Elana Kagan will be nominated in the morning to the open SCOTUS seat

Kagan also has $12.5K in donations during the last decade to Democrats, more than half of that to Obama's campaign.

Tells you where her political philosophy is (no surprise)
 
I met her a few times she seems OK in person not brilliant, not personable. Obviously she is left, but very likely not an evil genius, and probably not all that persuasive. Kagan doesn't strike fear into my heart I think we could do a lot worse.
 
Mike S said:
Kagan also has $12.5K in donations during the last decade to Democrats, more than half of that to Obama's campaign.

Tells you where her political philosophy is (no surprise)
Click to expand...

Obama hasn't made one move against gun owners since in office. Would he take any opportunity to sign GC legislation? Sure, but he is clearly not making it a priority. I have always felt that his concerns are primarily focused on the poor and minority. In that, he holds typical Gun Grabber beliefs (along with an *ism or two I am sure) but I don't think he is stupid enough to think that banning guns in Iowa is going to solve the problems he sees in the inner city. Would he have issues banning guns in the inner city? Hah, no way. But the guy has just never made a big stink on guns, ever. I just don't see the conspiracy here. Everything is out in the open for the most part. Joyce Foundation hates guns and is ultra lib. O was on the board. O is liberal. Period. No one including him denies it. The neo-cons had more to hide than these people. The Joyce Foundation just don't appear to be hiding anything to make the conspiracy work.

An no, I didn't vote for him. I just don't see what the conspiracy is about. It seems more likely that you just don't like the company O keeps. Same here frankly.
 
Here's another article about it.

To me the logic is simple. Obama can't win @ SCOTUS so what does he do? He puts a judge in that will enable victory. Kagan. There's a Joyce Foundation connection, Harvard Law connection, her contributions to Democrats and Obama's campaign, too many pieces that fit together on this one.

I hope I'm wrong. You're right, Obama has not made a move yet. The key word is "yet" He's smart enough to set up and execute an ambush when he knows he can win.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/
 
Last edited:
Climbnsink said:
I met her a few times she seems OK in person not brilliant, not personable. Obviously she is left, but very likely not an evil genius, and probably not all that persuasive. Kagan doesn't strike fear into my heart I think we could do a lot worse.
Click to expand...

Just what we need. A person who "we could do worse than" receiving a lifetime appointment to the the USSC. Awesome. I'm excited.
 
About the Joyce Foundation:
The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to protect the natural environment of the Great Lakes, to reduce poverty and violence in the region, and to ensure that its people have access to good schools, decent jobs, and a diverse and thriving culture. We are especially interested in improving public policies, because public systems such as education and welfare directly affect the lives of so many people, and because public policies help shape private sector decisions about jobs, the environment, and the health of our communities. To ensure that public policies truly reflect public rather than private interests, we support efforts to reform the system of financing election campaigns.
Click to expand...

No surprise here.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722

Obama funding anti 2A groups via Joyce Foundation

Of the $219 million in grants approved from 1997 through 2002 — the years of Obama’s tenure for which the foundation has posted its annual reports online — the environment received $57 million, followed by education ($56 million), employment ($41 million), gun violence ($21 million), money and politics ($17 million) and culture ($6.5 million).
 
Last edited:
She's obviously a lefty. That,, there is no doubt.... the issue is, how far left?

As far as her "charisma in getting people to collaborate" goes.... only time will tell. If she pretends to be a centrist she might be able to influence Kennedy, the typical swing vote. I doubt she'll ever "roll" Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas..... and I'd like to think that Kennedy is probably not going to roll, either, although he's obviously had dubious decisions of his own (EG, like in Kelo) it's clear that the "communist cell" on the left can't always influence him.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Her senior thesis was lamenting the downfall of the NY socialists and called for them and unions to rise up. She is YET ANOTHER Goldman Sachs crony too. What is it with GS? It's like the US version of SPECTRE.
 
This will follow form.

The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will be magnanimous defenders of the President's right to have his own nominee (while mugging for the cameras and pretending to be conservatives).

In the end they'll pass her through.

