Elena Kagan nominated for SCOTUS

[kenhwind]

Some infor on the latest Supreme Court nominee:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/kagans-threat-to-gun-owners/

[Patriotic]

What I find interesting and disturbing is that Congress can re-organize the structure of the SC and increase the number of justices to lets say 11 and have Obama appoint 2 more Liberal justices.

[kenhwind]

I suppose, but trying to establish a Supreme Court favorable to a particular interest is not new to American politics. In the 1860s, I think, not exactly sure, Scotus was reduced to 7 justices, for political reasons.

[Aguila Blanca]

Has anyone been watching the Kagan hearing? I've read some brief reports, but they don't provide enough information to give me any sense of how it's really going. If anyone has watched at length and has some sense of how candid she is being, please give us an update.

[Patriotic]

I have only seen brief reports also. I don’t think there is any question she will be appointed. The Democrats don’t have the guts to reject her and go against Obama. Sad when the Party comes before the country. Kagan is not SC material in my opinion; she has shown her lack of understanding of the law and the Constitution for my liking. Maybe I am wrong but I think I was correct on the Sotomayor nomination.

[azreb]

According to the news she criticized previous SC nominees for giving vague answers during the questioning before confirmation. She is doing the same thing.

I think that when she let her personal agenda lead to the banning of military recruiters while she headed that ivy league university she showed her true colors. That, in my opinion, makes her unfit for the SC.

[jason8844]

The issue about the Justices should not be about politics. For better or worse, Justice John Marshall turned the court into the institution that decides the constitutionality of a law. To me, this is a simple concept.

I would assume that Liberals would want a strict constructionist just like us Conservatives. After all, the States and Federal Legislature can amend the Constitution to include or remove anything we want. A strict constructionist view would protect the integrity of the Constitution and preserve its firewalls.

However, the left has turned the Courts into a defacto oligarchy by amending law, extending law, or creating law to pass what otherwise could not have been done at the ballot box or the legislative houses of the states or nation.

When Sotomayor stated that she believed the courts were the last line of protection for the disadvantaged in this country, I knew she was dangerous. The job of the SC is to decide the Constitutionality of the Law based on the law, not personal feelings, emotions or people perceived as "victims". If we do not like their rulings, we should amend the Constitution. Kagan is no different. She thinks like Obama and knows that if the liberals cannot convince the American people to give up their liberty and prosperity, the Court will take it from them by force without the worries of losing elections or being kicked out of office.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I would assume that Liberals would want a strict constructionist just like us Conservatives. After all, the States and Federal Legislature can amend the Constitution to include or remove anything we want. A strict constructionist view would protect the integrity of the Constitution and preserve its firewalls.I disagree. Well, there are a couple flavors of liberals, and the answer to this is different for the different flavors.

The Constitution forces small and limited government, or at least makes large intrusive authoritarian government difficult and awkward to implement. Small, limited, and focused is the kind of government they Founders wanted to leave us. Now liberals primarily concerned with social issues, IOW those of a more libertarian bent, would indeed benefit from a more federal (states rights/laboratories of democracy as opposed to "national") form of government. If people in Oregon want to get high and pass a law allowing people to do so, the federal government would realize that it's none of their business and mind those things that are.

But many of those we call liberals are of a far more authoritarian bent. They want to govern on the basis of what are viewed as liberal ideas about government, but they want to force all of us to go along, whether we agree with their vision or not, whether or not we're wiser and more accepting of other views than they are. They want to ram centralized, socialized, one-size-fits-all everything (medicine, welfare, the economy, etc.) down our throat, administered by the smartest people in the country, which coincidentally turn out to be them. The Constitution is a serious impediment to the aspirations of this kind of liberal, or would be if we lived within its limitations. That kind of liberal would have no reason to desire Constitutional government.

[DoubleTap45]

Want more reason to worry? She and that other one, Sofullamanure, are quasi-stealth candidates. WE know their huge libs out to rewrite the CONUS but they know the media will cover for them till the Democrats and the gutless linguini-spined RINOs confirm her.

