Elena Kagan Nominated to US Supreme Court [MERGED]

[MercuryJones]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

I don't endorse anything. I'm telling you what's going on.

Which is, as you claimed "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."

Are you doubling down on your claim that the Republicans are actually using their positions for revenge?

Or are you backpedaling?

 

[JB3]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

Which is, as you claimed "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."

Are you doubling down on your claim that the Republicans are actually using their positions for revenge?

Or are you backpedaling?

What are you talking about? I'm not backpedaling on anything. Palemale said I endorsed what they were doing. I do not. I explained it. If you can't grasp that, well, there's not much I can do to help that.

 

[MercuryJones]

Got it, Droid. I understand you are maintaining that Republicans are pursuing an agenda of revenge. Thanks.

 

[NickCole]

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?

I think those numbers might be incorrect. On March 27, announcing 15 recess appointments, the Obama White House posted this on its blog:

To put this in perspective, at this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/27/unprecedented-level-obstruction

The title of the blog post is typical, ObamaCo loves telling us how unprecedented everything is with them and complain how Republicans are obstructionists, but one has to wonder if positions involving national security remain unfilled why Obama didn't made more recess appointments to fill them.

As for Erroll Southers, his confirmation was ultimately held up because he lied to Congress about an incident when he used his position to do a background check on a boyfriend of his ex-wife, then right before Harry Reid was finally going to hold an up or down vote, Southers withdrew from consideration.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had planned to hold an up or down vote on Southers next week. But Republican opposition continued and requests for more information from the White House went unanswered, said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

"The Senate could have had an open and transparent debate this week to approve Mr. Southers, but apparently, answering simple, direct questions about security and integrity were too much for this nominee," DeMint said in a statement.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/01/tsa_nominee_erroll_southers_wi.html

Then Obama's next nominee, Robert Harding, withdrew from consideration over his company's questionable financial reimbursement from the government, just two weeks after Obama nominated him.

Since then, Obama has failed to nominate a TSA leader at all.

Whatever Republicans in the Senate do or don't do, Democrats have controlled the Senate since Obama was sworn in and they, and Obama and his administration, have a responsibility to use their power to get the job done rather than whine about opposition.

 

[NickCole]

Re: Obama to choose Lesbian as Supreme Court Nominee

I don't endorse anything. I'm telling you what's going on. The Democrats HAVE and CONTINUE to behave in the exact same manner. If you can't see it, that's no one's problem but your own.

Exactly.

Democrats have blocked Republican appointments and Republicans have blocked Democratic appointments.

But Clinton and Bush got the vacancies filled, either with better appointees or recess appointments, and without the filibuster proof majority Obama enjoyed during his first year.

Obama does not get the job done and blames his failures on others while his supporters defend him and follow his lead in complaining about opposition rather than holding our President and Commander in Chief responsible.

 

[grantt]

Because most guys on here are not conservatives, and it is the conservatives who are most obsessed with race.

Seriously? It is a great surprize that Obama has missed his chance to add a black to the court. It is amazing, in fact. Perhaps he is waiting to nominate himself if he gets another nod.

 

[Jack Springer]

Seriously? It is a great surprize that Obama has missed his chance to add a black to the court. It is amazing, in fact. Perhaps he is waiting to nominate himself if he gets another nod.

PaleMale, it is a joke to say that conservatives are most obsessed with race. My life experiences have proven just the opposite.

I would say that liberals are masters on how to control minority races.

I agree with Grantt - Obama is missing a huge opportunity in not nominating a black for SCOTUS - he may never have the chance again.

What is astounding is that no one is complaining or even talking about it. I wonder why.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

I would say that liberals are masters on how to control minority races.

QFT.

(The message was too short)

 

[laikaNYC]

The Senate should reject the nomination of Kagan to the SCOTUS. With ZERO judicial experience of any kind, next to no experience as an attorney, and a scanty record of academic publication, Kagan is probably the least qualified nominee to the high court in generations. Apparently her supporters believe she'll just get some on-the-job training. I guess they've forgotten how they screamed from the top of their lungs about Bush's nominee in 2005, Harriet Miers. Hypocrites. I did not approve of her and I disapprove of Kagan for the same exact reasons.

Kagan of course came to the Obama Administration directly from her position as far-left dean of Harvard Law School who banned military recruiters from the campus' career office. Being a Dean is definitely a prestigious title, but a law school deanship is a combination administrative and political position. Holding it does not in any obvious way qualify one for the SCOTUS.

Much of Kagan’s time has been spent in political activity, such as advising uber-liberal Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and even President Clinton. In that post, Kagan is known to have had her eye out for policies that would favor liberals. It is naive to infer that since she was a partisan operative once, she would be a partisan judge Every fair minded thinker should assume that Kagan will be a political, not a legal judge. Considering her career as a liberal Democrat it's obvious if she joins the SCOUTUS she'll be directed by her party's desires, not the Constitution. Why would that agenda she's fought for most of her life cease to exist just because she joins the SCOTUS? It will do just the opposite. She'll become a wingnut activist judge like Ginsberg. There is plenty of evidence to lead me to this conclusion.

