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

Titan said:
This will all come down to ....

"They're just against her because she's gay!"
Click to expand...
Of course the Dimmocrats will trot out the old straw man argument. [rolleyes]

Personally, I have no more (or less) of an issue with her as a nominee to the highest judicial court of the land who has no actual judicial experience, and happens to be gay (if she is), than I did with a candidate for the highest executive office in the land who had no actual executive experience and just happened to be black. Neither one of them is qualified regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.
 
kevin9 said:
Of course the Dimmocrats will trot out the old straw man argument. [rolleyes]

Personally, I have no more (or less) of an issue with her as a nominee to the highest judicial court of the land who has no actual judicial experience, and happens to be gay (if she is), than I did with a candidate for the highest executive office in the land who had no actual executive experience and just happened to be black. Neither one of them is qualified regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

It's sort of funny (funny weird) that Obama didn't nominate a black candidate. He must not know any qualified blacks.
 
Kagan apparently bemoans the jack of judicial activism on the part of Democrat nominees...
“Why do the conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get the liberals?” Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, asked the Web site Politico recently, voicing the frustration of the left when Ms. Kagan was considered a front-runner but was not yet Mr. Obama’s selection. “What the hell is that all about?”

Ms. Kagan addressed the point herself 15 years ago in the University of Chicago Law Review: “Herein lies one of the mysteries of modern confirmation politics: given that the Republican Party has an ambitious judicial agenda and the Democratic Party has next to none, why is the former labeled the party of judicial restraint and the latter the party of judicial activism?”
Click to expand...

Article LINK

Since her entire career has been in politics and not on the bench, which way do you think she'll tilt as a Justice? Gee...I wonder!
 
Last edited:
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh reviews Kagan’s academic work on the First Amendment and administrative law in detail. This is perhaps the best such analysis of her scholarship conducted so far. Volokh concludes that although Kagan has fewer publications than might otherwise be expected, her interests also extend “to government service and to educational institution-building” as well as scholarship. Volokh characterizes the substance of Kagan’s work as “excellent,” but he notes that the publications do not reveal much about her broader views, for example on cases involving the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

More non-information. Nothing this woman has done in her entire adult career has said much about how she will act on the bench.
 
Ok, sorry for one more looks comparison but this one is too funny to let pass.

Elena-Kagan-Princess-Bride.jpg
 
The photo comparison's might make me laugh on some other day, but the references to her being jewish and lesbian will never make me laugh.

Her ethnicity and sexual orientation are not something to be thrown around in an accusatory/derogatory way. Furthermore, anybody calling her a lesbian or "dyke" is speculating/stereo-typing.

I would rather not see it on a site filled with people that for the most part, I respect and think highly of.
 
terraformer said:
Now that is some substantial information on how she will vote.
Click to expand...

Kagan said:
The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”
Click to expand...

Of course you're not sympathetic, you're a big government communist.
 
terraformer said:
I believe you may be right. But it is important to actually try to prove this, and everything people are finding is pointing that way.
Click to expand...

May be right? Come on Obama and Co. had this pick planned out two years ago, it's all a part of their master plan to turn America in to little China.
 
Terra, Is this where I get to say I told you so or do I have to wait?

No way one of Obama's Harvard Law buddies is anything but an anti gun, left wing, liberal moonbat. No freakin way.
 
Mike S said:
Terra, Is this where I get to say I told you so or do I have to wait?

No way one of Obama's Harvard Law buddies is anything but an anti gun, left wing, liberal moonbat. No freakin way.
Click to expand...

I'm changing his avatar to this.. I've never seen so many knee jerk defenses of the left wing in my life.

nothingtoseehere.jpg
 
terraformer said:
I give everyone a chance to prove themselves. I don't shoot first then investigate.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment. She's 50. Not much margin for error. Can anyoune reaaly doubt with whom this woman's sympathies lie? Can anyone doubt that she'll "judge" according to her empathetic impulses rather than the Constitution?
 
terraformer said:
I give everyone a chance to prove themselves. I don't shoot first then investigate.
Click to expand...

I would not give that chance to my brain surgeon or my tattoo artist, would you? One "oops" could have very bad BAD repercussions.

Clarence Thomas was a lucky toss of the dice that blew up in the Clinton administration's face. The folks we have now are not going to make the same mistake twice. They have been getting their game pieces in place for a while now, and the moves they make ARE NOT accidental.