And the next time (if it ever happens again) that a Republican President nominates ANYONE, the Dems on the Judiciary will become apoplectic about how 'out of the mainstream' that person is (whoever it is). They'll then make every possible effort to fillibuster or kill the nominee.
 
JackDaniels said:
The girl looks like a lesbian and she's a jew. But I am so damned sick of the right giving a flying eff about the sex someone has or the religion someone has. That is why conservatives get screwed come election day. I want to know how she feels about the constitution, not about how she feels about religion and sex, so long as those personal views stay out of her rulings as well.

Its not any of our business to tell someone who they should marry or who's book of lies they should believe in anyhow.

Seriously, if conservatives would break on their anti-gay marriage shit which doesn't make a damn difference in the rest of our lives anyway, they'd win over a lot more voters and make a lot more sense to independant Americans who don't want to vote conservative because they're smart enough to respect the social rights of others.

As a matter of fact, this is a hell of an opportunity for Republicans to gain some support for November by not mentioning the lesbian thing or the jew thing at all. That would be the play to make right here.
Click to expand...
Aside from neo-NAZIs marching in a circle jerk and few illuminati conspiracy loons, no one cares that she is a Jew. To say that conservatives are anti-semitic is an old propaganda line mainly pushed by liberals. The vast majority of conservatives have no beef with Jews. Now, if she were an atheist homosexual activist, it would be a different story. Furthermore, liberals have their fare share of anti-semites. Ever seen an anti Israel protest? Yeah those ain’t the conservatives marching and chanting, “die Jews die.” [wink] So I doubt we’ll hear a single negative word from conservatives about her religion. Remember how warmly conservatives received Joe Lieberman at the GOP convention?

As far as she is gay, well yes, some highly religious conservatives might care. They might whine about morals, distraction of family, blah blah blah… However, I think they will mostly be concerned with her stands on abortion. After all a lesbian liberal is far more likely to be pro-abortion than lets say someone like Sarah Palin. Keep in mind that anti-abortion liberals and independents are likely to voice the same concerns. Therefore, if conservatives play her sexual preference as the abortion issue, they might find some friendly ears. Anything short of that and they will be viewed as bigots – as they should be – because they would indeed be bigots.

To me neither of those two facts about her are relevant. I am not sure if I even care about her “personal” views on 2A. What I care about and honestly worry about is her seemingly self-centered opportunistic approach to political career building. I get a distinct impression that she couldn’t care less about the letter and the spirit of the constitution. For her it is completely open to any interpretation or alteration. Furthermore, she seems wide open to political influence and sure seems to owe some favors. Combining a liberal “open-minded” judge with dead/irrelevant constitution and you have a potential disaster if a strong willed/powerful liberal president comes to power. Is Obama that president? Not yet. But remember, she’ll be our judge for the next 30y, or so. Who knows what kind of political environment we’ll be living in 20y. It is this more than anything else that bothers me about her. Her sexual, political or religious preferences are not critical; and neither is her luck of credentials as a judge. She is certainly educated and qualified enough to read constitution. The question is – WILL SHE???
 
OPM said:
Aside from neo-NAZIs marching in a circle jerk and few illuminati conspiracy loons, no one cares that she is a Jew. To say that conservatives are anti-semitic is an old propaganda line mainly pushed by liberals. The vast majority of conservatives have no beef with Jews. Now, if she were an atheist homosexual activist, it would be a different story. Furthermore, liberals have their fare share of anti-semites. Ever seen an anti Israel protest? Yeah those ain’t the conservatives marching and chanting, “die Jews die.” [wink] So I doubt we’ll hear a single negative word from conservatives about her religion. Remember how warmly conservatives received Joe Lieberman at the GOP convention?

As far as she is gay, well yes, some highly religious conservatives might care. They might whine about morals, distraction of family, blah blah blah… However, I think they will mostly be concerned with her stands on abortion. After all a lesbian liberal is far more likely to be pro-abortion than lets say someone like Sarah Palin. Keep in mind that anti-abortion liberals and independents are likely to voice the same concerns. Therefore, if conservatives play her sexual preference as the abortion issue, they might find some friendly ears. Anything short of that and they will be viewed as bigots – as they should be – because they would indeed be bigots.

