Obama Picks New Supreme Court Nominee!, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 01:15 AM by ventian

reply to post by Logarock

I could actually understand nominating a lesbian/gay rights judge. But a women's rights judge is crazy. Why are there still women's rights activists....wasn't all this settled awhile back?

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 01:23 AM by ugie1028

I dont trust her.

Something just doesnt sit right...

i dont know what it is, but i disagree with the nomination.

She was a professor when obama was teaching. who know, they could be in cahoots with the central bankers.

Can we please have someone nominated that isnt linked to the elites for once?

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 02:00 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by ventian
reply to post by Logarock

I could actually understand nominating a lesbian/gay rights judge. But a women's rights judge is crazy. Why are there still women's rights activists....wasn't all this settled awhile back?

Its not a settled issue for the extreme types. They seek representation of thier ideas about womens rights not really to insure equality. The hard core womens thing is really a sexist configuration that has all sorts of nifty ideas. Lesbian seen as a total emancipation and pinnacle of female rights. A new enlightenment if you will and not simply a life style choice. They see hetro women as those still in bondage.

Yes, this isnt simply an effort to post someone of a different life style to show a sort of tolerance a bla bla bla....but rather a presentation of the new model for a new age.

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 02:36 AM by Romantic_Rebel

reply to post by ugie1028

Same here. I get this weird feeling seeing her on yahoo news homepage.

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 02:42 AM by Common Good

I dont know much about her.
So I googled her, and came up with an Article recently put up by Fox News
about her backround.
I have not yet had time to go through it, but Im sure some of you will have a field day with it.

Heres the Link.
www.foxnews.com...

Edit- I thought this was funny.

From Article(FoxNews)-

"
In November 2004, the appeals court ruled, 2 to 1, that Solomon was unconstitutional, saying it required law schools ''to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives.''

The day after the ruling, Ms. Kagan -- and several other law school deans -- barred military recruiters from their campuses. In Harvard's case, the recruiters were barred only from the main career office, while Ms. Kagan continued to allow them access to students through the student veterans' group.

But the ban lasted only for the spring semester in 2005. The Pentagon told the university over the summer that it would withhold ''all possible funds'' if the law school continued to bar recruiters from the main placement office. So, after consulting with other university officials, Ms. Kagan said, she lifted the ban.

After doing so, she and 39 other Harvard law professors signedan amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to invalidate Solomon. So did the university.

They all received a dose of reality in March 2006 when the court ruled, 8 to 0, against them.

This incident goes a long way toward explaining the 31 Republican votes against confirming her as solicitor general.

Her résumé lacks the one qualification that every member of the current Supreme Court possesses: past judicial service. It has been almost 40 years since a nominee who had not been a judge was appointed to the Supreme Court; the last two were William H. Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell Jr., both of whom joined the court in 1972
"

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Common Good]

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 04:58 AM by Vitchilo

She's VERY, I MEAN VERY BAD NEWS.

She loves it when the president gets more power.
Here

She did offer a glimpse of her views in a 2001 article in The Harvard Law Review that considered the "unitary executive" theory.

The phrase is sometimes used as shorthand for the Bush administration's assertion that it has broad powers that cannot be limited by Congress or the courts. In her article, Kagan addressed an earlier and narrower meaning of the phrase, one made popular during the Reagan administration, concerning the scope of the president's power to control the executive branch itself.

She found that such presidential control "expanded dramatically during the Clinton presidency," a development she largely welcomed. But she said Congress, experts and interest groups should also play a role in informing the executive branch's actions.

Constitutional scholars hate her

"From the perspective of those who have been advocating change from Bush policies, she has been a disappointment," said Tina Foster of the International Justice Network, who argued against Kagan's deputy Neal Katyal over detention policies in an appeal in January.

"She would spell very bad news" if she became a Supreme Court justice, said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long challenged Bush and now Obama detention policies. "We don't see any basis to assume she does not embrace the Bush view of executive power."

At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston called the Obama administration's stance on state secrets and national security wiretapping "a grave disappointment, particularly for those who took Obama's promises seriously." Bankston cautioned he is not certain how involved Kagan herself has been in the positions the department has taken on these issues.

She's like we expected from Obama and Bush bosses, a constitution hating treasonous scumbag.

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 05:44 AM by thisguyrighthere

Reply to post by Vitchilo

"Unitary executive" theory?

Nice at least that pro-dictatorial folks are so open about it. Shame though that even with such blatant positions people are still letting it all slide.

