Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old May 9th, 2010, 09:58 PM   #1 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
polkadots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 436
 
Device(s): EVO
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 81
Thanked 189 Times in 96 Posts
Default Elena Kagan to be nominated to SCOTUS

Let the games begin!

Advertisements
__________________
Cheers,
Aubrey
polkadots is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old May 10th, 2010, 05:21 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
Let the games begin!
The Republicans will go after whoever Obama nominates, but I'll bet that in the end, she gets to be a Supreme. Obama's next two nominees will be interesting, because it is likely one of those will be to replace a court conservative.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2010, 12:59 PM   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
The Republicans will go after whoever Obama nominates, but I'll bet that in the end, she gets to be a Supreme. Obama's next two nominees will be interesting, because it is likely one of those will be to replace a court conservative.
So you are saying the Democrats will vote for anyone Obama nominates.
Fenga Papit is offline  
Last edited by lekky; May 11th, 2010 at 05:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2010, 01:13 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
So you are saying the Democrats will vote for anyone Obama nominates. And libtards get offended when they are portrayed as mindless zombies, trapped in a cult of personality.
I don't see why the Democrats in the Senate would find Ms. Kagan unqualified. Typically, 60 Senators will support the qualified nominees of the President, and typically the Senators of the same party of the President will support his or her nominees en bloc, if the nominee is qualified.

I find your incessant use of hot button terms like "libtards," "mindless," et cetera, humorous and, truthfully, meaningless. Lots of people, I am sure, disagree with your political positions. I suspect many of them are at least as smart as you are.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2010, 01:23 PM   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
I don't see why the Democrats in the Senate would find Ms. Kagan unqualified.
Please, enlighten us as to what makes Kagan more qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. And that means more than the bare minimum. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
I find your incessant use of hot button terms like "libtards," "mindless," et cetera, humorous and, truthfully, meaningless.
Let me guess...you are the poster child for your party of hypocrisy?
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2010, 01:46 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
Please, enlighten us as to what makes Kagan more qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. And that means more than the bare minimum. Thank you.

Let me guess...you are the poster child for your party of hypocrisy?

Please explain why you seem to find it necessary to personally insult other posters here. I'm pretty sure doing so doesn't help you make your arguments any better.

As to Ms. Kagan's qualifications, I am certain the legitimate organizations that weigh in on that will pronounce here very well qualified. While she has not served as a judge (and that is not a requirement or even necessary), she has been named to a number of extraordinary positions in the field of law.

My guess is that whatever problems you are having with her nomination have everything to do with what you presume are her politics.

It's the president's privilege to nominate his or her choices to the Supreme Court.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2010, 09:49 PM   #7 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
polkadots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 436
 
Device(s): EVO
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 81
Thanked 189 Times in 96 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
Please, enlighten us as to what makes Kagan more qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. And that means more than the bare minimum. Thank you.

Let me guess...you are the poster child for your party of hypocrisy?
Riddle me this - what makes her (under?) unqaulified? Please spare me the bit that she has never been a judge before. You do realize that something like 65 of the 112 SCOTUS members had no prior experience on the bench, right? Let's not forget Chief Justice Rehnquist, either.

Her legal background is rock solid. Law professor at Chicago and Harvard - dean of Harvard's law school as well. Worked in and around the Clinton administration. She clearly has a passion for knowing and understanding the law of the land. Let's also not forget that she was nominated, and approved, to represent the United States in front of the Supreme Court Plenty qualified from a legal background point of view.

If you'd like you can call her weak on the military...which is a farce. She prevented recruiters on campus because she disagreed with DADT, which is crumbling as we speak. Even though the issue went to the court, against Kagan and others, 9-0 it isn't something that you can use to paint her as "soft on the military" with.

So, back to the beginning - what makes her not qualified for the position?
polkadots is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 01:08 PM   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Please explain why you seem to find it necessary to personally insult other posters here. I'm pretty sure doing so doesn't help you make your arguments any better.
Thank you for proving my inquiry about you being the poster child for your party of hypocrisy. Now please go ahead and complain to yourself about you calling members of the Tea Party names and personally insulting them with a vulgar gay sex reference. Spare me by claiming your fellow libtards use it too. YOUR hypocrisy needs to be explained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100
I've seen a couple of the *********...
Tea Party

Now tell me how this helps you make your arguments better.

Oopsie daisy!





Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
As to Ms. Kagan's qualifications, I am certain the legitimate organizations that weigh in on that will pronounce here very well qualified.
So any "organization" that doesn't pronounce Kagan "very well qualified" is not legitimate? Please expound on your reasoning here. It should be good!


Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
she has been named to a number of extraordinary positions in the field of law.
So have a lot of other people. Hardly a distinction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
My guess is that whatever problems you are having with her nomination have everything to do with what you presume are her politics.
So your outright approval of her nomination is just because of your politics? Just as I thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
It's the president's privilege to nominate his or her choices to the Supreme Court.
It's the president's privilege to use the toilet adjacent to the oval office too. Your point?
Fenga Papit is offline  
Last edited by Fenga Papit; May 11th, 2010 at 01:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 01:46 PM   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
Let's not forget Chief Justice Rehnquist, either.
Huh? Rehnquist had been an Assistant Attorney General. To say that Kagan's experience was severly limited would be too kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
Her legal background is rock solid. Law professor at Chicago and Harvard - dean of Harvard's law school as well.
That is your opinion on her "rock solid" background as qualification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
Worked in and around the Clinton administration.
That's not really something positive. Clinton was impeached.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
She clearly has a passion for knowing and understanding the law of the land.
So did Ted Bundy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
Let's also not forget that she was nominated, and approved, to represent the United States in front of the Supreme Court Plenty qualified from a legal background point of view.
Let's not forget her close friendship with Obama as the reason for that. That had little to do with her qualifications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
If you'd like you can call her weak on the military...which is a farce.
I would say she hates our military, and that is no farce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
She prevented recruiters on campus because she disagreed with DADT, which is crumbling as we speak. Even though the issue went to the court, against Kagan and others, 9-0 it isn't something that you can use to paint her as "soft on the military" with.
Her personal agenda has no place on the supreme court, which her ignorance with the Solomon Amendment proved. I submit that she was actually trying to weaken our military, our nation, since not allowing military recruiters on Harvard's campus would deprive the military of some of the best and the brightest. Thank god the SCOTUS - by 9-0, made her look like a clown.

Quote:
Among her many actions in opposition to the Solomon Amendment, Kagan was one of some 40 or so law professors who signed their names to a Supreme Court amicus brief in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that offered a highly implausible reading of the Solomon Amendment that would have rendered it, as Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion put it, “largely meaningless.” The Chief Justice’s opinion rejecting Kagan’s reading and the other challenges to the Solomon Amendment was unanimous. As Peter Berkowitz wrote of the various briefs by legal academics (including the one Kagan signed):

This dazzling array of eminent law professors proved incapable—even after hiring the best Democratic party legal talent money could buy—of advancing a single legal argument persuasive enough to pick off even a single dissent from the four more progressive justices on the court—Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens—or to provoke even a single concurrence expressing a single demurral on a single point of law from Chief Justice Roberts's opinion.
Obama’s SG Pick Elena Kagan—Part 2 - Ed Whelan - Bench Memos on National Review Online

Quote:
Critics say Kagan’s legal arguments on the matter are so preposterous that they raise doubts about her ability to serve on the bench. And indeed when the Supreme Court later rejected her position on military recruiting at Harvard, it did so unanimously.
Elena Kagan?s most notable foray into public life was kicking military recruiters off of Harvard?s campus | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

A 9-0 back-slap from the SCOTUS is a pretty good example of her failure and lack of qualifications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by polkadots View Post
So, back to the beginning - what makes her not qualified for the position?
She also has very close ties to Goldman Sachs. Her inexperience and ignorance, her desire to push her personal agenda, her hate for our military, these are just a few of the reasons she is not qualified. But she would make a good match with racist "La Raza" Sotomayor!
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 03:09 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
Thank you for proving my inquiry about you being the poster child for your party of hypocrisy. Now please go ahead and complain to yourself about you calling members of the Tea Party names and personally insulting them with a vulgar gay sex reference. Spare me by claiming your fellow libtards use it too. YOUR hypocrisy needs to be explained.
I'm not insulting other posters here. I believe you are. As to your favorite group, I'm still trying to figure out what it is...it seems to be nothing more than a subset of the Republican Party that consists of the hard-line base. Does it have any candidates for public office running solely as the Tea Party candidate? I've seen two of the group's demonstrations in my area. I was not impressed.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old May 11th, 2010, 03:33 PM   #11 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
polkadots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 436
 
Device(s): EVO
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 81
Thanked 189 Times in 96 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
Huh? Rehnquist had been an Assistant Attorney General. To say that Kagan's experience was severly limited would be too kind.
Rehnquist never served on the bench as a judge - nor did literally dozens of other members of the SCOTUS. So you can nix this argument now.

Quote:
That is your opinion on her "rock solid" background as qualification.
I didn't realize that a law professor at two prestigious universities, dean of one of those schools, and years of experience as a trial lawyer means she lacks the legal background. You asked that I (we?) not split hairs and say something juvenille like "she's qualified because there are no qualifications!" Yet, then you go on to make a comment like....

Quote:
That's not really something positive. Clinton was impeached.
And...