To me neither of those two facts about her are relevant. I am not sure if I even care about her “personal” views on 2A. What I care about and honestly worry about is her seemingly self-centered opportunistic approach to political career building. I get a distinct impression that she couldn’t care less about the letter and the spirit of the constitution. For her it is completely open to any interpretation or alteration. Furthermore, she seems wide open to political influence and sure seems to owe some favors. Combining a liberal “open-minded” judge with dead/irrelevant constitution and you have a potential disaster if a strong willed/powerful liberal president comes to power. Is Obama that president? Not yet. But remember, she’ll be our judge for the next 30y, or so. Who knows what kind of political environment we’ll be living in 20y. It is this more than anything else that bothers me about her. Her sexual, political or religious preferences are not critical; and neither is her luck of credentials as a judge. She is certainly educated and qualified enough to read constitution. The question is – WILL SHE???
Click to expand...

Great post. Our country is caught in this dilemma where appointing judges based on their political views is acceptable. The only time a judge's political views should affect the rest of us, is when they are in the voting booth. Otherwise, they should legislate based on the law, and only the law. But, loons like obama and the liberal mided think that the constitution is an outdated piece of paper that is not relevant in today's world. So, they'll do all that they can to inject their political views into their ruling. And, this is a major problem for our country.
 
new guy said:
...or...

kevin_james_full.jpg
Click to expand...

We have a Winner!

capt.photo_1273459005109-3-0.jpg
Kevin-James.jpg



Kevin James' long lost sister - or Kevin James after the sex change - you decide.

Maybe starring in that "Bud and Larry" movie made him think about moving to the other side?
 
Last edited:
Another interesting analysis of why the anointed one chose her is here. I think the following might have played an important role in his choice:

Obama’s preselection talk was bold and progressive on the big picture issues of judicial fairness and fighting for common people against powerful business interests. Yet he struck a far more moderate tone in private, with administration officials telling POLITICO — on the very day Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement — that they were seeking someone “confirmable” and collegial enough to sway conservative swing Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Click to expand...

If she's not an abrasive outright moonbat, she may be more effective at persuading other justices to see things her way. She may be the 'velvet glove' chosen to cover the iron fist. [hmmm] Something I hadn't considered before. I wish there were more background on how she views the 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
While that quote says nothing about her personal views, I think it's at least a good sign compared to what could have been. She recognizes the decision made in Heller (which is more than some people do), and it means that she will strike down any law preventing an individual's right to possess and carry weapons (unless Heller is overturned, of course). So while many here might not put this in the win column, I certainly don't think it should go in the loss column either.



Also,

nZ1st.png


and

AU0SR.jpg
 
Her comments on Heller (as has been pointed out) simply indicate that she acknowledges the Heller decision and can read.

Her comments do not pledge her fialty to the right of an individual to own AND CARRY handguns, 'assault weapons' or anything else.

She is Obama's nominee and is opposed to civilian ownership of guns, or wouldn't have gotten the nod....wake up folks.

She'll likely get confirmed (unless she has an illegal nanny problem) because there are too many spineless Republicans on the Judiciary committee, but that doesn't mean she's pro 2A by any means. We've learned that not even failing to pay income taxes is a bona fide reason for rejection.
 
She looks like one of those face transplant people.

A lefty dyke on SCOTUS. What can go wrong? Bet she's even got a tatoo of Rosanne Barr on her tit.

custom_1235504176234_88-rosanne-tattoo.jpg
 
The schizophrenic nature of this thread is hard to swallow - alternating between making fun of how she looks and then some real comments on her philosophy and impact is just weird. Could we split one or the other into a different thread?

I would love to read more on her actual 2A comments/record.. If anyone has links to more, please post them.
 
JasonG said:
The schizophrenic nature of this thread is hard to swallow - alternating between making fun of how she looks and then some real comments on her philosophy and impact is just weird. Could we split one or the other into a different thread?