Maybe we can get a version of Pol-pot in 2012 and stop pretending America is free.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 06:36 AM by Vitchilo

Maybe we can get a version of Pol-pot in 2012 and stop pretending America is free.

That would sure be refreshing...

Anyone who research McCain and Obama before the election KNEW this would just go downhill since they would continue Bush's program and make it worse.

But eh, people are too busy watching TV to do that.

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 09:04 AM by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by ventian

Not to be overly offensive here, but are you sure that's a woman?

Wow, anyway, I'll need to see more information on this lady and her opinions before I chime in with anything definitive. Guess I better start looking through journals and see if I can find anything.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by antonia]

You beat me to it.

The first thing that popped into my head was Austin Powers " That's not your mother, it's a man, baby!

Very very handsome woman...

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 09:12 AM by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by ventian

Not to be overly offensive here, but are you sure that's a woman?

Wow, anyway, I'll need to see more information on this lady and her opinions before I chime in with anything definitive. Guess I better start looking through journals and see if I can find anything.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by antonia]

I knew I've seen her before. She used to play on King of Queens!

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 09:35 AM by Aggie Man

I'm disappointed in his selection. I think he should have gone with someone that can show those clowns on the Supreme Court how to get things done....someone like....Judge Judy

Honestly, I see no issue with her lack of experience presiding on the bench. That is NOT a requirement and may just bring a new perspective to offset the "jaded" career judges. Not to mention that you don't need to be a judge or lawyer in order to know the law of the land....just look at all the armchair judges/attorneys right here on ATS.

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 09:47 AM by DogsDogsDogs

Geeez Chicago, Clinton retread, 10 to 1 she's a Zionist. The only thing I can see remotely good about her is that she'll quench ole Clarence's urge to talk dirty (either that, or he'll turn into a masher after work)

I HATE THIS*I HATE THIS*I HATE THIS*I HATE THIS*I HATE THIS*I HATE THIS*HATE IT!

Thanks Y'All for the information (even though it sucks)

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 10:18 AM by Beefcake

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If she is moderate then she will most likely have an easy time in the hearings.

She worked for Goldman Sachs she will have no problem at all in the hearings. That seems to be the only requirement to be in Washington. She is already approved imo.

en.wikipedia.org...

From 2005 through 2008, Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Beefcake]

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 04:32 PM by ugie1028

reply to post by Vitchilo

well now i know why i had a bad feeling about her.

damn they are all in cahoots with each other. goldman sachs employee? wtf?

[edit on 5/10/2010 by ugie1028]

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 05:18 PM by hotpinkurinalmint

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Personally I hope they ask her questions about President Obama's policies and how she would rule, especially on health care, and the constitutionality of such.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by sdcigarpig]

One thing that always comes up when anybody, regardless of their political inclinations or political philosophy, is nominated to the SCOTUS is that they never give a straight answer on how they will rule on a particular topic like Roe v. Wade. The reason why you will not get a straight answer from any judicial nominee is that the rules of judicial ethics require a judge not to form opinions on cases that they might hear until they hear them.

I do not know much about Kagan. I cannot tell you whether she is honest or whether she truly cares about justice. I can tell you she will not give straight answers on how she will rule on cases because the rules of judicial ethics prevent her from doing so.

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 05:28 PM by hotpinkurinalmint

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Being a judge is helpful, but is not an absolute prerequisite to being a good Supreme Court justice. The most important skill a Supreme Court justice must have is the ability to understand and apply the law. As a Dean of Harvard Law School and former solicitor general, and a clerk for both a Circuit court judge and a Supreme Court judge, she certainly knows the law and can apply it.

That is not to say that there might be a circuit judge out there who is more qualified, but I would not call Kagan completely unqualified. Furthermore, Obama is looking for a young person to put on the court and you will not find many young judges. Keep in mind one usually does not get considered for nomination for any judicial position, even a less prestigious judicial post like a state trial court judge, unless they have several years of experience as a lawyer.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by hotpinkurinalmint]

reply posted on 10-5-2010 @ 05:32 PM by kozmo

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by ventian

Not to be overly offensive here, but are you sure that's a woman?

Wow, anyway, I'll need to see more information on this lady and her opinions before I chime in with anything definitive. Guess I better start looking through journals and see if I can find anything.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by antonia]

She's a lesbian... Obviously the one who plays the part of the "Man", I'm guessing.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^