Remember how Sofullamanure specifically told Leahy that "Heller is settled law"? First chance she got to gut the 2nd Amendment she voted with the other 3 radical progressives.

-Ray

[Patriotic]

Oh yes and you know Kagan will do the same, just like Obama. Lie like crazy until you get the job. I wonder if Kagan is under oath during the preceedings? Can SC justices be impeached for purjury?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

She and that other one, Sofullamanure, are quasi-stealth candidates.You mean Sodom Mayor? [eerily appropriate]

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Can SC justices be impeached for purjury?In theory, yes, but "perjury" in this case would mean that they knew they were lying when they said it. How would you go about proving that? They could just say they changed their mind. Besides, answers to those type questions tend to be kind of vague anyway, as no one knows the particulars of future cases dealing with the same issue, so to absolutely categorically guarantee to vote one way or the other would be improper.

[DoubleTap45]

only be impeached for treason. That has never been fully defined however. Lying to get on the Court in order to issue rulings in conflict with Original Intent SHOULD be enough but in THIS day and age I doubt it. :mad:

Ray

[Patriotic]

I wish I knew what the answer was in the selection of SC justices. We seem to have gotten away from a nation of the people and by the people and ended up with a nation by the Party and for the Party. The Tea Party movement started as a reaction to our elected representatives not representing the will of the people. Should one more Liberal justice been appointed to the SC, the entire meaning of the 2A would have changed against all of the writings of the founding fathers. I would hope the voters will think long and hard about who they vote for this November.

[DoubleTap45]

I wish you could address a few nitwits here at work. I have a couple of chuckleheads who SWEAR up and down and voting is meaningless that ALL politicians are "selected" and voting is a farce. Even THIS socialist symp in the Oval Office hasn't convinced them. The election of Chris Christie in NJ which has led to fiscal belt tightening AGAINST the will of the entrenched powers hasn't swayed them.

Elections DO matter. We got the current occupant (I just CAN'T use the word POTUS) because of a financial mess engineered BY the Left, lying about Bush by the Left and a perfect storm. Even Obama didn't expect to win the nomination against Hilary much less the White House. This WAS supposed to be a trial run.

-Ray

[Dial 1911 for Help]

How about "Pres__ent Obama"? As a Senator he was always voting "present", plus he's a President without "ID"!

[Patriotic]

Tell your fellow workers that voting does count. In 2008 we had one of the larger turnouts for the Presidential election; 56.8% of the voting population turned out to vote and of that 52.9% elected the President. That means that 30% of the voting population voted Obama into office. Since he was the first African-American candidate he garnered 98% of the black vote. Blacks represent about 16% of our population (16.1 million black voters voted for Obama). Obama’s margin of victory was 9.5 million votes.

So now we have 30% of the voting populous that is not only setting the direction of the country but also appointing SC justices and all because 43.2% of the voters did not take the time to vote.

[jason8844]

DoubleTap -

The whole "voting does not matter" crowd is a left-wing funded farce. They want people to think that because they know the people who actually "think" about elections tend to vote Republican and those who vote Democrat are drones. They want you to think there is no difference in Republicans and Democrats so you stay home.

The truth is there are BIG differences. The Democrats are taking us to Socialist-Land on a Japanese bullet train and the Republicans are doing it on one of those single mine push/pump carts. I am not saying that the Republicans are great, after all we have McCain, Graham and Bloomberg, but they are way better than Reid, "Stretch" Pelosi an Obama.

Dial1911 -

His Royal Highness, Obama "The Great and Merciful", is a coward. What kind of man votes "present" so much? The answer is one of two reasons...

1. He is an idiot and cannot grapple the intellectual arguments of the legislation being proposed and admits that he cannot make a decision.

Or...