 

[hotatlboi]

The Senate should reject the nomination of Kagan to the SCOTUS. With ZERO judicial experience of any kind, next to no experience as an attorney, and a scanty record of academic publication, Kagan is probably the least qualified nominee to the high court in generations. Apparently her supporters believe she'll just get some on-the-job training. I guess they've forgotten how they screamed from the top of their lungs about Bush's nominee in 2005, Harriet Miers. Hypocrites. I did not approve of her and I disapprove of Kagan for the same exact reasons.

Kagan of course came to the Obama Administration directly from her position as far-left dean of Harvard Law School who banned military recruiters from the campus' career office. Being a Dean is definitely a prestigious title, but a law school deanship is a combination administrative and political position. Holding it does not in any obvious way qualify one for the SCOTUS.

Much of Kagan’s time has been spent in political activity, such as advising uber-liberal Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and even President Clinton. In that post, Kagan is known to have had her eye out for policies that would favor liberals. It is naive to infer that since she was a partisan operative once, she would be a partisan judge Every fair minded thinker should assume that Kagan will be a political, not a legal judge. Considering her career as a liberal Democrat it's obvious if she joins the SCOUTUS she'll be directed by her party's desires, not the Constitution. Why would that agenda she's fought for most of her life cease to exist just because she joins the SCOTUS? It will do just the opposite. She'll become a wingnut activist judge like Ginsberg. There is plenty of evidence to lead me to this conclusion.

yeah, he should nominate a right wing bigot that will further restrict your rights. good call

 

[laikaNYC]

yeah, he should nominate a right wing bigot that will further restrict your rights. good call

Is that all you have to say? I guess you can't intelligently argue against anything I said.

He should nominate a non-partisan judge. She is neither non-partisan OR a judge.

 

[hotatlboi]

a non-partisan judge.

There's no such thing. Everyone brings some ideological bias to the table.

If they say they don't, then they are a liar.

 

[bankside]

"Unbiased" or "non-partisan" does not mean being without an opinion or even an inclination. In a judicial context, it means being able to test arguments for internal coherence, relation to law & precedent, and applicability to the facts of the case.

Of course judges can be unbiased.

 

[MercuryJones]

The Senate should reject the nomination of Kagan to the SCOTUS. With ZERO judicial experience of any kind

Not a requirement.

next to no experience as an attorney

Not a requirement.

and a scanty record of academic publication

Not a requirement.

Kagan is probably the least qualified nominee to the high court in generations.

But there are no set requirements, so she can't be the least qualified.

Elections have consequences.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Not a requirement.


Not a requirement.


Not a requirement.


But there are no set requirements, so she can't be the least qualified.

Elections have consequences.

On this one I have to disagree. Technically, you are of course correct. But a person who was born in America, is a high school drop-out, has worked a minimum wage job at McDonald's ever since and is now 40 years old can run for and become POTUS. Doesn't make him qualified.

In this particular instance, I think people would do well to remember that she's not exactly the only SCOTUS nominee who lacks prior judicial experience. However, she has worked in law her whole life and not even the Republican senators are suggesting that she's inexperienced at large. They are only attacking her (in this regard) for her lack of judicial experience.

From what we know of her she's likely to be a brilliant jurist. The only real question I have is how political will she be once on the bench and essentially accountable to no one. And I can't say even that concerns me too much. I approve of this nomination, just as I approved of Sotomayor.

As far as her race/gender, I'm tired of people making a big deal of it. Constantly looking for ways to "make history". In the opening statements/intros at the hearings we heard a couple of times that 'this is the first time in history a full third of the bench is going to be female.' What the assholes who constantly bring that up forget is that there are minorities out there that aren't racial or gender-based. Like, say, religion. Once she gets confirmed, she'll make I believe the 3rd or 4th Jewish SCOTUS judge. The other 5 or 6 are all Catholics. What excellent diversity. We're so focused as a society on race and gender that we forget the distinctions among Americans that are more important (like religion). And, even worse, we forget that such categorizations shouldn't matter to us at all.

 

[CowboyBob]

Ms. Kagen's appointment to the Supreme Court will be yet ANOTHER victory for President Obama. One success after another, and he's not even half-way through his first term.

Man oh man, the people elected a good one this time!

 

[Ambrocious]

I can see a striking resemblance between her and some villain from Batman...

 

[rareboy]

Again, it is funny to see how partisan politics plays havoc with the idea of the Supreme Court.

Right now, the US has an almost all Catholic, all male bench.

What you really need is an openly gay, atheist female.

Anything to balance the arguments.

 

[laikaNYC]

Again, it is funny to see how partisan politics plays havoc with the idea of the Supreme Court.

Right now, the US has an almost all Catholic, all male bench.

What you really need is an openly gay, atheist female.

Anything to balance the arguments.

You don't nominate someone just for the sake of balancing the Court's religious beliefs. That's insane. This is exactly what the progressive wingnuts want.

An atheist member of the SCOTUS...keep dreaming

 

[MercuryJones]

Right now, the US has an almost all Catholic, all male bench.

Though some like to say this is irrelevant, it would be enjoyable to see what the exact same people would say if the bench were almost exclusively lesbian Latina atheists.