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.
So you are saying the Democrats will vote for anyone Obama nominates.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Now tell me how this helps you make your arguments better.
So any "organization" that doesn't pronounce Kagan "very well qualified" is not legitimate? Please expound on your reasoning here. It should be good!
So have a lot of other people. Hardly a distinction.
So your outright approval of her nomination is just because of your politics? Just as I thought.
It's the president's privilege to use the toilet adjacent to the oval office too. Your point?
Huh? Rehnquist had been an Assistant Attorney General. To say that Kagan's experience was severly limited would be too kind.
That is your opinion on her "rock solid" background as qualification.
That's not really something positive. Clinton was impeached.
So did Ted Bundy.
Let's not forget her close friendship with Obama as the reason for that. That had little to do with her qualifications.
I would say she hates our military, and that is no farce.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
You seriously are quoting from a paper written while she was an undergrad in college?
That's pretty lame.
Unless she's changed her ideology and discusses how she has changed and why, it's relevant.
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.
Separate names with a comma.