Obama nominates dolt to SCOTUS

[fossten]

Here's an excerpt of her opening argument in the Citizens United case:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ELENA KAGAN
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.
Number two -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either. And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.

GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case — first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley — and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t understand what you are saying. I mean, we are not a self — self-starting institution here. We only disapprove of something when somebody asks us to. And if there was no occasion for us to approve or disapprove, it proves nothing whatever that we didn’t disapprove it.

GENERAL KAGAN: Well, you are not a self-starting institution. But many litigants brought many cases to you in 1907 and onwards and in each case this Court turns down, declined the opportunity, to invalidate or otherwise interfere with this legislation.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But that judgment was validated by Buckley’s contribution-expenditure line. And you’re correct if you look at contributions, but this is an expenditure case. And I think that it doesn’t clarify the situation to say that for100 years — to suggest that for 100 years we would have allowed expenditure limitations, which in order to work at all have to have a speaker-based distinction, exemption from media, content-based distinction, time-based distinction. We’ve never allowed that.

This woman makes Harriet Miers look like Rehnquist.

 

[topher5150]

i glanced at a pic of her and thought it was a really big man with :q:q:q:q

 

[Kstills]

You lose the election, the other guy gets to pick the SCOTUS nominees.

If they pass the basic requirements, they should be confirmed.

I'm conservative, but I believe strongly that either ideology getting too much control is a very bad thing to have happen.

I offer the Conservatives in the early 2000's and the Progressives now as proof.

 

[foxpaws]

You lose the election, the other guy gets to pick the SCOTUS nominees.

If they pass the basic requirements, they should be confirmed.

I'm conservative, but I believe strongly that either ideology getting too much control is a very bad thing to have happen.

I offer the Conservatives in the early 2000's and the Progressives now as proof.

One reason the right should have tried a whole lot harder - they knew at least 2 openings were coming up - and you never know if health issues might strike another justice.

Not only at the top court level, there are a huge number of appeal court and federal court openings happening during Obama's first administration. He has the ability to markedly change the court system for many, many years to come.

I am with you Kstills - balance is better - Clinton/Newt did fairly well. And I think that Reagan/Tip wasn't too bad.

I also think that removing the Dem majority in the house in 2010 could be another good thing. When it happened during Clinton's 1st term I think it tempered him...

Kagan is a bit different because she could be an interesting view to the other side of the bench, since she doesn't have a judicial background...

 

[Calabrio]

The President gets to pick the nominees, but that doesn't mean he should go unopposed when he is nominating people who don't embrace the constitution.

You say "either ideology" but what ideologies are that?

Those who support the constitution and those that don't?
Those that think we should defer to international law and standards and those that don't?
Or those that believe that the constitution is a "living document' that can be manipulated and misrepresented in what ever way is expedient at the time and those that respect the intent of the founders?

You offer the "conservatives" in 2000s, do you have an example I can respond to?
First, dismissing the false claim that Bush was a genuine conservative, are you taking issue with the nominations of Roberts and Alito?

And are you equating that to Sotomayer or this new radical leftist rubber stamp?

The fact is, because of the radicalism that is embraced by the political progressive left in this country, "ideology" as you seem to refer to it, is absolutely critical. All jurors aren't operating in good faith with respect for the founding principles. Merely being competent and credentialed is not the only issue.

If you are going to use the life long appointment to limit our liberties, undermine the constitution, and march us towards a soft fascism, then you must be opposed.

 

[fossten]

You lose the election, the other guy gets to pick the SCOTUS nominees.

If they pass the basic requirements, they should be confirmed.

I'm conservative, but I believe strongly that either ideology getting too much control is a very bad thing to have happen.

I offer the Conservatives in the early 2000's and the Progressives now as proof.

She doesn't pass the basic requirements. The Senate had a field day with her during her questionnaire. She's an absolute lightweight.

 

[Calabrio]

One reason the right should have tried a whole lot harder - they knew at least 2 openings were coming up - and you never know if health issues might strike another justice.

Absolutely right, but the national party is incompetent.

He has the ability to markedly change the court system for many, many years to come.

Which is a constitutional disaster.

I am with you Kstills - balance is better - Clinton/Newt did fairly well. And I think that Reagan/Tip wasn't too bad.

Tip O'Neil was a different generation of Democrat, but the failures of the 1980s came about BECAUSE of the Democrat control of the congress and the bad compromises they caused.

Everything from the increased spending to the immigration bill came about because of the Democrats. That wasn't a "balance is better" situation, that was another example of Democrats hurting the country and obstructing the reform toward limited government that Reagan was attempting to achieve.

