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!
# 25 Benjamin said,
I disagree. Get too many left-wingers in there and you can lose your civil rights.
I guess people like Scalia and Thomas are left-wingers then since they think it is ok to make laws regulating the kinds of sex adults have in their own home http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Dissents
or that minors don’t have free speech even when not on school grounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
jccalhoun,
You have that totally right.
Right wingers LOVE judicial activism. They cheer it on.
But they are a total steaming pile of hypocrites about it.
#14 no. The president gets to nominate a candidate for the SC. The Senate decides if the candidate is qualified. This is clearly an effort to keep the President from packing the SC with his fan boys and girls while preventing the Senate from doing the same. The problem is you need a better balance in the Senate of political power to force the President to pick people from the middle rather than the extreme.
What you want on the Supreme court is centrists.
Kagan could not be any more centrist. With the present make-up of a majority of right siders, that is the problem!
Is it just me, or does she resemble Darrel Hammond in drag?
I used to consider myself a liberal, but when I see people like Dallas and GregAllen that so are scarily stupid….I am turning conservative. You guys are nuts.
Good job.
#35 Haha. You’re right. I thought the Fred Flintstone comment was funny but you won the real look alike contest!
#36 Sorry you are moving to the darkside (although I’m pretty sure you were always there). Also, just because you like someone that knows someone who happens to be gay does not make you a liberal!
# 26 GregAllen said, “She was “unknown” if you are stupid about these things.”
Thank you for a cogent, concise and well thought out counterpoint. I would say more but I don’t want to keep you from your morning meds…
Should she be confirmed? No
Will she be confirmed? Most definitely
The constitution stopped meaning much to the supreme court once they killed property rights. Whats one more moonbat among the rest that are their.
Once again I avoid the confirmation hearings/analysis as it is but a Kabuki dance. If you go back to the Sotomayor threads, all the comments are the same. Same with Roberts and back in time we go probably to around Bork?
Yep, the Dems got up on their hind legs and Borked Bork and the Repugs have been paying back in spades, or should I say Thomas, no, that doesn’t work? Heh, heh.
No one can tell how anyone will perform when elevated to the SCOTUS. It is a life changing experience. The people accepting the position don’t know how they will change. So, what we have is a window onto your own soul.
If you want to whine about being an originalist or strict constructionalist then you are just dishonest, unless you actually believe that drivel and then you are just a fool. As posted above, there simply is no such thing. And we know what believing in things that don’t exist is don’t we? Thats right, “religionist thinking.” Magical thinking.
There can be NO MORE ACTIVIST CONSTITUTIONAL SHREDDING COURT than the one that made corporations people with an unlimited right to spend money on political campaigning (Citizens United). It hasn’t happened yet, but this has sown the seeds of our political implosion. Brought to us by the Bush Right Leaning Court. Yea, verily.
I’ve heard that Military Recruiting INCREASED during Kagan’s tenure at Harvard as while she enforced the schools policy as written she also worked with the Veterans on Campus to provide workable alternatives.
“You know”–single issue voters are retards/liars/and posers. If you find yourself with only “one reason” to be against someone, that includes YOU. McCain was similarly irrelevant/caught when asked if Kagan was qualified. He’s going to wait for the hearings (why?) but had concerns about her stance on the Military Recruiting at Harvard. Single Issue Retard, cute as they all are when he smiled.
Yes, how do you think and how do you change your mind? Can you be honest with yourself?
#30 GregAllen said, on June 30th, 2010 at 8:38 am
“Nobody is… [an originalist] 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.”
Bull crap. In no reading of the Constitution does it REQUIRE gun owners to organize into militias, nor does it ban the creation or corporations. As for original intent, look what a founder, Thomas Jefferson said, “”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).”
As for your over the top assertions that originalist would want to re-institute slavery or or deny women the right to vote, you are wrong. In my reading of the Constitution, the 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote and the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. I don’t know how you missed that part of the Constitution.
I really think you need to re-read the Constitution, specifically Article 5 of the Constitution. Amendments are part of the Constitution as well and I think you were being willfully ignorant on that fact just to prove a point.
Benji–Greg’s admonishment to you is entirely correct. You are confusing “originalist” with “Strict Constructionist.” Not the same thing.
but even then, you are “mostly” wrong. General goal driven language almost never provides a clear answer to complex fact specific legislative language. If you have only read the constitution, you really have not even started. Read the Cases Luke, let the force guide you.
I’m a Republican but I consider her an excellent choice. Even the American Bar Association gave her their highest rating. Being a judge (or not) is completely irrelevant for a Supreme Court Justice. To say otherwise is just posturing…
#42 bobbo said, “Benji–Greg’s admonishment to you is entirely correct. You are confusing “originalist” with “Strict Constructionist.” Not the same thing.”
