Elena Kagan Nominated to US Supreme Court [MERGED]

[MercuryJones]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

Then did you applaud Bush for not trying consensus building?

No, I did not, for several reasons.

Firstly, Democrats tend to play ball with the Republican in the White House, so there was a point to trying to work in a somewhat more bipartisan way. When Obama started out I thought he did well by seeking a more bipartisan approach. But when the current Republicans decided to block virtually everything, he should have moved on.

An aspect of this was that the country had given Obama and the dems a mandate, which went largely unused.

I do support trying to work across the aisle when possible.

What Obama is doing is in good historical tradition: appointing justices as agreeable to everyone as possible.

Yes, and I haven't criticized that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

I'm never sad about the passing of anyone who is an obstacle to my civil rights.

Then you should be happy if Justice Breyer dies.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

Then you should be happy if Justice Breyer dies.

I'll consider that, in perspective.

 

[Kulindahr]

You guys have settled my fears. I seem to have hearing all morning things about her that sounded like she may be on the side of conservatives. I hadn't read anything about her gay issues. I got some studding to do.

"Studding"?

Go get them studs!


Anyway... thinking of conservatives, Scalia made an argument recently that bodes well for the Prop 8 case headed that way, namely that protections against repercussions from one's free speech are not a valid argument in a court of law.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't pretend to know the truth of the matter, but ...

Elena Kagan Lesbian Rumor Smear Neither Smear Nor Rumor​

That makes CBS look really foolish....

That doesn't say she is opposed to same sex marriage. It says she said there is no constitutional right to it. That statement can be read any number of ways. If you take it literally, it could mean that there is simply no enumerated right for that in the text of the constitutional, which would be a correct statement. That doesn't mean she couldn't find that an injustice against gay people could fall under some other part of the Constitution though, such as equal protection.

She does have a history of supporting equal treatment of gay people, so how she would rule on a gay marriage case remains an open question imo.

If there's no constitutional right to gay marriage, there's no constitutional right to marriage at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

An aspect of this was that the country had given Obama and the dems a mandate, which went largely unused.

What mandate?

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

I'm not saying Kagen is a belly-flop, but this typical defense of Obama is ridiculous.

Your typical bashing/slander of Obama, given how little information we really know about this yet, is ridiculous.

 

[hotatlboi]

If there's no constitutional right to gay marriage, there's no constitutional right to marriage at all.

I agree, and if she was talking about a literal, enumerated right, that would also be a correct statement. The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage.

If she was speaking in the context of how it would be interpreted, such as equal protection, then that would be a problem.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

What mandate?

I'm referring to the precedent GWBush established in describing his 51% of the popular vote in 04 as a mandate. That claim to a mandate was shared in 04 by some in the media, like the Boston Globe, as well as more political creatures like John Roberts and Bill Bennett and talking heads like Tucker Carlson.

Since Obama had just over 52% of the popular vote, and more than twice the margin of victory in individual votes, and since the dems expanded majorities in both houses, it has to be a mandate. At least by the standard so many used 4 years earlier.

 

[NickCole]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

Let me borrow your analogy for a moment...this isn't summer camp where you can win "Camp Leader of the Year" and then completely remake the camp according to your own principles, rebuilding it from the ground up.

It's a country! They don't turn on a dime. And the only reason I would rate him as okay is for the very reason that he is not trying out for a merit badge; he's shaping history, and only through the lens of history can we properly appreciate greatness. I think he's entering the water in perfect form, but only time will tell.

That's such typical Obama defense jibberish.

Bush appointed two very conservative Judges who, health permitting, will serve on the court for decades. Now we have a Democratic President who has a 59 majority Senate; it would be natural to appoint a Judge who has a strong liberal record. It wouldn't even change the court because Justice Stevens, who's resigning, is liberal. This has nothing to do with turning the country on a dime, or even turning the country or the Supreme Court at all.

 

[palemale]

Too many liberals and progressives make the mistake of thinking that placing radicals on the courts will solve most of our problems. First and foremost, we need competent judges that will interpret the laws and constitution. We must rely on Congress to pass progressive laws.

Certain issues cry out for a more active judiciary, such as civil rights, reproductive rights, individual freedom and civil liberties. Sometimes activist courts overreach and produce a backlash.

My main criticism of the current, conservative majority on the SCOTUS is that, contrary to conservative principals, they have been the most activist judges since the Warren Court, if not more so. They have been more likely to strike down acts of Congress than the more liberal judges and they don't strictly construe statutes or the constitution when they do not like the result.

 

[PrivateTimm]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

No, I did not, for several reasons.

