15
   

Senate Confirmation Hearing For Elena Kagan - Supreme Court

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:00 pm
@roger,
lol
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:04 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Legal background is optional
congress is dominated by "persons" of legal background.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:30 pm
@dyslexia,
Me too, then I might not fall asleep just reading about the hearings.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:30 pm
@dyslexia,
snort..
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 05:24 pm
Kagan could not have been more clear that she believes nominees should be asked tough questions and not allowed to play a Ginsberg.

We'll see if she has any integrity, or like Sotomoyer, will say anything to get confirmed.
realjohnboy
 
  4  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 05:42 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Kagan and the committee know that, barring some gaffe, her nomination is assured. Slam dunk.
It would be interesting if she and the committee members could get into a thoughtful discussion about the balance between the 3 branches of government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Supposedly equal.
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA), who died this morning, lamented that - over the 50 years that he served - the Executive branch (i.e. the President) has become more equal then the others.
Specifically he was talking about President Bush and Iraq, but I think he was also talking in more general terms.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 06:20 pm
@realjohnboy,
I used to have serious concerns with Bush's signing statements. I guess congress was okay with it. Probably some legal principle that was over my head, but it sounded like he was writing law.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 08:21 pm
Off topic somewhat. I can probably twist it around back towards the end.
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) died today at age 92. He served in the Senate for 50 years.
I liked the dude. He talked with an accent kind of like mine. He played a pretty good fiddle. And he had an unwavering devotion to the legislative branch of the government and to the constitution.
He was one of the last great orators and he could quote lengthy pieces of poetry from memory. Two virtues of little merit, perhaps, in the grand scheme of things today.
Unlike many others in Congress, Byrd was a laborer in his youth. He worked as a butcher and a mechanic and in other menial jobs while being raised by foster parents.
He joined the KKK for awhile in his early 20's and fought hard against the civil rights legislation in 1964. He later expressed regret about his thinking at the time.
He made no apologies about steering something like a billion federal dollars to WVA to build highways and such.
He supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam but strongly opposed President Bush getting us into Iraq.
And that is where I can wrap this up. Byrd believed in 3 equal branches of government. He was in the legislative, which was -in his mind- becoming subservient to the administrative branch.
Part of the discussion regarding Kagan will involve how much weight the judicial branch.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Attacking Justice Thurgood Marshall was a novel Republican move today. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

We'll see if she has any integrity, or like Sotomoyer, will say anything to get confirmed.


I think she will have to side step the questions trying to pin down her positions. It's more important to her to get confirmed than to demonstrate her integrity during these hearings. Since the Bork confirmation debacle, all the nominees have avoided debate on the issues. Kagan is no fool, she'll do the same.



0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:40 am
So, did anyone watch the hearing yesterday? I didn't.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:44 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

So, did anyone watch the hearing yesterday? I didn't.


The opening statements are always boring.

Cycloptichorn
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:47 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas wrote:

So, did anyone watch the hearing yesterday? I didn't.


The opening statements are always boring.

Cycloptichorn


yeah, but when they yelled "Release The Kagan" was pretty funny
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:51 am
@djjd62,
Laughing

Good thing they keep Medusa's head in the coat closet.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:34 am
Am I to infer that Kagan didn't say anything yesterday? That it was all about senators posturing?
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 11:18 am
@Thomas,
She made an opening statement that expressed her feelings that the Supreme Court should act with "restraint" and in deference to the will of the people (Congress). This seemed designed to quell fears that she will be a progressive activist who would use her position to bring about social change. And, of course, she promised to be fair and impartial. It was well crafted, and about what you'd expect.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/elena_kagan_opening_statement.html

I actually don't see evidence that Kagan is all that much of a social activist, or even a flaming liberal. Several civil rights groups have either withheld their endorsements of her, or given her mid-level ratings, because they aren't certain where she stands either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/26/AR2010062603649.html?hpid=topnews

Similarly, the National Organization for Women appears to taking a wait and see attitude.
http://www.now.org/press/06-10/06-28.html

I watched yesterday, and I also watched a portion of this morning's session. She handles herself well, with intelligence and self confidence. I don't think she will allow herself to get backed against any walls. She is interesting, perhaps because she is somewhat enigmatic. I enjoy watching her parry the attempts to pigeon hole her.

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 01:34 pm
@firefly,
Thanks, firefly!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 01:57 pm
Wow. Graham seems to love her! I'd be surprised if Graham didn't vote for her. And that, I think, makes it unlikely that 39 other Republicans will filibuster her.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 02:23 pm
@Thomas,
I agree. Graham couldn't have been more positive.

This afternoon's session has a good-natured, pleasant tone. And Kagan seems relaxed, and she does have a good sense of humor. It's nice, for a change, not to listen to purely partisan attacks. They really have no substantive objections to her confirmation.

I'm actually enjoying the hearings--I'm watching it right now. The legal discussions are quite interesting.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 03:14 pm
Question to Kagan: "Where were you on Christmas?"
Answer: "Like all good Jews, I was probably at a Chinese Restaurant."
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 03:44 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

She made an opening statement that expressed her feelings that the Supreme Court should act with "restraint" and in deference to the will of the people (Congress).


Thanks for posting that.

I'm probably in the minority around here, but that statement is anything but reassuring. Instead of deferring to the people, or to the will of Congress, I would really prefer they defer to the written constitution.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2014 at 01:50:57