I also think that removing the Dem majority in the house in 2010 could be another good thing. When it happened during Clinton's 1st term I think it tempered him...

If the Dems don't lose power, there's no chance for the Republic.

Kagan is a bit different because she could be an interesting view to the other side of the bench, since she doesn't have a judicial background...

A car accident might be interesting to watch... I don't want to see it happen though. I usually can't stop it either.

 

[foxpaws]

Tip O'Neil was a different generation of Democrat, but the failures of the 1980s came about BECAUSE of the Democrat control of the congress and the bad compromises they caused.

Everything from the increased spending to the immigration bill came about because of the Democrats. That wasn't a "balance is better" situation, that was another example of Democrats hurting the country and obstructing the reform toward limited government that Reagan was attempting to achieve.

But, once again, anything good that came out of the 80s was due to Reagan alone... Just as all the bad was the evil Dems at it again.

Remember Reagan had the Senate almost the entire time - the Republicans controlled 2 out of 3...

 

[Calabrio]

But, once again, anything good that came out of the 80s was due to Reagan alone...

No, he had people working with him.

Just as all the bad was the evil Dems at it again.

Everything bad wasn't caused by the dems.... but the policies they advanced were.

Remember Reagan had the Senate almost the entire time - the Republicans controlled 2 out of 3...

And who spends the money?
But more importantly, the Republican PARTY didn't necessarily share the ideas and philosophy of limited constitutional government that Reagan embraced.
It historically hasn't.

The Republican party has been a big government party, however unlike the Democrats it never has embraced or protected (edit) COMMUNISTS or expressed a genuine contempt for capitalism. But it still has represented the 20th century mistake that government could solve all of life's problems and the contempt for limited government.

 

[foxpaws]

And who spends the money?

And who approves that irrational spending? You act as though it was a one party deal.

Reagan wanted funds to fight his cold war, the dems wanted funds for domestic spending, they both wanted money, they both signed the check.

But more importantly, the Republican PARTY didn't necessarily share the ideas and philosophy of limited constitutional government that Reagan embraced.
It historically hasn't.

The Republican party has been a big government party, however unlike the Democrats it never has embraced or protected congressmen or expressed a genuine contempt for capitalism. But it still has represented the 20th century mistake that government could solve all of life's problems and the contempt for limited government.

Reagan increased the size of government dramatically - he was also instrumental in saving Social Security - a huge socialist program. So, Reagan wasn't adverse to embracing big government, if it served him politically. He was wasn't immune to the carrot of votes...

So, you think that Kagen is a car wreck... why? Most people on the left think she is too conservative, and mostly on the right they just point to her lack of experience...

 

[Calabrio]

And who approves that irrational spending? You act as though it was a one party deal.

I've done no such thing.
You've made the mistake of thinking that I was defending the Republican party. I was not and I won't.

Reagan wanted funds to fight his cold war, the dems wanted funds for domestic spending, they both wanted money, they both signed the check.

"His' cold war? You state that as thought it was some kind of trivial pet project that he invested in, almost as though it was some kind of personal indulgence.

It's also interesting how you equate out of control expansions of wasteful domestic spending with national security policy following a prolonged period of military defunding in the 70s.

Reagan increased the size of government dramatically - he was also instrumental in saving Social Security - a huge socialist program.

Did he have another option? Would it have benefited the country or the population had he left the problem for the next administration?

The man had been critical of the program since it's inception, so don't misrepresent him.

So, Reagan wasn't adverse to embracing big government, if it served him politically. He was wasn't immune to the carrot of votes...

Do you have a specific example other than working to keep a failed Democrat program that people had come to depend upon solvent?

So, you think that Kagen is a car wreck... why? Most people on the left think she is too conservative, and mostly on the right they just point to her lack of experience...

What does "conservative" mean when discussing a judge?

 

[foxpaws]

I've done no such thing.
You've made the mistake of thinking that I was defending the Republican party. I was not and I won't.

So, it is OK to discredit all democrats unilaterally, but you pick and choose what republicans make the cut...

"His' cold war? You state that as thought it was some kind of trivial pet project that he invested in, almost as though it was some kind of personal indulgence.

It's also interesting how you equate out of control expansions of wasteful domestic spending with national security policy following a prolonged period of military defunding in the 70s.

He made it his cold war - he placed it on the front burner - he decided that massive military was the solution for the problem. He spent his political coin to win the cold war.

