New Supreme Court Nominee(Elena Kagan) Once Defended National Enquirer

So the lady has experience defending a a tabloid rag that profits off the sleeping sheeple, but none in the decent defense of real people's rights.



" HAS NEVER SERVED AS A JUDGE, BUT SHE DOES HAVE EXPERIENCE DEFENDING AMERICA'S BEST KNOWN TABLOID"


www.radaronline.com...

TextElena Kagan, the new Supreme Court justice nominee, has never served as a judge but she does have experience defending America’s best known tabloid!

RadarOnline.com has learned that Kagan, who faces a challenge from the right wing for her lack of judicial experience, got some practical experience in libel litigation that went extremely well for her side.

Tiger Woods Slept With Neighbor’s Daughter, Says Enquirer

Kagan worked for Williams & Connolly from 1989 to 1991. The Washington, D.C. law firm represented the Enquirer for decades, after first being brought in by the tabloid’s founder Generoso Pope.

The Enquirer was sued by a person who was mistakenly identified in print as being Jimmy Swaggart’s father. This was back before the Enquirer gained national headlines for stories such as John Edwards’ affair and love child, revealing Jesse Jackson’s love child and other scoops.

Tiger In Rehab Photos From Enquirer

Swaggart went from preacher to controversial figure almost overnight, and one woman, Debra Muphree, claimed that she posed nude for him in hotel rooms.

But the Kagan case was not nearly as notorious.

And in her application for Solicitor General, Kagan listed this about her litigation experience:

“Bagbey v. National Enquirer, No. CV 89-2177. We represented the National Enquirer in this libel action brought by a person mistakenly identified in the publication as being Jimmy Swaggert's father. I drafted all pleadings and did all discovery in the case, which began in Louisiana state court but which we removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Judge F.A. Little, Jr.). We eventually settled the case on tenns favorable to our client.”

John Edwards Admits Paternity Of Love Child

reply to post by Pocky


What's your point?

You think it isn't transparent as all hell that if she took the opposite stance you would be having a feigned apoplectic conniption fit about Kagan being against the first amendment?

Also, how may SCOTUS justices were never judges before serving on the highest court? Why don't you look that one up, k? I'm sure you were criticizing William Rehnquist for not having been a judge too (just like the forty some others that fit that criteria).

Best,
SN

P.S. The fact of the matter is that she is, unfortunately, an extreme moderate, just like Obama--No where as liberal as Bush, Roberts and Alito are conservative. Not even close. Get over the sour grapes, Obama won, and elections have consequences, one of which is that he selects the SCOTUS nominees (of which there will probably be 2 more).



[edit on 5/11/2010 by skunknuts]

You know something like 40 of the Supreme Court judges we've ever had have had 0 judicial experience. I, myself, find it HILARIOUS that Mcconnell can sit up there and claim she has no litigation experience yet it's amazingly clear that she has plenty of litigation experience in some of the best firms/ positions around. This is just ANOTHER case of the Republicans opposing anything that Obama likes. *yawn*

reply to post by ElijahWan


Yeah, like being head of a tiny law school university known as Harvard, as well as serving as the US lawyer, in her capacity as solicitor general (confirmed by this senate w/ republican votes), who argues the government cases in front of the SUPREME COURT isn't enough experience.

If anything, I would have liked to see someone even more out of the litigious loop. Someone w/ Sandra Day O'Conner's resume, for example. Oh well, Obama will have several more SCOTUS appointments, I imagine.

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/11/2010 by skunknuts]

Well, I have one thing and ONE THING only to ask of a SC nominee.

Does an INDIVIDUAL have the right of-----

It does not matter if she or he thinks ANYTHING else.

The government has NO right to anything that overrules INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!

That is it, no fan fare, no bull#!

If she ACTUALLY believes in FREE WILL and determination, appoint her.

If she believes that government has the right to remove the rights of an individual, she should be thrown OUT of the country!

Will this be asked? HELL NO!

Originally posted by Pocky


" HAS NEVER SERVED AS A JUDGE, BUT SHE DOES HAVE EXPERIENCE DEFENDING AMERICA'S BEST KNOWN TABLOID"

That is the reason why she is not fit to serve in the highest court in the nation, she has not judge experience and she is nothing but another liberal controversial judge to push pro liberal agendas.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by Pocky


She will be another "nail" that will be pounded into the " Amerikan" casket.
And the sheeple go, " bahh bahh bahh."

reply to post by marg6043


So you were against William Rehnquist? Funny how the rest of the time conservatives hate the 'out of touch judiciary.'

Best,
SN

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by Pocky

 

She will be another "nail" that will be pounded into the " Amerikan" casket.
And the sheeple go, " bahh bahh bahh."