2. He wanted to avoid participating in any vote that would show his true colors or hurt him politically.

If you ask me, either one is a bad sign and displays either cowardice or political posturing. Neither is good to be President. By the way, Obama has done NOTHING with his life besides run for office. He wrote two autobiographies by the time he was 40!! For what?

Do you know what is wrong with an Obama joke? His followers do not think they are funny, and the people like us do not think they are jokes!!!


Patriotic -

Do those stats surprise you? Let me ask you, what do you think the media would say if 98% of white people voted for a candidate simply because he was white and openly admitted it. Remember, race is an issue that only goes in one direction in this nation.

I just want to vote in a solid Conservative. I could care less if he was white, black, hispanic or asian. As long as they revere the Constitution, can articulate conservative values and supports liberty, they get my vote!

[kenhwind]

Nice posts everyone. I clicked on to the original thread and see that it has been divided, and under the circumstances a good move by the admin/mods.
My uncle is one of those don't vote guys and he is a gun guy to boot. I vote I registered to vote when I first came of age, and re-registered to vote against a county gun ordinance, and been voting ever since.

Sotomayer has some credibility, not much IMO, but Kagan makes me wanna vomit. She could not answer any of Senator Sessions guestions. He did grill her, but you how those kind of people think.

Been off line a few days, trying to catch up.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I just want to vote in a solid Conservative. I could care less if he was white, black, hispanic or asian. As long as they revere the Constitution, can articulate conservative values and supports liberty, they get my vote!Precisely. I called out a number of people who claimed people supported McCain because they were racist (talk about the pot calling the kettle, uh, black!). I could think of at least five black guys more qualified than Juan "Lettuce" McShame (Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, etc.); Obama just wasn't one of them. (How's that for an epitaph: "Less qualified than John McCain")

[DoubleTap45]

She went on at length with the usual gun grabber pablum about her friends and relatives who "hunt and target shoot" as if THAT was why the Framers wrote the Amendment!! Then she showed the 2nd Amendment about the same respect a park pigeon shows a statue. :dead_hors

-Ray

[Patriotic]

You are correct, you shouldn’t vote for a candidate because of his or her color, the state they came from or political party even. Conservative candidates keep the country on track, so to speak. Obama isn’t a bad President because he is black, he is a bad President because he is a Progressive/Liberal/Marxist/Socialist.

[DoubleTap45]

Thanks to this loser Jimmy Carter will no longer be known as the second worst president in history. THAT "honor" belongs to Woodrow Wilson. Read "Arguing With Idiots" for a full run down on THAT piece of "work". :scared:

-Ray

[kenhwind]

Glen Beck has filled me in enough on Wilson.
Personally when it comes to voting one of my first if not my first concern is their political record on 2A and gun control. I have no qualms about voting for a negro or an oriental or a hispanic. But the last presidential election had two bad choices; one bad enough, and another alot worse.
When I contacted my Senator opposing Eric Holder, he answered that He would be the first African American AG. Well it didn't even occur to me that Holder was, until I was informed. Same lamebrain excuse about Sotomayer, but then the Senater was a Cuban.
The least of Obama's faults is color.

[DoubleTap45]

A noted and VERY corrupt NY City politician, Adam Clayton Powell, once said "My complexion is my protection." He KNEW his base would never vote for a white candidate again and maybe not a Latino. He also knew that the liberal NY media would walk on eggshells rather than criticize him.

It is revolting that we have come to a point where the "historic nature" of a candidate takes precedence over his or her record. Holder is as dirty as Emmanuel and maybe more so. He railed against Gitmo but NEVER revealed till Rush and Fox News came out with the fact that he and his law firm had represented 27 Gitmo detainees. :mad:

-Ray

[DoubleTap45]

They went and confirmed that activist, anti-American, 2nd Amendment hating, uber liberal troll to the Court. God help us if Scalia dies before we get either the White House or the Senate under conservative control. At least with 58 seats in the Senate we could block another abomination like this assuming we don't get another "gang of fourteen" led by that "great conservative" Juan McLame. :butthead:

-Ray