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.

 

Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearing Live Discussion

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone else is following this as it plays out and have people comment on what they are taking away from the hearings.

I lean more towards the idea that this is just a dog and pony show, but I have hopes that these checks and balances actually function from time to time.

I've been watching it for a while this morning, and personally I believe she's blowing it badly. She's avoiding outlining where she stands and giving them no real insight to the stance she would take on any subject. Simply stating that she would handle all decisions on a "case by case" basis should not be enough for her to be confirmed imo.

She's certainly not the most eloquent speaker, and seems to be, and rightly so given her background, just regurgitating memorized knowledge of the law. In doing so, for me at least, she's not coming across as having a firm grasp on the subtleties of the position she's applying for.

What do you guys think?

[edit on 29-6-2010 by PayMeh]




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PayMeh


I've been watching it for a while this morning, and personally I believe she's blowing it badly. She's avoiding outlining where she stands and giving them no real insight to the stance she would take on any subject. Simply stating that she would handle all decisions on a "case by case" basis should not be enough for her to be confirmed imo.


If she is dodgy and hard to get a handle on she shouldnt get the nod. Someone called her "refreshing" yeasterday. She is in fact not refreshing but just more of the type reactionary crap thats been ozzing out of certain places for years. Someone much more concerned with inflicting the country with a certain interpretation rather than dividing the law in light of the constitution.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I know this will probably be the case seeing as how the less information she gives them, the less ammunition they have to deny her appointment. Like I said, I see it as nothing more than a waste of time dog and pony show. It just seems illogical for something of this nature to exist this way. Stonewalling should only work when one is accused. This should be more like a job interview and running the questions in circles should result in not allowing her appointment given the fact that she has no judicial experience.

I have to give the senators that are grilling her a huge amount of credit though, they're trapping her with every question and she's having to back pedal every 5 minutes so she doesn't contradict what she says and what she has done in the past.

Their overall tone and body language they are showing is very closed off. I think there's a good chance she won't get confirmed. They're all closing off on their body language and have slightly frustrated tones.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 



The press soundbites on radio had her doing some stick about getting her hair done. Shumer says she has a sense of humor. That it will help her fit in. It will be a wonder if our country lasts another 20 years without a major upheaval with these sorts of clowns running the show.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join