It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


"Your comments make you look like an anti-semite"

Anti- Against
Semite - Arabs, Palestinians, Persians.

Quote any of my statements that are anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, or anti-Persian. Enough is enough with people using words they don't understand.

" Jewish folk"

Khazars are not Jewish. Zionism is a political programme ran by Caucasians. Stop applying that word to anyone.

Don't accuse me of something when you don't know the words you're using or the true history of the people you accuse me of hating.



Now on topic, Elan Kagar is a Zionist Khazar loyal to the apartheid programme ran in Palestine. That is not good policy for America and this is a prominent position. She should not be chosen for the job. The founding fathers never supported an apartheid programme. America is forefront in equality and inviting people who employ genocide and apartheid is wrong and backward.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by TSawyer]




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Buchanan has a long history of resorting to one sort of Jew-baiting or another. He's done it for years. 90%-95% of what he does and says is usually perfectly rational, even if I don't agree with him politically, I can't really fault what he says philosophically. But then out of nowhere on some issue he just starts yammering about how it's "all 'cause of dem Jews." It's a very deep seeded problem with him and it's like he just can't help himself sometimes.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TSawyer

" Jewish folk"

Khazars are not Jewish. Zionism is a political programme ran by Caucasians. Stop applying that word to anyone.

Don't accuse me of something when you don't know the words you're using or the true history of the people you accuse me of hating.


I actually made a thread just today that debunks your "they are khazars" idea:

Jewish DNA Mysteries



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Never mind that the Khazars were Jewish by mass conversion, something that was rare, but in that case it did happen, originally for political reasons. What happened to them after the Khazar Kingdom disappeared? Dunno. I think a lot were assimilated into the greater Ashkenazi Jewish community, but this is based just on personal observation. I've known a lot of very red-haired Jews who's family traces back to Russia. Common belief is that they are of Khazar descent, but who really knows. I know the story linked in the other thread says Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars, and I think that's probably true for the most part, but I've known so many specifically Russian Jews with red hair, I believe they've probably mixed in.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by LifeInDeath]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Well, if she is confirmed 3 of the 9 justices will be Jewish also to add there are no protestant judges either. I feel personally like there should be more diversity on the court considering they make huge decisions that affect America as a whole. So, in conclusion I say if these guys and gals are making decisions like this that affect all of America all Americans should be represented which is clearly not the case here...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FearfulButInterested
 



Agreed....

You do realize however that there are more religions in America than just the BIG Three; Catholics, Jews and Protestants?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Oh, I most definitely do, I am not religious but I can definitely respect the fact that everyone should be represented. I feel that there is a definite need as well for everyone to be represented fairly.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
At the risk of appearing off-topic I would like to send a psychic suggestion to Mr. Buchanan and all those who play the side of the game where they oppose everything that is 'the opposing party's agenda' (what a farce!)

Instead of grasping at BS like this just ask ONE simple question of this nominee:

"Ma'am, with all due respect, and within the limits of the law, could you please explain to us the nature of your relationship with Goldman Sachs and the capacity which you served the institution during the time when the financial sector was engaging in the use (and some might say 'abuse') of derivative financial vehicles and cajoling ratings institutions to foster and support their goals?"

.... (crickets) ....


Of course, after months of hearing rehearsals and preparations I'm sure this never found its way into the final script.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
When the effusive Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina began questioning Kagan, at one point, Graham asked Kagan where she was on Christmas day 2009. The question was regarding the alleged terrorist attack of the plane that was landing in Detroit. Here is Kagan's response:


"Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant."




[edit on 1-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I agree with what you have just stated. However, ones background and ideals highly influence their thinking and their judgment, so I believe it is a legitimate point, to bring this to attention when you have a group such as this that can make such resounding decisions that affect America as a whole. I agree this whole hearing thing is bogus I watched some of it and it was basically a bunch of old guys who would start by saying "I think you're great no doubt you'll be confirmed" and then go into their questioning where she literally answered nothing, and refused to comment on anything. Total bogus. Yes, I realize that all the nominees do this and its wrong for all of them to do it not just her. Our entire political system needs an overhaul in this country, the people in government can't represent the average American because most of them have no idea what it's like to be one.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Aside from the fact that I'm not at all sure about this nominee's stance on Israel and just guessing at what he might be alluding to, I think he has some valid points about representation, but he put it very poorly. .

Too bad too because this one's going to blow up and be emotionalized and he's going to be publicly flogged and crucified like Helen Thomas was about her comment about Jewish people when she meant the Israeli government.

No one who criticizes the Israeli government or those who support it (Zionists) can be allowed to either clarify or survive. That's a fact. I've sure that in the comments to this story and all over thousands of blogs, he is by now a racist and an anti-Semite.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I don't necessarily think Buchanan is genuine in his assessment, but it is a valid one none the less.

People need to quit playing that card, for real. I swear, someone says the word "Jew" or "Jewish" and if it isn't in the context of the holocaust and great suffering, they are called antisemitic.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Bravo!

There is plenty of evidence to raise a serious doubt regarding her eligibility to serve on the Supreme Court. This issue has nothing to do with her religion or gender. How do her ideals influence her daily life? Look deeper into her relationships, connections and progressive philosphy.

Not only has she never been a judge, but she has barely even practiced law. She hails primarily from the progressive and fertile land of Academia. She has done policy work under the Clinton administration regarding gun restrictions and partial birth abortions and many think that she will rapidly morph into an activist judge just like her mentors.

Doe she really have the judicial philosophy to hold such a position??

She has already been at a loss for words when responding to several questions regarding the limits of govt. and scotus.

Surely, there is a more qualified candidate somewhere in this country


As for Buchanan... He has been spot on with issues in the past especially issues concerning our nations immigration problem but, this recent comment was out of line.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Just a thought about the original topic... If republicans are concerned about her sexuality, then shouldn't they be happy that there's one gay person on the bench? I mean, seeing as how they're so concerned with the proper number of representatives for Jews, should they have the same concerns for the 10% of the people who are gay?

Yeah, double standard.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Excellent point but I was unaware of her sexuality I also think it's ridiculous to use that as a talking point in this day and age, outrageous.(Not talking about you using it as a TP but the Repubs.)



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Oh, she says she's straight and I'll take her word for it, but the OP suggests that Republicans are concerned about it.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Given there are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, one gay judge would then become over representative by one judge. Perhaps Obama should pick up where FDR left off on his court packing scheme so that all sorts of minorities can be represented. Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. Doctor, lawyer, merchant, chief. Lesbian, Mexican, African, Weist. Paraplegic, quadriplegic, elgiac priest.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Would someone who is against gay marriage be representational of the 10% of people who are gay?
Perhaps this is why the Republicans haven't taken that tack. Fear of starting some movement to nominate a "real" gay.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Given there are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, one gay judge would then become over representative by one judge.


It's closer than ZERO representatives!

You don't hear them complaining that there are too many MEN, do you?

[edit on 7/1/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


One thing that Kagan seems to remain constant with in this hearing, is that her personal politics and beliefs should have no bearing in her actions as a judge. As much as I do not like this persons politics, she is absolutely correct in that regard. It is irrelevant what the sexuality, gender, race, religion, or creed, a Supreme Court Justice has, and choosing one based upon "representation" is absurd. Judges must remain impartial in order to be effective. If sexuality, or any other form of "minority pleading" becomes an issue on who is chosen, this places certain groups as the priority over law. Not to mention the fact that the single greatest minority on the planet is the individual, and in that regard, the court is fairly "representative of that".



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join