Did he have another option? Would it have benefited the country or the population had he left the problem for the next administration?

he could have killed social security - or at least changed it dramatically - he decided not to even attack the problem - he just continued the funding - because of the votes that were at stake.

The man had been critical of the program since it's inception, so don't misrepresent him.

Do you have a specific example other than working to keep a failed Democrat program that people had come to depend upon solvent?

He may have been critical - but when push came to shove, he just shelved the problem by refunding it - he didn't make a stand, or ask for changes, he went for status quo when it came to SS. Once again, because it was politically prudent to do so.

So other examples where Reagan increased the size of government?

Well, he promised to get rid of the Departments of Energy and Education - which he didn't - they actually grew, he also added a new Department - of Veteran's Affairs.

The number of civilian government workers increased by about 7% under Reagan - smaller government?

What does "conservative" mean when discussing a judge?

Do you mean 'who' or 'what'?

 

[Kstills]

She doesn't pass the basic requirements. The Senate had a field day with her during her questionnaire. She's an absolute lightweight.

You would pass the basic requirements.

 

[Kstills]

The President gets to pick the nominees, but that doesn't mean he should go unopposed when he is nominating people who don't embrace the constitution.

You say "either ideology" but what ideologies are that?

Those who support the constitution and those that don't?
Those that think we should defer to international law and standards and those that don't?
Or those that believe that the constitution is a "living document' that can be manipulated and misrepresented in what ever way is expedient at the time and those that respect the intent of the founders?

You offer the "conservatives" in 2000s, do you have an example I can respond to?
First, dismissing the false claim that Bush was a genuine conservative, are you taking issue with the nominations of Roberts and Alito?

And are you equating that to Sotomayer or this new radical leftist rubber stamp?

The fact is, because of the radicalism that is embraced by the political progressive left in this country, "ideology" as you seem to refer to it, is absolutely critical. All jurors aren't operating in good faith with respect for the founding principles. Merely being competent and credentialed is not the only issue.

If you are going to use the life long appointment to limit our liberties, undermine the constitution, and march us towards a soft fascism, then you must be opposed.

I'm a strict adherent to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

As it would appear that you are.

I'm appalled that the court, using precedent, could interpret the taking clause as a means to hand one persons private property over to another, because the community as a whole would benfit by an increase in tax revenue (Kelo).

I'm appalled that the court could invent privacy rights at a Federal level that don't exist anywhere in the States rights to legislate behavior (Roe).

So perhaps you and I are closer to being in agreement on the way the court should function then we are apart.

Having said that, elections have consequences, and as much as I love conservatives and libertarians, I would not give either of them unfettered access to the power of the three branches of government ever again. They can be as venal and stupid as progressives, spend my money on idiotic earmarks and wars and amass personal power by spreading favorable legislation to the financial industry just like progressives.

You could be a SCJ. I could. Fox could. We wouldn't be very exceptional, but we meet the criteria.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_qualifications_are_needed_to_become_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice

 

[foxpaws]

You could be a SCJ. I could. Fox could. We wouldn't be very exceptional, but we meet the criteria.

Ah, come on, I think I would be exceptional...

You get to chose your own robes...

 

[Kstills]

Ah, come on, I think I would be exceptional...

You get to chose your own robes...

Well...Ahem....


I hereby nominate for the position of Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.....


Oh, heck, for any position....

 

[shagdrum]

I offer the Conservatives in the early 2000's and the Progressives now as proof.

Where those Conservatives holding to conservative principles during that time?

I think you could make the case for one party control generally being bad, but that is different from one ideology being in control.

Unless you are talking in the technical sense. Technically, conservatism is not an ideology. However, the general understanding of the term "ideology" encompasses any philosophical viewpoint in the area of politics. In that sense I would agree with you. Though the Conservatives in control in the early 2000's would hardly qualify as a good example of that.

 

[Kstills]

Where those Conservatives holding to conservative principles during that time?

I think you could make the case for one party control generally being bad, but that is different from one ideology being in control.

Unless you are talking in the technical sense. Technically, conservatism is not an ideology. However, the general understanding of the term "ideology" encompasses any philosophical viewpoint in the area of politics. In that sense I would agree with you. Though the Conservatives in control in the early 2000's would hardly qualify as a good example of that.

Yes of course, hindsight is 20-20.

Somewhat more difficult to predict the outcome when you're in the middle of voting Denny Hastert and Tom Delay into office, however.

 

[topher5150]

Well...Ahem....


I hereby nominate for the position of Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.....


Oh, heck, for any position....

and what position would you want her in