You can bet your best rifle that anyone they nominate is going to make the ghost of Thomas Jefferson flop in his grave.

theGringo said:
To The Final Conflict: Socialism In New York City, 1900 - 1933

PDF: http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/2010/05/kaganthesis.pdf

Draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this, I'm sending it out to the folks I know and the elected fools that are endorsing her.
 
Last edited:
theGringo said:
SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment. She's 50. Not much margin for error. Can anyoune reaaly doubt with whom this woman's sympathies lie? Can anyone doubt that she'll "judge" according to her empathetic impulses rather than the Constitution?
Click to expand...

If you look back in this thread, you will see I lament we have little to go on with this woman or any other nominee in recent memory. That is the biggest problem. If we had more, then there would be little doubt. I even gave Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt. That situation made itself clear enough with enough time. Hopefully enough sunshine is put on this one to kill it too.

But we should be demanding that people with records are nominated and that those nominated are forced to actually answer questions. Regardless if they're your kinda guy/gal or not.
 
Kagan Bad on Guns

05/14/2010

“President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court,” I wrote in HUMAN EVENTS on June 3, 2009, “owes the American people an explanation on her view of the 2nd Amendment.”

The nominee then was Sonia Sotomayor, who never provided an explanation. Now, with the choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama is two for two in selecting Supreme Court nominees with an apparent strong hostility to the right of self-defense.

And it’s only fair that Kagan now be held to the “Kagan Standard.”

READ MORE
 
Kagan is like Obama - a lot of non-disclosure in her past, chumming around with known leftists and they trying to not get pigeon-holed as a leftist, etc.

Don't pay attention to brick I have in my right hand that I am about to hit you over the head with - pay attention to the shiny thing I am dangling in front of your face to distract you.

In the case of the Obama administration anybody who considers themselves even somewhat "conservative" who doesn't "profile" needs to have their head check IMHO.

Kagan is a Harvard law professor (strike 1)

Kagan may be a lesbian (possible strike 2) - sorry, but people have sympathies based on who and what they are. Combine this fact with all the other ones and not discriminating against her based on this orientation is stupid for a conservative. If you think that a person like Kagan in a position of power like the Supreme Court is going to be benign - I suggest you go read some Andrea Dworkin to get your head reset properly.

Kagan chums with leftists. (strike 2 if the lesbian thing isn't enough). Since she chums with leftists and is a known Obama compatriot, this is definite strike against her in my book.

Kagan's meager writings (strike 3) - the scant writings and decisions of hers that have been put down on paper are enough to disqualify her from any "conservatives" endorsement in my book.

Kagan is Jewish. - not enough to disqualify her as a stand alone issue. But taken in context with all of the other evidence , for me it is a minus and not a plus. There are an awful lot of Jews who lean left in this country and hold reigns of power. The fact that she is Jewish is another tell , again - taken in context with everything else - of where she stands.

And last but not least: Obama nominated her for a reason. This alone should be enough for any conservative to make her nomination into a fight.
 
Marcus in the Darkus said:
Why exactly does the fact that she's Jewish matter one iota?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't but it does! There is still a ton of antisemitism in the US. When I was with the PD, I got to see a lot of it up close and personal . . . and that was from other officers. I don't foresee it changing any in my lifetime either.
 
USMA-82 said:
I only read the conclusion - that was enough. She's a perfect fit for the administration.
Click to expand...

I read the whole thing...
While most of it is drivel, she is painting the socialist movement as a group with a good cause that did not fail because of their meaning, but due to infighting. In her conclusion she says "The story of (the demise of socialism in the US) is a sad but also chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America".

Other points of concern is how she, in the dedication, identifies "her brother's radicalism as an inspiration to clarify her own political ideas.", how she constantly refers the US as "a belligerent nation" during WWI, and how "the socialist had to cope with constant harrassment from police as well as citizenry".

Make no doubt about it, this "woman" is a socialist.
 
You're doing it wrong. You should have just profiled her as a socialist without verifying it... [thinking]
In all seriousness, this was clear and compelling evidence this woman believes in things the vast majority in the US do not. She need to be borked.
 

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
195
murphcc1
M
who hunts the big bears in the u.s. and canada?
Replies
26
Views
438
chris_1001
chris_1001
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
732
Zappa
Zappa
Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!
Replies
2
Views
234
CrackPot
CrackPot
Back
Top Bottom