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.

 

Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat


www.youtube.com

n. Coburn pressed Kagan today on the limits of the government's power under the commerce clause.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I think both sides of these confirmation hearings make fools out of themselves each time we go through this, but that she was unable to not readily admit that the Commerce Clause does not give the government the right to dictate what we can and can not eat is troubling to say the least. Obviously the come back from Cobourn was that if the commerce clause did not allow the government to dictate what we could eat, hence force us to purchase a specific type of food, how could the Commerce Clause be used to dictate that we purchase health insurance?

It was a very clever question, and clearly she did not have the ability to think quickly enough on her feet to give an answer. This parsing is obviously due to the way these folks have been treated in the past where every statement is taken out of context.

Kagan will get confirmed unless she really steps in it and that is a shame, as nobody with out judicial experience should sit on the Supreme Court.

I can not imagine a conservative nominee who suggested that books be banned not already shot down in flames in the first day of the confirmation hearings.

Clearly the country can do better than this.

www.youtube.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I for one am getting tired of the relentless attacks on Ms Kagan
As a Jew, a progressive/socialist and a proud member of the LGBT community I wholeheartedly support Ms Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court..

Finally, a voice in the SCOTUS to represent MY interests and the interests of fellow Jews, homosexuals and progressives So what if Elena has no judicial experience! What a welcome change it will be to have a genuinely liberal voice as a member of The Court, unhindered by the stuffy traditions of hidebound jurisprudence.

I'm beginning to think that the constant nit-picking attacks on Ms Kagan in truth reflect the anti-semitism and homophobia of her critics...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionel
reply to post by dolphinfan
 



I'm beginning to think that the constant nit-picking attacks on Ms Kagan in truth reflect the anti-semitism and homophobia of her critics...







You did not just play the anti-semite card...

Surely, You must realize that when you do that you ruin it for all of us.

And then in incidents of genuine antisemitism it cannot be used because everyone is so damn used to it being pulled out for the most trivial little things - like what you just did.


Edit: Sometimes I think people who needlessly whip out the anti-semite/holocaust combocard are actually anti-semites in diguise. What better way to ruin things for jews than to pretend to be one and then give them a bad name...

Now, I'm not saying that's what you are doing here



[edit on 30-6-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionel
 


Why every time that someone who believes differently than others, does it instantly become anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-'insert minority here'.

Please.. We're sick to death of being called racist. I hope you're getting good use out of it for now, because everyone has cried wolf so many times that it's time of effectiveness is OVER.

It's their JOB to attack her. It's their ONLY way to figure out what the hell she stands for.

As far as having no experience, you consider it a breath of fresh air. Well I implore you to go to a surgeon and take the same stance. After all, experience means nothing right?

I believe a persons worth to be based on their actions regardless of color/race/creed. However, if I'm going to be constantly called a racist anti-Semitic whenever my personal opinions do not follow anothers, then what reasons do I have not to act like a racist? I'm getting called one anyway right?

How about we do this. We follow the constitution. Uphold the constitution. Appoint those who have the intentions of holding up the constitution. And deport those who try to undermine it.

If this country is not supporting your interest, please feel free to apply for citizenship elsewhere. This country has never been, nor will it ever be a socialist country. There are too many people willing to die for this country to remain a free Republic.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionel
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I for one am getting tired of the relentless attacks on Ms Kagan
As a Jew, a progressive/socialist and a proud member of the LGBT community I wholeheartedly support Ms Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court..

Finally, a voice in the SCOTUS to represent MY interests and the interests of fellow Jews, homosexuals and progressives So what if Elena has no judicial experience! What a welcome change it will be to have a genuinely liberal voice as a member of The Court, unhindered by the stuffy traditions of hidebound jurisprudence.

I'm beginning to think that the constant nit-picking attacks on Ms Kagan in truth reflect the anti-semitism and homophobia of her critics...





so you don't care what Kegan's views/opinions(that can effect all americans) are just that she's jewish? and anyone who questions those opinions must be a nazi??...wow



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Back on subject now that the shill has been chastised..

I believe she side stepped it because it will be a major point of contention in the immediate future.

As soon as it comes to light the implications behind the new HCRB, it will be up to the SC to determine it's constitutionality. What we eat is a major part in the outlines of the actual bill. We will have annual physicals in which our BMI - how much fat we have - will be recorded and 'proper preventative measures' will be 'established'.

There's a LOT of focus on dietary matters in this bill. Menus and vending machines will have to display nutritional information. The problem here is that we all know this stuff is high in calories and don't care because we like it. The moment it's realized that these measures won't curb anything, look for more legislation to punish those who eat guilty pleasures.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
pretty soon people will be getting arrested for candy trafficking lol.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


Maybe they will tax you for any Addition to your BMI....

Like a fat carbon tax, fat people do way better farts...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by virgom129
 


You joke about this, but I see it as a real possibility in the years to come. After all, me being fat will cost them more in health care later on, so to make up for the costs, they'll tax me more now for being unhealthy.