Yeah, who's traitorous tyrannical marxist, fascist, nazi, socialist, maoist, islamic, zionist idea is it that the elected president of the USA appoints supreme court nominees? What a bunch of unconstitutional bs....oh wait, um, nevermind.

Best,
SN

reply to post by skunknuts


I was against most of Bush "chosen ones" actually right now after what the supreme court did with voting for corporate America rights, they all nothing but been payed by big interest.

I am PRican and Sotomayor is a shame to me as Puertorican and her agenda is about immigration rights and kissing up to la Raza movement.

She is not PRican she is a Mexican wannabe.

Now this joke of "chosen" from Obama is just that another joke to Americas citizens rights.



[edit on 11-5-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by skunknuts


Still waiting on the THEORY that "supposedly" you stand behind.

What is it?

Explain to everyone what it is that you believe in!

Are you afraid to exclaim it?

Of course you are. You think that redistribution is necessary. You feel that everyone that has actually attempted to make themselves, self sufficient will be destroyed.


ADMIT IT! no? of course not!?

You come from Chicago and Madison? Time for you to be shown.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by skunknuts

 

Still waiting on the THEORY that "supposedly" you stand behind.
What is it?
Explain to everyone what it is that you believe in!
Are you afraid to exclaim it?

Of course you are. You think that redistribution is necessary. You feel that everyone that has actually attempted to make themselves, self sufficient will be destroyed.

ADMIT IT! no? of course not!?

You come from Chicago and Madison? Time for you to be shown.

What the frell do you mean:

'Time for you to be shown??!!'

That sounds like some ominous obfuscated Neo-McCarthyistic Beckian threat. Do you want me to come before the committee on Unamerican activities chaired by Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin? I'm not in Arizona, as you point out, but it sounds like you want to see my papers.

What are you supposedly getting at? I am proud of my beliefs and my city (one of the most livable in the US).

In general, I value increased personal freedom, and feel that a decent measure of economic regulation is necessary to contain corporatism from trampling over individuals. I am a left-leaning centrist. I am a tax-paying American. I like having pot holes filled, nice parks to visit, and feel that no kid in my country should go to bed hungry. I believe that the freedom of opportunity for socioeconomic mobility is paramount to the American ideal, and needs to once again be more than a propagandist myth used by the elites to justify their trampling on the middle-classes, and understand that certain elements are needed to increase and allow its likelihood.

What am I hiding?

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/11/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by skunknuts


So you are a totalitarian?

You have a systemic ideal on things?

No? That is a LIE.

Admit your institution!

That is it! What the frell?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by skunknuts

 

So you are a totalitarian?
You have a systemic ideal on things?
No? That is a LIE.
Admit your institution!

I'm sorry, but how you can rationally get 'totalitarian' from what I wrote is beyond me. I thought you were accusing me of being a leftist, not a totalitarian right-winger like Palin, for example.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e45ab29e7585.png[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b4a341e9ac2.png[/atsimg]

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/11/2010 by skunknuts]

Guess it was too much trouble to look for all the positive things she has done.

So much easier to snipe sensationalism.

Here is the video with Harry Reid and Kagan ditching the press. It's a whole 1:25 and their fleeing the press is worth the minute and a half.

www.cspan.org...

They are about to answer questions when a lady asks "why are liberals so skeptical" both Reid and Kagan laugh (oh, the critics) and walk out of the room. How arrogant.

Here is the video of Kagan and McConnel

www.cspan.org...

Once again, they rudely interrupt people from asking questions. Some jerk keeps saying "thank you," over and over again.

Yes, transparency indeed! Change we can hardly believe.

Kagan involved in 9/11 cover up of crimes against Saudi royalty.

www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 12-5-2010 by filosophia]

reply to post by skunknuts


Wow, so they teach you in Madison that there are no Leftist Totalitarians?

You are so FUNNY!

Here, let me show you something that may have been missed in your indoctrination.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a2e9c9aa11a.jpg[/atsimg]

The LEFT have ALL THE TYRANTS.

The right has little ol me the Libertarian and the Anarchists.

Your equation of placing the totalitarians on opposite ends of the political spectrum is a gambit by the misinformed and the clueless.

So I just gave you a clue.


Tell me, when YOU say left and right, what EXACTLY are you referring to?

Left what and right what? Are you talking social issues, economic, political?

Your nice little graph means NOTHING.

Both the Dems and Repubs are totalitarian tyrants. Period.

Should I post Obama's Rule of Law speech?

Pfft. You people are becoming transparent, the exact opposite of the tyrants you so blatantly adore.

reply to post by Pocky


She represented her client. She did her job. Good on her.