spin and talking points coming from both the Admin and his rightwing opposition could seriously believe otherwise given what legislation he's actually passed and what policies he's actually implemented.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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.

Hey, bro. How are you? Good to see a fellow Jew on my board. Now that the pleasantries are over with... unless you want to find your dick stuck down your nostrils, don't you ever speak to Jillian like that again.

.. Who knew... Never thought of jillian as a weak sniveling Damsel in distress..sorry ..... It just strikes me funny.. carry on.. macho man..

 

[Lumpy 1]

I'm not getting nominated for a political position either.
You were trying to make some kind of point, dumbshit?

Since when does looks matter for a political position?

Yeah, my point is you make snide remarks about the looks of others while hiding behind your computer like the coward you are.

Grow up and man up. You embarrass all real men.

.. just offering some comic relief...

Considering the fact that Strolling defines you as, "post sperm" I wouldn't be going around proclaiming your, "real" manhood just yet.. sonny boy... (just funnin with ya)

 

[L.K.Eder]

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

two posts. congrats. i thought it would take maybe 5 post before some asshole would attack her looks.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

two posts. congrats. i thought it would take maybe 5 post before some asshole would attack her looks.

... I'm glad I'm not an asshole.. really

 

[California Girl]

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

I guess the left haven't been given their talking points yet.

 

[California Girl]

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

Must we always resort to the lowest form of criticism? I expect better of you, Rabbi. Shame on you.

 

[Care4all]

Thanks.
I mean, look at Napolitano. Hillary.
What is it with this guy?

And between you and Mud, I'm sure you two are just male models of the year.

If either of you are as ugly as your personalities, don't even bother posting a picture.

I'm not getting nominated for a political position either.
You were trying to make some kind of point, dumbshit?

dear God....you and the other men here who can only comment on the nominee's looks are women hating pigs.

Alito's looks ain't that great ya know, but wtf does that have to do with the person's capabilities?

when it is a women nominated or running for office, you dorks comment on looks only...as if women are nothing without good looks....or only can be remarked about, via their looks?

you're sickos, misogynistic below ground worms!!!!!!!!

shame on you!

 

[California Girl]

Are SCJs with absolutely no judicial experience a good thing or not? I haven't considered that question to carefully yet but my gut says 'no'.

SCJs should be apolitical - their only focus should be the Constitution. Nothing else. Not skin color, not 'wise Latinos', not political correctness or anything else - just the damned document on which our nation is founded.

 

[mudwhistle]

really? interesting. perhaps on other boards you've haunted. not here.

there is nothing inappropriate or 'spam' about providing information.

or do i have to go through every rightwingnut thread to show you what spam is?

Good for you. I prefer to get my own news. I come here to view other peoples opinion about the news.

Anyway.
Obama declared that there was no litmus test on abortion for a nominee. Did anyone really expect him to nominate someone who wants to overturn Roe? C'mon.
Kagan has a long track record on abortion, if I recall correctly. This will make the nomination very divisive, leading to another knock down drag out Fuck You America show from the Democrats. Way to go!

This woman is a bit confusing.

She believes that enemy combatants should be detained indefinitely, possibly without a trial....and she has a television evangelist's hair-cut.....I mean she's practically got sideburns. I imagine she would look OK if she had shoulder length hair but instead she wants to look like Jimmy Swaggert.

 

[mudwhistle]

And between you and Mud, I'm sure you two are just male models of the year.

If either of you are as ugly as your personalities, don't even bother posting a picture.

I'm not getting nominated for a political position either.
You were trying to make some kind of point, dumbshit?

dear God....you and the other men here who can only comment on the nominee's looks are women hating pigs.

Alito's looks ain't that great ya know, but wtf does that have to do with the person's capabilities?

when it is a women nominated or running for office, you dorks comment on looks only...as if women are nothing without good looks....or only can be remarked about, via their looks?

you're sickos, misogynistic below ground worms!!!!!!!!

shame on you!

The problem is that it's so damned obvious she's trying to look mannish.

Commenting on it isn't misogynistic....it's using a little common-sense. I suppose political-correctness doesn't allow us to notice these things.

I think some of the comments are going over the line...but Jesus....it's next to impossible to resist.

Fox News hasn't said anything about her yet. I wonder if this was an idea the media is floating while they prep the real nominee.

 

[L.K.Eder]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...disgusting-attacks-on-conservative-women.html

 

[mudwhistle]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...disgusting-attacks-on-conservative-women.html

The difference being you guys have to make shit up.

We don't.

 

[L.K.Eder]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...disgusting-attacks-on-conservative-women.html

The difference being you guys have to make shit up.

We don't.

you are hilarious.

 

[mudwhistle]

Anyone who feels it's OK to rag on Sarah Palin and her family has no room to talk here.