I would love to read more on her actual 2A comments/record.. If anyone has links to more, please post them.
Click to expand...

She has almost no record at all. She's a ... Manchurian Candidate. Which is why she was selected. All we can say with certainty is that she's a homely -ass dyke with a tattoo of Rosanne on her tit. And the dyke part is speculation.
 
JasonG said:
The schizophrenic nature of this thread is hard to swallow - alternating between making fun of how she looks and then some real comments on her philosophy and impact is just weird. Could we split one or the other into a different thread?

I would love to read more on her actual 2A comments/record.. If anyone has links to more, please post them.
Click to expand...

theGringo said:
She has almost no record at all. She's a ... Manchurian Candidate. Which is why she was selected. All we can say with certainty is that she's a homely -ass dyke with a tattoo of Rosanne on her tit. And the dyke part is speculation.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the manchurian candidate part, but yeah, sadly this level of inspection is now the norm due in no small part to the strong political polarization that the two parties are trying to foment. You are either with them, or against them. In that environment, any nuance will lose to support in one camp and do nothing to gain support in the other. Her physical characteristics are sadly more informative (in that they are known) than her record...
 
drgrant said:
She's obviously a lefty. That,, there is no doubt.... the issue is, how far left?

As far as her "charisma in getting people to collaborate" goes.... only time will tell. If she pretends to be a centrist she might be able to influence Kennedy, the typical swing vote. I doubt she'll ever "roll" Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas..... and I'd like to think that Kennedy is probably not going to roll, either, although he's obviously had dubious decisions of his own (EG, like in Kelo) it's clear that the "communist cell" on the left can't always influence him.

-Mike
Click to expand...

I am guessing hardcore. Reports say she pretty much sunk any form of disciplinary action against Tribe and another Harvard Law Prof. for plagiarism. May not seem like much, but in the world of Academia its one of the cardinal sins. One Harvard Law Grad was found to have plagiarized after the fact and they revoked his degree. The act is indefensible, and the only reason she did it was to uphold and protect the lefts preeminent lawyers. Tribe, for what its worth, was instrumental in derailing Bork for his SCOTUS pick, the other lawyer represented Anita Hill during Clarence Thomas's hearings.
 
steveyc272 said:
What do you mean Heller did not go that far? The part in bold is an exact quote from the decision.
Click to expand...

It didn't apply outside the home. Nor did she qualify that she was referring to within the confines of the home and Heller is all about "in the home". Your guess is as good as mine if she meant it that way.
 
I know this has nothing to do with her (lack) of qualifications, but has anyone else noticed she's Androgynous Pat?
 
Chuck said:
I know this has nothing to do with her (lack) of qualifications, but has anyone else noticed she's Androgynous Pat?
Click to expand...

Nope, there were not a half dozen pictures contrasting her with similar looking males on earlier pages.
[and since this is the internet and this could come off as either me being a tool or saying it with a laugh...its meant to be taken with the laugh]
 
As much experience as the person that nominated her. Since she has said that during the confirmation process the candidate's views should be explained on certain topics, I think the senators should have fun with that and ask her to explain herself on tough subjects. But I'm sure she will not do that as previous candidates have danced around topics. She is going to get in because short of actual murder, all liberal judges get in. Just vote her in quick and rub it in the President's face about being bi-partisan.
 
terraformer said:
Look, I don't know what the answer here is, but it is unconscionable that we are looking at a SCOTUS nominee and have no earthly 'fing clue what they hell she believes. WTF isn't wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

Push her through. No paper trail of history. Find out the facts too late. Perfect. [angry]
 

Similar threads

state police nipped this one in the bud: wonder what the legal outcome will be?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
It must be the influence of the drugs that gives lefties the creative ability to come up with these terms.
Replies
5
Views
208
murphcc1
M
who hunts the big bears in the u.s. and canada?
Replies
26
Views
461
chris_1001
chris_1001
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
751
Zappa
Zappa
Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!
Replies
13
Views
459
dcmdon
dcmdon
Back
Top Bottom