Kagan hearings

[wht02lightning]

Well I deffinitly have my own views on her and im sure from my previous posts its not to hard to see how Id fell but how do you guys feel about her? Any problems with her having no experiance as a judge or limited time even in a court room?

[Joe Walsh]

She looks like Rosie O'donnell's sister....:puke:

As a man, that worries me...:hmmm:

[wht02lightning]

She looks like Rosie O'donnell's sister....:puke:

As a man, that worries me...:hmmm:

lol agreed

[sailsmen]

Kagan as a Clerk to the Supreme Court rejected and accepted cases solely based on how the Court could effect policy, as in Legislate from the Bench, and not on the Constitutionality of the Law or whether the Plaintiff had suffered a wrong by our Gov't. She abrogated the function of the Judiciary for the sole purpose of effecting policy that our system of Gov't has elected not to effect.

Kagan did so with out any regard to the wrong that had been forced upon the plaintiff, completely setting aside and denying any possibility of justice for the plaintiff.

If other Justices have instructed their clerks to do the same then they should be impeached.

Judge for your self for she maybe judging us.
Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument
By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen

Reflecting Marshall
During her confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, the federal government’s top Supreme Court advocate, Kagan said she was trying to reflect Marshall’s views when she evaluated so-called petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions. She called herself a “27-year-old pipsqueak” working for a “90- year-old giant in the law.”
“He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said. “And in that context, I think all of us were right to say, ‘Here are the cases which the court is likely to do good things with from your perspective, and here are the ones where they’re not.’” “He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said.
Clues to Kagan
The memos provide clues to Kagan’s potential approach as a justice. Much like Marshall, Kagan might find herself playing defense, at least in her first few years, working strategically to thwart the agenda of a more conservative majority.
Kagan on numerous occasions urged the justice to vote for so-called defensive denials, rejecting appeals from criminal suspects and defendants to prevent his more conservative colleagues from giving more power to police and prosecutors.
She urged rejection of an appeal from an Illinois man whose ence discovered when he was stopped, ordered to lie down and searched by police. The search took place even though police lacked the “probable cause” required to make an arrest, Kagan said.
Kagan said she thought the court, if it heard the case, would uphold the conviction. That “would be an awful and perhaps quite consequential holding,” she wrote.

[PonyUP]

As you know I am a Democrat, but my honest opinion is nothing qualifies you for the supreme court, like being a judge. I don't care if you clerked, set policy, or wore black dresses in preparation.

I don't think anything can prepare you for the highest court, like practical hard nose job experience. They missed the ball with this one, and they will be right to deny her appointment.

[thathotrodlincn]

We seem to embrace the lack of qualification in our selection of our political leaders. If lack of experience is good enough for POTUS, why not on the Supreme Court. Expect a wave of legislation from the bench if she is confirmed.

[PonyUP]

We seem to embrace the lack of qualification in our selection of our political leaders. If lack of experience is good enough for POTUS, why not on the Supreme Court. Expect a wave of legislation from the bench if she is confirmed.

This is quite true, but if you think about it, every President is inexperienced, because they haven't been President before. They don't gain experience until they get to a second term. And a President could always be impeached, removed from office, or loose their next election. A Supreme Court nomination is a life appointment, and by that alone I think Experience needs to come into play quite a bit

[wht02lightning]

This is quite true, but if you think about it, every President is inexperienced, because they haven't been President before. They don't gain experience until they get to a second term. And a President could always be impeached, removed from office, or loose their next election. A Supreme Court nomination is a life appointment, and by that alone I think Experience needs to come into play quite a bit

Thats true, but I would consider it common to expect a supreme court justice to have been a judge previously. While it cant give you the needed wisdom for the role it dang sure helps to have been a judge, and have been one for a while.

[PonyUP]

Thats true, but I would consider it common to expect a supreme court justice to have been a judge previously. While it cant give you the needed wisdom for the role it dang sure helps to have been a judge, and have been one for a while.

+1, she needs to have been in a position where she has heard cases and had rulings. The supreme court is the final say so.

People that win Jeopardy are smart, but that doesn;t make them a good Judge, it makes them a good contestant. She's never been a judge, and shouldn't get her first appointment to the highest bench. She should start on the peoples court

I0F-IHwgC-Q

[CBT]

She is more of a political activist than a lawyer or a judge. She is a perfect fit for the current administration.

