15
   

Senate Confirmation Hearing For Elena Kagan - Supreme Court

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 04:10 pm
@roger,
I haven't seen her comments in context, but I'm sure Kagan was referring to the court's obligation to defer to the legislature's role in drafting laws as the expression of the public's will. In other words, even if the court thinks it could have done a better job of drafting legislation to accomplish a certain result, it must nevertheless defer to the legislature's decisions.

And for those interested in following along with some informed commentary, Scotusblog is live-blogging the confirmation hearings.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 04:35 pm
I'm with dyslexia. I wish a few liberals would be added to the court.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 04:38 pm
@firefly,
firefly, as always, it is interesting to read your reviews/summaries/commentaries




Quote:
It was well crafted
<-- my expectation on spotting a firefly post
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 04:57 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I haven't seen her comments in context, but I'm sure Kagan was referring to the court's obligation to defer to the legislature's role in drafting laws as the expression of the public's will.

I agree. That passage was just a general bromide: "But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one -- properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives." (Here's where she said it[/url[ in NPR's transcript.) She was talking about laws in general, notconstitutional review.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 05:13 pm
@Thomas,
Thanks. That's a much more reasonable view, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 06:14 pm
@ehBeth,
Thank you for the kind words, ehBeth.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 05:46 am
It's pretty clear from her bio that once the hearings are over, she will do her best to ignore the 2nd amendment. I, personally, don't think people who are anti-Constitution have any place serving as judges. Although, in general, I would vote to confirm a presidential appointment who had politics I disagree with, being willing to oppose the Constitution is pretty much three strikes for me.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 06:43 am
@Brandon9000,
Tell me, what from her bio gives you the certainty that she will ignore the second amendment?

0 Replies
 
rcooper6
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:17 am
@realjohnboy,
Kagan is perfect for the Supreme Court, Obama made another wise selection. :-)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:25 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

It's pretty clear from her bio that once the hearings are over, she will do her best to ignore the 2nd amendment. I, personally, don't think people who are anti-Constitution have any place serving as judges. Although, in general, I would vote to confirm a presidential appointment who had politics I disagree with, being willing to oppose the Constitution is pretty much three strikes for me.

So when Kagan said in her confirmation hearing that Heller represented "settled law" and that there was an individual right to possess guns, that was a red flag for you?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:32 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
So when Kagan said in her confirmation hearing that Heller represented "settled law" and that there was an individual right to possess guns, that was a red flag for you?

Nah, that was just a vacuous and hollow thing to say for the sake of getting confirmed. Brandon did refer to her bio. (Though I don't see what about her bio he was referring to.)
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:56 am
@Thomas,
Everything you need to know about how Elena Kagan will take away everybody's guns can be found here.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 09:11 am
@joefromchicago,
Thanks!
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 09:53 am
From Joe's link:

"We cannot infer much about her current view of the Second Amendment and what restrictions on guns are permitted by it. Our best guess is that she would be with the Court’s left on the question."

I think so, too.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:42 pm
I'll say it again... There is a point beyond which judging a book by its cover just isn't that difficult, and Kagen is way past that point.

She looks like a little pig. I mean, why would American citizens and taxpayers want a little pig on our supreme court? What the **** is wrong with these people??
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:49 pm
@gungasnake,
My desire to use your bile as an example of the terrible mentality of conservatives is only holstered by the sincere efforts of conservative posters like mystery man and even Finn to defend what they believe.

Your posting is more insulting to conservatives that they must deal with the baggage you create.

A
R
T
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 02:11 am
@failures art,
That doesn't really answer the question, does it?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 06:00 am
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/01/would-a-justice-kagan-be-sidelined/?test=latestnews

Quote:
Would a Justice Kagan be Sidelined?
July 1, 2010 - 5:45 PM | by: Shannon Bream
Though there has been plenty of partisan bickering during this week's confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, there is at least one issue raising concerns on both sides of the aisle. There are questions about how many cases Kagan would have to sit out if she's confirmed, and just how willing she would be to do that.

As Solicitor General, the government's top lawyer before the high court, Kagan has been involved with a number of cases that will show up during the Supreme Court's fall term. On Tuesday she testified, "I think that there are probably about 10 cases that are on the docket next year ... in which I've been counsel of record on a petition ... or some other kind of pleading."

Kagan added that there could be even more cases from which she may need to recuse herself.

That could put the court in a tough spot, at a time the Justices are taking criticism about their increasingly light caseload. Kagan could find herself unable to vote more than 15 percent of the time, leaving an even number of Justices to make the call. If there is a tie the lower court decision remains unchanged, meaning the high court may not truly resolve the cases at all....


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2545629/posts

Quote:
30 years ago the b!tch would have to recuse herself from our Christian Nation. I see no hope for a unified Nation... we are not compatible with satan or communism (which itself is satanic by its very nature)....








0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 10:21 am
You might as well resign yourself, she will be confirmed. I think you can take comfort though that it will not change anything though in liberals still being the minority in the courts. Mores the pity.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 10:54 am
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is the 1st Republican to announce how he will vote on Kagan's nomination. Not surprisingly he will vote no
 

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 0.16 seconds on 10/30/2014 at 10:01:32