All right replace originalist in my posts with Strict Constructionist then. My argument stands.
OK Benji==now being a strict constructionist please opine on the following:
1. If it is determined that militias are no longer required, would that impact the right to bear arms?
2. What is an arm? Automatic weapons, bazookas, anti-tank missles, rpg’s–can all be held in one’s arms. Is there a right to bear them in the constitution?
3. How does increasing urbanization affect the understanding of rights that were developed with an unpopulated frontier surrounding our Founding Fathers?
4. Are hand held lasers and electronic devices also “arms” or arms restricted to gunpowder powered hard projectile type weapons?
5. and so forth.
She is ugly. That is enough to disqualify her.
who knew Kevin James was the dean of Harvard Law?
“1. If it is determined that militias are no longer required, would that impact the right to bear arms?”
Do you mean when we have world peace? In case of invasion by a foreign power, citizens have the responsibility to form a militia to fight off invasion until the regular army can relieve them. “A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
“2. What is an arm? Automatic weapons, bazookas, anti-tank missles, rpg’s–can all be held in one’s arms. Is there a right to bear them in the constitution?”
A weapon. What soldiers carry or use in the course of fighting a battle. The British marched on Lexington and Concorde to confiscate arms that included cannon and muskets which were what soldiers used at the time. Now soldiers use more modern weapons, so the right to bear arms includes the right for more modern weapons.
There is precedent for this argument. United States vs. Miller said that, “The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.” District of Columbia vs. Heller confirms this in its decision. “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”
“3. How does increasing urbanization affect the understanding of rights that were developed with an unpopulated frontier surrounding our Founding Fathers?”
Our rights are unaffected. If things need to change, we have a process to amend the Constitution.
“4. Are hand held lasers and electronic devices also “arms” or arms restricted to gunpowder powered hard projectile type weapons?”
Do soldiers fight with handheld lasers? Or iPhones? If they do, then they are arms.
“5. and so forth.”
Is this the part where I answer any potential question you might have.
Benjamin–once again the actual dictionary meaning of words trip you up. Why does such a basic thing occur serially with you?
People forming up into an armed mob in response to the threat du jour is not a militia.
“Well Regulated Militia” is a clue there that a militia is part of the government, no matter what your crazy uncle camped out in your back yard tells you to the contrary.
But here is my question to you: is it not “activist” and not at all strict constructionist to “modernize” the application of the Constitution?
CLEARLY the right to bear arms is limited to the arms that were extant at the time. Muzzle loaded black powder. How activist of you to want to update the constitution to modern sensibilities. See how it works?
Now, think about what it really is you advocate for. It should be a rewarding/defining moment/few weeks for you.
“Should Elena Kagan Be Voted Onto The Supreme Court?”
Da! Comrade Kagan is wery reliable party apparatchik!
In the event of the collapse of the federal government, we need well-regulated militias in order to prevent invasion by damn furriners.
It might be a good idea if the militias had a few spare nukes so those furriners couldn’t nuke us first.
So clearly we all have the right to our own personal stash of nuculer weapons.
#49 ““Well Regulated Militia” is a clue there that a militia is part of the government”
Even under a system where there is no government, people’s actions will still be regulated by norms and other social influences.
A question: given the excerpt of the amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” how do you view “security of a free state” as meaning? If our leaders decided one day that they were just going to establish totalitarian rule, how does the presence of an armed militia, necessary in securing a free state, affect your interpretation of the amendment?
This get to the point of the Bill of Rights in the first place – it exists to tell the government what it cannot do; not to create conditional rights that the government can just choose to take away when it feels they are no longer relevant.
“CLEARLY the right to bear arms is limited to the arms that were extant at the time. Muzzle loaded black powder. How activist of you to want to update the constitution to modern sensibilities. See how it works?”
Really? Does the freedom of the press only apply to devices of the day as well? How about the 4th amendment? Clearly it doesn’t apply to computers and telephones since they didn’t exist in the 18th century.
What a dumb standard to attempt to make.
#52–SL==good to sea you here. You should post more often. uhhhh – – -everything you say supports my argument. Whats your point? since you are obviously confused and Benji is still at the library fourth in line for the dictionary, I’ll digress:
Self organized “militias” would be expected in times of anarchy. They are extra/outside the Constitutional provision. Every valid thing you say about these organized mobs of people is therefore irrelevant to a thread about strict construction and what it actually means?