Firstly, Democrats tend to play ball with the Republican in the White House, so there was a point to trying to work in a somewhat more bipartisan way. When Obama started out I thought he did well by seeking a more bipartisan approach. But when the current Republicans decided to block virtually everything, he should have moved on.

An aspect of this was that the country had given Obama and the dems a mandate, which went largely unused.

I do support trying to work across the aisle when possible.

Democrats never cooperate with Republican presidents except on issues driven by Democrats. The very first issue Bush dealt with was education and he pushed through Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind initiative.

Please tell me what bipartisan plan Obama worked on with a prominent Republican to pass a major bill?

Clinton got Ginsberg confirmed 96-3 and Breyer 87-9. Bush only got Alito at 58-42 and Roberts 78-22. Where was the bipartisanship from the Dems on Alito? How could 22 Dems vote no on Roberts?

 

[PrivateTimm]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

I'm referring to the precedent GWBush established in describing his 51% of the popular vote in 04 as a mandate. That claim to a mandate was shared in 04 by some in the media, like the Boston Globe, as well as more political creatures like John Roberts and Bill Bennett and talking heads like Tucker Carlson.

Since Obama had just over 52% of the popular vote, and more than twice the margin of victory in individual votes, and since the dems expanded majorities in both houses, it has to be a mandate. At least by the standard so many used 4 years earlier.

Bill Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and yet won two nominees with overwhelming bipartisan support because Republicans still believed in the president's right to his nominees.

Too bad the Dems can't see it the same way.

 

[opinterph]

The time has come to quit playing games with these people.Put in a hard line liberal who WILL stand up to their excesses..

Maybe your wish is granted. 8) It is interesting to note that Sean Hannity, on his radio broadcast tonight, characterized Kagan as an extreme far-left liberal. I guess folks tend to see things from different perspectives.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

Bill Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and yet won two nominees with overwhelming bipartisan support because Republicans still believed in the president's right to his nominees.

That's funny, given the current GOP's all time historic use of the filibuster, and record setting refusal to approve appointments.

You're not fooling anyone, silly Freeper.

 

[JB3]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

That's funny, given the current GOP's all time historic use of the filibuster, and record setting refusal to approve appointments.

You're not fooling anyone, silly Freeper.

Its payback for Democratic disrespect during the Bush admin. You reap what you sow, and the dems are reaping it big time when it comes to appointments.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

Its payback for Democratic disrespect during the Bush admin. You reap what you sow, and the dems are reaping it big time when it comes to appointments.

Add in the continuing disrespect of blaming everything on the Republicans when the Democrats have a greater claim to being in charge than the Republicans did under Bush. If they're going to get blamed for the Democrats' own failures, why should they play nice at all?

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

Its payback for Democratic disrespect during the Bush admin.

You're saying Republicans are blocking appointments as revenge?

Is that really your defense?

At the end of Bush's first year there were 70 appointees awaiting confirmation. One year into the Obama administration, there were 177.

When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, the TSA had no leader, because Erroll Southers (an airport security chief in Los Angeles and a former FBI agent) was one of those still pending confirmation.

But what's national security, in the face of Republican revenge?

 

[JB3]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

You're saying Republicans are blocking appointments as revenge?

Is that really your defense?

At the end of Bush's first year there were 70 appointees awaiting confirmation. One year into the Obama administration, there were 177.

When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, the TSA had no leader, because Erroll Southers (an airport security chief in Los Angeles and a former FBI agent) was one of those still pending confirmation.

But what's national security, in the face of Republican revenge?

It's not my defense, so don't even try to go there.

It would also behoove you to look at what happened after one year into the Bush admin, and the resulting pledges of bipartisanship. A more accurate reading would see how many appointments were held up later on. (you'd be surprised)

Your defense is also surprisingly petty, especially given how level-headed you usually are.

The confirmation environment is toxic. It has been since the democrats fought tooth and nail against every Bush appointment, and it will continue to be for the near future.

 

[PrivateTimm]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

That's funny, given the current GOP's all time historic use of the filibuster, and record setting refusal to approve appointments.

You're not fooling anyone, silly Freeper.

I note you cleverly avoided answering what bipartisanship Obama has attempted.

Perhaps you should read the Brookings Institute study on Judicial Nominees.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fi...wheeler/0407_judicial_nominations_wheeler.pdf

It criticizes Obama for not making enough nominations, that is part of the problem, Obama is leaving vacancies.

It goes on to show that in Bush's first 14 months he only got 32% of his Appeals Court nominees hearings and that took 145 days on average. Obama by contrast got 100% of his Appeals Court nominees hearings and that took 48 days on average.

What was filibustered in 2009? Who is blocking what nominees? Please name names.