It’s apparently a forgone conclusion that Kagan will be voted on despite obligatory vocal opposition from Republicans. Her sense of humor in the hearings is refreshing considering how desert dry these things usually are. And it turns out the whole military recruiter at Harvard thing is not as cut and dried as her critics wanted, as if that specific item has any relation to how she’d vote on anything.
Has your opinion of her changed since she was first announced? Failed past nominee Robert Bork doesn’t like her. Do you now have an opinion on her, good or bad? Sound off!
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t one actual judge out there who would be better than her. I know she won’t be the first non-judge to be on the court but it still seems like a poor choice.
Don’t we already have enough Zionists on the Supreme Court?
How about instead of a political toady of BHO he nominated a true liberal judge that isn’t a statist? Is that an oxymoran?
(misspelling intentional grammar Nazis)
#1, why is a judge a better choice?
IMO the court is packed with people of largely the same background, and Kagan adds at least a little diversity. Her humor adds a lot to her appeal.
I just wish she’d told Sessions what she was probably thinking: go f yourself you racist piece of shit. That guy may be a hero to some (fools), but he’s a first-class idiot everywhere else.
Just to clarify with but one example…Sessions was the attorney general of Alabama during the time churches were being burned, and he refused to investigate.
@ Shubee #2
X 1000. Totally agreed.
She can’t even answer a basic question about limits of power. Does the federal government have to right to tell you what you must eat?
#7 Nobody is going to know with certainty what this woman really thinks until after she is in office. I don’t think there is any serious question that she will be elected.
According to my count barely more people wanted her than didn’t but that was still less than 50% of the people that even bothered to respond to the pole which isn’t what I would call a major vote of confidence.
I like strict constructionist when it comes to the constitution. That is I want judges that stick with what it says and if the Congress or who ever wants it changed they know how to amend it rather than the judges making it up as they go.
Well, if Bork is against her, that’s good enough for me. To bring her on.
Seriously, her credentials establish her as prime SC material.
The whole argument that she has not been a judge is bogus. Similarly, should the only candidates for public office be lawyers?
I want a judge on the SCOTUS that will actually enforce the US Constitution like some of the idiots currently on there. Like the ones who point out things like other countries don’t allow guns and they are a free society. Funny, I don’t give two shits about the other country’s society, I care about ours not getting flushed down the toilet by progressives like she clear said she is.
If we had a real SC the ruling to enforce the second amendment this week would have been a 9-0 vote instead of the Liberals trying to enforce their dislike for guns.
She is anti 2nd Amendment so hell no. The vote was way too close the other day.
Go ahead call me a gun nut, I could care less.
#7 The question really was “Are you stupid enough to answer this question with a yes or no answer”.
1. Yes, I will strike down this law. She’s an activist judge who will overrule elected officials.
2. No, I will not strike down this law. She’s in favor of the government telling you what to eat.
You might not like her, fine. But she’s not a complete idiot.
Besides barring military recruiters from campus, she was on the wrong end of a 9-0 Supreme Court decision on the subject. Perhaps she doesn’t have the competence to understand the Constitution.
She has bizarre views and no judicial experience.
I’m sure the court can handle having one “I’m learning on the job” appointee. At least she is a thinker to an extent.
She’s not qualified, but I say confirm her.
The Constitution says the president selects the Supreme Court justices and the Senate confirmation process isn’t to second guess him and I guess in the old days there weren’t even confirmation hearings.
If you are in need of neurosurgeon, you want neurosurgeon with experience of really doing his job, not the Dean of Medical School.
For me her lack of real qualifications and knowledge how to judge is enough to disqualify her. There are tens of thousands who are better qualified for this nomination than Kagan. Obama could have picked some from the top 100 at least.
And to Uncle Dave: Military Rec. at Harvard case is cut and dry. She try everything in her power to obstruct them, caving in the end vs. consequences. In that case she was not only obviously wrong but personally despicable (as in equal to racist South “Blacks only-Whites only” arrangements).
She played ‘possum on only long term record on the issue she has: opinion that free speech can be severely limited. Again despicable – if you wrote personal opinion stating one and the same thing on and on since Law School and until last year – don’t be weasel and answer direct question about it in the same manner without “it was my job” excuse a’la Nazi Generals after the war.
I just read all 214 pages of the McDonald v Chicago decision. Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor dissented. (The left leaning judges).
Stevens in his dissent: “…the Second AMendment does not apply to the states; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context”.
This, after the Heller v DC decision of two years ago.
The liberals, not being originalists, are a real danger to the Bill of Rights, and a threat to every citizen of this country continuing to enjoy the freedom we assume we will always have.