Regarding the press, yes indeed. How does freedom of the press as propounded in 1785 apply to the internet? Once again, I assume all good men would want to “modernize” it to current circumstances, but that is ACTIVISM not strict construction.
And so we come down to the nuts of the matter: whining about activist courts or original intent is sadly 99% of the time the simple lament that the activist court didn’t activate the way the whiner would have preferred. Not always. Just 99% of the time.
The BOR then becomes a touch stone, a constant reference but it doesn’t provide any actual answers. Those answers are found in court cases decided by 9 people operating at various levels of good faith.
The only alternative would be waiting for the clouds to part and the hand of god to indicate his preference. Of the two, I prefer the 9 fallable men in dresses and women that should be. (snark, it got away from me.)
#53, Bobbo, unfortunately for me, work has kept me busy.
I would like to apply your reasoning in the opposite direction…
The government has power because that power is granted. The United States Navy can exist because the Constitution explicitly granted the federal government the power to create one. That power was granted when navies were comprised of wooden sailing ships. Using your own standard, it is activist to say the government has the power to provide a navy with vessels that are not limited to 18th century technology.
#30,
Women were granted the right to vote by the 19th amendment. Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment. An originalist would accept that the constitution allowed slavery and disallowed women to vote. However, they would accept legitimate changes to that through constitutional amendment.
C Lawyer–you are showing your absence of sea legs. Your hypothetical only applies if having a Navy was a constitutional right. Its not, so you really are babbling.
The navy is not a result of our constitution, it is a result of legislative action. Your attempt at an analogy, even one that goes backwards is totally inapplicable.
Maybe this will help: my statements about strict construction are a critique of Benjamins lack of understanding about the concept. It is not “my” position other than to understand what the word/concept means. I’ll say it even more directly: an activist court is all that is possible as we cannot have constitutional conventions every 6 months to expand/apply/modify the constitution as is necessary. Thats the job, UNAVOIDABLY IN THE REAL WORLD, of the legislature and the courts with all the friction that portends. I see no other real possibilities beyond the spounting of meaningless dogma.
I think you think the same way, just somehow you have your eyes crossed. I blame Benjamin and recommend you do too.
#54, SL,
The power for the Navy is explicit. The right to bear arms outside a “well regulated militia” is assumed by the majority of the SC. This majority believes that every American may bear a weapon, EXCEPT for those weapons the government doesn’t want you to. Thus a 500 Magnum, which can blow a person into two pieces, is permissible but 30 cal hollow points, which leave a big hole, aren’t.
The evolution of the Navy has remained to serve the same purpose. The militia hasn’t. In fact, the militia was disbanded over 100 years ago and replaced by the Reserves and National Guard. If anything, the organization and regulation should be transferred to the Reserves and Guard units, not the public at large.
As for the protections of the Fourth Amendment, it includes “effects” which would include electronic storage and transmission.
Bobbo,
The navy is not a result of our constitution, it is a result of legislative action.
Not quite.
Art. I, Sec. 8
…
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
Coherent and good arguments otherwise though.
Well, you know I enjoy latching onto tangents to argue when the real topic is something I find myself not caring about.
The government doesn’t have rights, it has powers granted to it by the people who created it. Their ability to create that government stems from their pre-existing, inherent right to do so.
Anyway, the existence of a federal navy is only allowable because the people who created the government granted it the explicit power to provide for one in the Constitution.
As I said, that power was granted when the understood characteristics of a navy were that it was comprised of wooden ships. I was merely flipping the reasoning behind your point around, to argue against it. So no, in this case, I think it’s perfectly consistent that a strict interpretation of the Constitution, based on the intent of people who wrote it, allows for technology to change, without changing how it is applied.
Your problem, as I see it, is that you keep wanting to view the Bill of Rights as actually establishing rights. And then using the conditions of the day to place those rights in a box. It doesn’t do that at all. Its purpose is to place limits on the power of the government. When the Bill of Rights says that the government cannot do something, it doesn’t matter if technology has changed how a right is exercised, the government still cannot do what it is disallowed from doing.
As another side issue: I’ll start giving more deference to the SCOTUS when they give up on their application of the BOR to the states through some weak, magical transference of the “due process” clause in the 5th Amendment to the 14th, while at the same time pretending that the more obviously correct “privileges or immunities” clause doesn’t even exist.
#57, Fusion, no, the militia was not “disbanded.” It has been grouped into two components: organized militia (National Guard and the Naval Militia), and unorganized militia (all males 17 to 45 who are citizens, and females who are in the national guard). The Reserve as an organization has nothing to do with the militia, it is exactly what its name implies: a reserve component of the regular, professional military.