Quote:
So did Ted Bundy.
As for the piece about Clinton - say what you will, he was acquitted in his impeachment trial with bi-partisan support in a Republican Senate. Additionally, her time working with the Clinton administration is further proof of her background. In the mid-90s she lobbied Clinton for a tougher restriction on late-term abortions, an appeal that he ignored. She is no Harriet Miers, so don't mistake her for one.

Quote:
Let's not forget her close friendship with Obama as the reason for that. That had little to do with her qualifications.
I will grant that her relationship with the President had something to do with it. Find me a political appointee that doesn't have a connection to the person they were appointed by. Right or wrong, it's how the game is played. Additionally, she was confirmed for her position with bi-partisan support. Were she truly not qualified than why did 7 Republicanscross the aisle and support her confirmation?

Quote:
I would say she hates our military, and that is no farce.

Her personal agenda ...
I will agree that she was on the wrong side of the recruiting case. Although I disagree with DADT, she did not handle it as she should have. With that aside, please provide some tangible proof as to why she "hates" the military and armed forces. This should be easy for you to do, no?

Quote:
She also has very close ties to Goldman Sachs. Her inexperience and ignorance, her desire to push her personal agenda, her hate for our military, these are just a few of the reasons she is not qualified. But she would make a good match with racist "La Raza" Sotomayor!
I don't know enough on her ties to GS to speak to them - I will have to read up. Care to elaborate your point of view?

You can disagree with her politics up and down. That is your right. But don't make yourself a fool and claim that she lacks experience (she doesn't) or that she is ignorant (she clearly isn't). From what I gather you dislike her as a nominee because you lean right and she was nominated by a man who leans left. Is she more liberal than not? Yes, she is. Is Chief Justice Roberts more conservative than not? Yes, he is. Set aside the petty partisanship..it's not very becoming of you.

Additionally, I find it curious that you bring race into this whole thing. Nowhere did I, or anyone, mention Justice Sotomayor (again, bipartisan support) - nor was anything about race mentioned. What is the angle your driving at?
polkadots is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 10:07 AM   #12 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Kagan is also a Goldman Sach's operative/adviser.. I find it funny how Obama keeps putting these bankers that contributed to ruining the country in high positions. It's quite the opposite of what his campaign stances were.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 02:02 PM   #13 (permalink)
Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
polkadots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 436
 
Device(s): EVO
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 81
Thanked 189 Times in 96 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiretap View Post
Kagan is also a Goldman Sach's operative/adviser.. I find it funny how Obama keeps putting these bankers that contributed to ruining the country in high positions. It's quite the opposite of what his campaign stances were.
It's funny how information like this is constantly distorted. For three years she, along with many other academics, served on a research advisory board of sorts for Goldman Sachs. She served 2005-2008, and was paid a $10,000 stipend in 2008. They met three times, annually, during those three years. They had absolutely zero role in advising GS on their financial decisions. During her confirmation process for Solicitor General these ties were discussed, and it was shown that they're clearly not anything to worry about.

Please, enlighten us on her Obama is putting a "banker" who ruined the country in a position of power. Explain for us how she was a GS operative (her connection with GS has long since ended).


The arguments that the Righ is putting up against her do not carry any water. Everything from saying that she has no legal background (she does, it's tremendous), to saying that she's a partisan (that won much acclaim from Conservatives and Liberals during her tenure as Harvard dean), to saying that she is weak on the military (zero evidence of this) to now that she's a GS operative. There's nothing glaring about this woman that makes her a bad nominee for the SCOTUS.
polkadots is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 03:42 PM   #14 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

lol, 2 years is so long ago. Looks about perfect timing for her to get out of being associated with GS before the shit really hit the fan.

Her role was “analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients.” She's also got a nice relation to Larry Summers who was chief economist at the loan-shark World Bank and derivatives firm D.E. Shaw.

But, besides the obvious banker connections, those don't worry me as much as her own words. Her own words that are completely contradictory to the values instated by the US Constitution:

"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness."

That statement alone, praising socialism's greatness, disqualifies her from being an upholder of the US Constitution.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

You seriously are quoting from a paper written while she was an undergrad in college?

That's pretty lame.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 05:58 PM   #16 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Unless she's changed her ideology and discusses how she has changed and why, it's relevant.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 10:55 AM   #17 (permalink)
Member
 
soulfetcher13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: tennessee
Posts: 229
 
Device(s): Galaxy S4
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 10
Thanked 31 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Law professor and dean of a law school. I've heard this somewhere before. Constitutional professor wasn't it. We already have a president on training wheels we don't need a justice on a tricycle. I am a conservative yes, but common sense to me says that in the highest court in the land I want someone with at least the same practical application experience as judge Judy.
__________________
It is better to be silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt.

illegitimi non carborundum
soulfetcher13 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.