The sad part is that I'm not fat and I quit smoking for 3 months. I've already went back to smoking because they're going to tell us we can't. I enjoy being relatively stout with low BMI. I'm afraid though that the day they try and tell me I have to be skinny will be the day I purposely balloon up.. =P

[edit on 30-6-2010 by PayMeh]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
That way when the government tells taxpayers to eat shjt, they will know they aren't kidding.

hot fresh & stinking straight from the congressional men's room.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionel
 


That is really funny! You should consider a career in comedy.
Think about what you are saying. Your views (while valid) are of a personal
nature, represent an agenda and bias. This candidate for The Supreme Court
of The United States of America, is Supposed to be a Qualified Candidate who
will Interpret the Laws and Constitution of The United States of America in
an UNBIASED method of approach. Furthermore , by qualified candidate,
I mean a U.S. Citizen sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend such from
enemies both foreign and Domestic. There is no room for Dual-Citizenship
Here. Dual Citizenship opens the doorways to foreign influence. If you have ANY respect for the law of The United States of America, or even value the
existence of LAW in general, you most certainly will agree. Particularly if
you can put your personal goals aside.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


Excellent Argument. Logical, Unemotional, but most Importantly, Fair.

Enough of Foreign Influence and Agendas that push aside the true NATURE

and RULE OF LAW of The United States of America, and then attempt to

undermine the will of the MAJORITY OF TAX PAYING CITIZENS.

Call a Spade a Spade, and in this case it is a BIASED FOREIGN AGENDA.

No More, No Less, so Don't even waste our time trying to take this matter

out of context. Treason is Betrayal make no mistake about it.







[edit on 30-6-2010 by Wildmanimal]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionel
 


So wait, the rest of Americas opinions do not matter as long as you are happy?


And anyone who disagrees is a anti-semite and/or a homophobe? I am not one who believes there is an agenda from such groups but it is thought processes like this that do cause me to wonder.


I personally think she is unfit because of her far reaching ideas that might step into my personal freedoms. If she proves to be unfit she should not be allowed to serve regardless of her being a jew or gay or purple for that matter. What she is in her personal life should not influence the decision, her views though and her willingness to follow the Constitution should be the only factor that matters.


Raist



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
What's up with her quote at 0:40 "I think it would be wrong for courts to strike down laws that...that they think are... are...uh... senseless because they're senseless."?

That's exactly what's wrong with Washington now. They sit around conjuring up ridiculous laws and it takes years for these laws to be heard by the SCOTUS to determine if they're constitutional or not.

Besides, what kind of question is that to ask someone who looks like they dine at McDonalds six times a day?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionel
 


Is this your skit for "Comic Last Standing"?

If so, I doubt you'll make it to the final.

One of the issues that certainly happens today is the "ist" quotient.

You put someone up for office who is a member of a ton of groups and the more likely others are to be branded some form of "ist" or "ic"

- this person is gay - one "ic" (homophobic") Thats OK, score of 1
- this person is gay and black - one "ic" and one "ist" Pretty good, score of two plus a bonus point for being members of two hard done by groups, total = 3

Pretty soon we have gay, black dwarfs in wheelchairs being nominated for everything



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I'm gay and I don't want this woman in the Supreme Court either.

But as always I'll plan for the worst. There is no way in hell they are forcing any of the number of things they want to on me though (foods, medicines, vaccines). I'm one of those who will offer lead instead.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionel
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I for one am getting tired of the relentless attacks on Ms Kagan
As a Jew, a progressive/socialist and a proud member of the LGBT community I wholeheartedly support Ms Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court..

Finally, a voice in the SCOTUS to represent MY interests and the interests of fellow Jews, homosexuals and progressives So what if Elena has no judicial experience! What a welcome change it will be to have a genuinely liberal voice as a member of The Court, unhindered by the stuffy traditions of hidebound jurisprudence.

I'm beginning to think that the constant nit-picking attacks on Ms Kagan in truth reflect the anti-semitism and homophobia of her critics...





Yeah, because the interests of the Jewish and socialist communities aren't heard at all in Washington DC right now.


And a genuinely liberal voice on the SC! Finally! Because we really need yet another SC judge who makes every single decision right down the party lines!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
my biggest problem with kagan is the woman fought to kick militray recruiters off school campuses....

making a joke about stupid laws told me everything i needed to know. if you watched any of the confirmation hearing you know what that means.

but then agian thats my biggest problem with all liberals they crap on the military every chance they get...


that recently ruling 5-4 in favor of the chicago gun ban makes the biggest point.

what were those other 4 justices thinking

its a scary thought that those supreme court justices have so much power.

its a scary thought that they are all lifetime appointments.

there is so much crap that needs to change in this country and taking the poliitcs out of the supreme court is the first.

there only job there is to uphold the constitution- you know that pesky little thing that liberals and progressives hate so much.

the us constitution is never a republican or democrat thing its first and last line of defense we the citizen have.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


No the biggest problem with her is that she is not meant to be a judge (especially a SC judge). She clearly though is meant to be in politics is seeing her responses in the hearing.

As a judge she is a disgusting and profane example in my opinion simply because she obviously has no idea as to the point of the Supreme Court. It seems she thinks it is just another means to reach out with her own goals, ideas, and agenda. I would agree that to a point this is difficult for any person to do, but in some cases you can just see it oozing off of them and she is one of those cases.

I could care less what her personal life is like. Why they even bring that stuff into the argument is stupid. It is a dividing factor that people will use to choose sides regardless of qualifications.


Raist




top topics



 
2

log in

join