because im sure no one else has an agendaNeedless to say, Kagan is a bomb-thrower, who would rule as a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-Christian activist, and she must be filibustered if nominated.
because im sure no one else has an agendaNeedless to say, Kagan is a bomb-thrower, who would rule as a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-Christian activist, and she must be filibustered if nominated.
No, not homophobic here (check previous posts for reference).
Either way, her selection is a moot point: lib for lib swap will have little consequence. This thread needs to go away...:ban:
Agreed, however ...i don't care if she's a t/v hermaphrodite as long as she knows the law and the constitution
The US Supreme Court is the only court in the land where you don't have to have judicial experience.A) Kagen is a judicial non entity, exactly like Harriet Miers.
I thought that judicial non entities must not be selected too the highest court in the land ?![]()
Indeed. There's nothing driving more people to the Tea Parties that people screaming "racist" for merely criticizing the President's actions. In all honesty, I'm tired of the "hate" of alleged "hate" at this point.It doesn't really matter who Obama appoints to the scotus, Obama has spoken and that's that, it's the best choice, end of story, get over it ! :thefinger
Don't you dare go against the grain of this D minus administration from, not the Land of Lincoln so much as from the land of legendary political high crimes & scandal.
She looks like a female version of "the penguin" out of Batman when it was played by Danny Devito. It is hard to find a woman uglier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Sonya Sotomayor but I think they have done it.
I don't care in the slightest if she is a lesbian, and her position on abortion doesn't bother me (thought that's not to say that her philosophical beliefs are of no consequence), my problem is that she is the solicitor general.
Of course, there have been LOTS of solicitor generals who have gone on to become justices, and my beef with that really has to do with the way that the supreme court is set up to begin with.
The supreme court is the single entity responsible for interpreting the constitution, which is THE law that restricts the power of government. And who gets to pick the members of the supreme court ? The government. HUGE conflict of interest.
Anyway the solicitor general, for those who don't know, is the government's representative to the supreme court. In other words, when someone challenges the government on something, arguing that it's unconstitutional, the solicitor general is the one who sticks up for the government. So while I don't think the President (or any branch / member of government) should be choosing supreme court justices, it's even worse when they choose a solicitor general.
I could never understand how people think that their freedom is being violated because other people have the freedom to do something that they don't like, but doesn't effect them in any way EG, gay marriage and abortion.
It might be worth noting that Thomas Jefferson raised the exact same concern during the founding of the US government.Not a very sensible post IMO.
I mean, what role do you think judges play in our judicial system if not the government??
Fulfilling the duties of some role in the legal branch shouldn't make someone unfit to execute a role as USSCJ. Everyone there now has worked for the government. The Solicitor General is no different. Working for the government as you put it doesn't change one's ability to interpret the US Constitution.
Who else should be nominating individuals for the USSC but elected officials???
It might be worth noting that Thomas Jefferson raised the exact same concern during the founding of the US government.
The entire concept of separating the government into branches was to have checks and balances in order to prevent the government from expanding and increasing it's power. But the group responsible for enforcing those checks and balances is the government itself (the supreme court). In other words, the government is being trusted to make sure that it doesn't abuse it's power.
Take special note of your language "Working for the government as you put it doesn't change one's ability to interpret the US Constitution." (emphasis mine). The constitution can be interpreted by anyone in any number of ways (of course I submit that there is a correct way to interpret it), what is important is that the constitution is enforced as it was intended to be (to clearly define and limit the power of government).
The supreme court has a long LONG history of failing at that task. From anti-trust legislation to it's "interpretation" of the commerce clause to historically siding with the government on the CLEARLY unconstitutional federal reserve system. The supreme court is arguably THE reason government has constantly expanded over the last ~ 200 years and has never once reduced itself in size and power.
As far as who should be responsible for choosing justices, that would take us into a whole different conversation. While emphasizing the importance of enforcing the constitution as the supreme law of the land, I'm not convinced that the supreme court per se is the best solution. But the founders themselves struggled with that very question.
Edit: it occurred to me after posting that there are a few, very isolated, examples of the government reducing it's power. Andrew Jackson succeeded at repealing the 2nd US national bank. But such examples are very sparse.
The world is financially crumbling all around us under the heavy burden of unsustainable debt. I am debt free, I am not part of the problem. But nor do I wish to be part of the solution, I just want to know how to financially benefit from the impending doom to come from the Fed's decision to artificially supress interest rates for years on end and our government's insatiable appetite to confiscate the fruit of the populace's labors and STILL run at an unconscionable deficit.
Any ideas? Sell short government bonds? Bet on the dollar? Anyone with any financial acumen please chime in.
Sorry about hijacking the thread but seriously, do we need anymore mindless debate on a supposed lesbian being nominated to the supreme court. In two and a half years this communist motherfucker will be voted out, we just gotta grin and bear it until then.
I think if Obama didn't do anything when the economy melted down and let the Big Banks--Citi, BofA, JPMorganChase all go belly up--that would've been the wrong thing to do.
The banking industry employs probably 2mill Americans (all things considered). If we let them go under, not only would 350 million Americans lose their checking and savings account balances, but the resulting unemployment would be 40% when we factor in all the businesses that rely on Banking Services to survive.
I'm not willing to sit back and let the nation ~burn~ because I'm not a banker nor do I have rampant debts either.
The problem is that the Republicans and Tea Bagger minions don't want to do anything with Financial Regulations. The Dems will swallow the bitter pill of TARP, but they know they have the HAMMER of regulations which they want to drop and the GOP won't join them in real regulations. Why is that? :dunno:
The more I see it, the more Obama will coast to re-election. There isn't any GOP or Tea Bagger to oppose him and Fox News is going to turn against the Tea Baggers in Sept, rendering them obsolete nationally....:dunno:
If things look bad for Obama he can always bring the troops home in August and that will boost his approval ratings before the election.:wave2:
She is a lesbian. So fucking what. She is not pro abortion, she is pro choice. That's like saying you're pro unsafe abortion. How this makes her anti christian is beyond me. She may be anti right wing nut type of christian. There is a big difference B/S Scott.
Yes, she IS pro abortion. Quit with the wimpy euphamisms.
She either thinks abortions SHOULD take place or she thinks abortions SHOULD NOT take place. If you think a woman SHOULD be able to get an abortion, you are pro ABORTION. If you're for that, have the balls to say so.