[LIGHTNIN1]

She is more of a political activist than a lawyer or a judge. She is a perfect fit for the current administration.

Just a rubber stamp for the Annointed One or he would not have picked her. She would fit in good with Sotomayer. If you notice every female that these people know have the same hairstyle.Just a coincidence I am sure. I mean there is never any beauty queen material.

[Leadfoot281]

About experiance, I'd let a motorcycle mechanic work on my Marauder long before I let a carpenter work on it.

[Joe Walsh]

It's the Democrats turn to stack the Supreme Court, obviously with liberals.

[FordNut]

It's the Democrats turn to stack the Supreme Court, obviously with liberals.

And we're lucky the latest 2nd Amendment ruling was handed down before Kagan's confirmation.

I agree with the above posts, she's an activist and unqualified. But look at the pres... First term senator, never been a governor and actually had to run a state, now he's in charge of the whole country.

[wht02lightning]

I like to look at it like as if it were medicine, If a doctor went to med school, then taught medicine, then became a dean of a medical school but never worked on patients directly, I wouldnt want them as my doctor, plain and simple

[Ozark Marauder]

21639

21640

Napolitano and Kagan is the same person...............

[CBT]

21639

21640

Napolitano and Kagan is the same person...............

That's hot.

[LIGHTNIN1]

She looks like she may handy in a low rent bar fight.:gangster:

[MrBluGruv]

And we're lucky the latest 2nd Amendment ruling was handed down before Kagan's confirmation.

Rarely do I really get upset about political stuff, I'll get bothered or disappointed but not upset, but when I saw her response to that on TV earlier, I was furious.

To actually have the gall to say essentially that a part of the Bill of Rights doesn't apply on a personal level, what in the F is going on here?

I'm sorry, but there really is more and more cases that make it apparent this administration and their "goons", if you will, really don't care a bit about the rights of the people. It's hard to ignore when they tell it to your face.

[sailsmen]

Don't you understand that the bill of rights is not personal rights but Government Rights. That was obviously what the founding fathers were concerned about, Government Rights.

[wht02lightning]

Don't you understand that the bill of rights is not personal rights but Government Rights. That was obviously what the founding fathers were concerned about, Government Rights.

for a second i thought you were serious, It scared me, then i calmed down a bit, then got angry again because some people do think that way. I need to stop reading news for a few weeks or im gonna have a heart attack

[tbone]

for a second i thought you were serious, It scared me, then i calmed down a bit, then got angry again because some people do think that way. I need to stop reading news for a few weeks or im gonna have a heart attack

No ****. I've been so angry about what's happening I can hardly concentrate on my work. And not just lately. This country is in trouble. We are literally being run by a bunch of Haaaavaad educated, liberal, progressive, daydreaming, flower junkies who have never held a real job. They are hell bent on making the USA a second rate, third world Banana Republic and letting China and Russia rule the world while their man-child leader obambie makes apologies for our supposed "attrocities" around the world! Completely and totally disgusting!!!!!!!

[sailsmen]

for a second i thought you were serious, It scared me, then i calmed down a bit, then got angry again because some people do think that way. I need to stop reading news for a few weeks or im gonna have a heart attack

Oh yes the Founding Father were stogies of the King and wanted to make certain the King kept his control over us.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They ignore the commas.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What they are saying is the Bill of Rights is not a Bill of Individual Rights for example only a well regulated Militia can keep and bear arms. The people cannot keep and bear arms.

[Leadfoot281]

She is more of a political activist than a lawyer or a judge. She is a perfect fit for the current administration.

Looks like Sen. Amy Klobuchar agrees with you. http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/06/30/kagan_hearings_surpass_world_c up_for_most_boring_tv_event/page/full

"We really want to get some things done on this court" Sen. Amy Klobuchar :eek:

[LIGHTNIN1]

No ****. I've been so angry about what's happening I can hardly concentrate on my work. And not just lately. This country is in trouble. We are literally being run by a bunch of Haaaavaad educated, liberal, progressive, daydreaming, flower junkies who have never held a real job. They are hell bent on making the USA a second rate, third world Banana Republic and letting China and Russia rule the world while their man-child leader obambie makes apologies for our supposed "attrocities" around the world! Completely and totally disgusting!!!!!!!

You have figured it out SIR. Too bad that more people have not done so.