The Health Care Bill is a good example. Kagan will NOT say that the government can NOT force you to eat three servings of vegetables every day.
The liberals want to expand the Federal powers over the people. The originalists want to limit it.
That being said, this woman will be sitting on the bench, that is not even a question, unfortunately. The good news, she is replacing a liberal, so the balance of power remains the same.
OK I think their is something seriously wrong with placing a person as a judge on the highest court which has never been a judge before? Because she has never made any rulings we really do not know how she will judge.
Obama is going to pick a weird person to be a Supreme Court Justice.
If not this weird lady, some other weird lady (Sotomayor), etc.
If she is an Originalist, than I would support her, but she isn’t an Originalist. I want a Supreme Court justice who believes that the Constitution only changes when it is amended. Anyone who believes that the Constitution is a living document is not qualified to be a judge, much less a justice.
#16 What, about the McDonald decision, I agree with the outcome, but I believe that only Thomas had a correct opinion in that case. The other four conservatives used the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment to form their opinion. Thomas used the “privilege and immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment.
If I were questioning Kagan, I would ask her which clause better justifies the decision. That would be an interesting discussion and would reveal quite a bit about her.
deowll “Nobody is going to know with certainty what this woman really thinks until after she is in office. I don’t think there is any serious question that she will be elected.”
All there is to say, the rest of the proceedings are just theater.
Kagan is an unknown. In addition to never being a judge, she has very few written opinions concerning the constitution. We can only judge her suitability by her answers in the confirmation hearings, which were vague and evasive, and her actions. The military recruiters problem is a good example for it shows her ability to ignore federal law. Then she compounded the insult to law by allowing the recruiters onto campus but away from where other recruiters gathered. Separate but equal, huh? Strike 2. Strike 3, in my opinion, was her general inability to put together cohesive sentences.
Now, I know that nobody BHO submits for consideration will be good enough for the Repubs, that’s just politics as usual. But, Kagan strikes me as cronyism above qualifications.
If she’s so “obviously” unqualified, and a Democratic appointee…why is she getting ANY Republican support? Why are they ALL pledging to vote against her? Sure the Democrats might (not) fall in line and just vote for her because it’s Obama’s appointment, but the Republicans SURELY will “protect” us from an obviously unqualified appointment…right? So if they end up voting for her, and this question goes to the conservative Republicans on the blog, why is that? Why are they voting for her?
“Why are they not ALL pledging to vote against her” that is…
Kagan seems like a perfectly fine person (but, of course, some on the Right are going to call her Satan. They always do that. )
But when is Obama going to appoint a justice as far-left as Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are far-right?
I want a BALANCED court and the only way to balance the extreme right-wing tilt of this court is to appoint equally extreme left-wingers.
But instead, Obama appoints moderates, inching the court to the right each time.
#24 “I want a BALANCED court and the only way to balance the extreme right-wing tilt of this court is to appoint equally extreme left-wingers.”
I disagree. Get too many left-wingers in there and you can lose your civil rights. Nothing is guaranteed in the Constitution with “living document” judges. My civil rights are safer with justices that follow the Constitution.
>> Animby said, on June 30th, 2010 at 7:49 am
>> Kagan is an unknown.
She was “unknown” if you are stupid about these things.
Of course she needs to be voted onto the Supreme Court and she will!
The current political foreplay with the Repugs is to allow them to put out their one liners, their ‘zingers’ for their constituent sheeple.
All this is fine of course. It’s part of the dance.
Great to have Obama choose two and hopefully 3 or so more Supreme Court members before his term is up!!
>> Benjamin said, on June 30th, 2010 at 8:16 am
>> Nothing is guaranteed in the Constitution with “living document” judges.
But the most activist judges in recent history have been conservative.
>> Roberts and the rest of the court’s five-member conservative majority have overturned congressional laws and second-guessed local elected officials as aggressively as any liberal judges. And they have been just as quick to rely on vague constitutional clauses.
… and the conservatives LOVE it! Love it. Love it. Love that activism.
http://tinyurl.com/35kbvp5
Ah, the law. It’s black and white.
>> Benjamin said, on June 30th, 2010 at 7:17 am
>> If she is an Originalist, than I would support her, but she isn’t an Originalist
“Originalism” is pure fantasy.
Even the most right-wing justice isn’t an originalist.
You’re not an originalist, either.
Nobody is… unless they want to abolish things like corporations, organize gun owners into militias, take the vote away from women and put blacks back on to plantations.
If that’s the case, “originalism” is a certifiable mental illness.