Supreme Court needs Kagan

The Supreme Court needs an intelligent, critical thinker. The too-often-mentioned lack of nominee Elena Kagan's judicial experience, when comparing her work history with that of at least two other sitting justices seems to be silly. Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Keeping The Berkshires Right!”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#1 May 20, 2010
Meanwhile, In Reality Land, You Do NOT Replace A Legacy
Judge on the Highest Court in the land with a person who
has never been a judge seated anywhere in the country,
least of all one who is against our military in any way.

Liberals please reply with hateful rhetoric now,,,,,
New world order

Francestown, NH

#2 May 20, 2010
Another nail in the coffin of the 2nd amendment, driven home by Obama
Brian in MA - not MN

United States

#3 May 20, 2010
studio5b wrote:
least of all one who is against our military in any way.
Liberals please reply with hateful rhetoric now,,,,,
No, no need for hateful rhetoric. I'll respond with facts. William Rehnquist, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court before John Roberts, was a Justice Department lawyer who had never been a judge when he was appointed by Richard Nixon to replace John Harlan in 1971. His actual title at Justice was Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel, making him the chief lawyer to Attorney General John Mitchell. Remember how that ended.

Kagan is not against our military. She was against on-campus recruitment of Harvard Law School students by entities that practice hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation. When overruled on that position by the Supreme Court, she relented and allowed military recruiters on campus. Her view was similar to that of many university leaders at the time. It's a real stretch to say she is against our military.

I believe she will be confirmed, even if Senators on the right want to stick to tired, discredited, talking points like "she has no experience as a judge, she is anti-military, etc. etc."

Studio - you want to see hateful rhetoric? Watch what people post in response to MY comments. I'll wait for your appraisal of that.

Good day.
Jeffrey Reel

Stamford, CT

#4 May 20, 2010
Brian in MA - not MN wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no need for hateful rhetoric. I'll respond with facts. William Rehnquist, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court before John Roberts, was a Justice Department lawyer who had never been a judge when he was appointed by Richard Nixon to replace John Harlan in 1971. His actual title at Justice was Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel, making him the chief lawyer to Attorney General John Mitchell. Remember how that ended.
Kagan is not against our military. She was against on-campus recruitment of Harvard Law School students by entities that practice hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation. When overruled on that position by the Supreme Court, she relented and allowed military recruiters on campus. Her view was similar to that of many university leaders at the time. It's a real stretch to say she is against our military.
I believe she will be confirmed, even if Senators on the right want to stick to tired, discredited, talking points like "she has no experience as a judge, she is anti-military, etc. etc."
Studio - you want to see hateful rhetoric? Watch what people post in response to MY comments. I'll wait for your appraisal of that.
Good day.
Thank you Brian: Studio believes "Liberals" only speak in "rhetoric" as if to dismiss all opinions out-of-hand. Sorrowful attitude, not to say closed minded.

Supreme Court Justices who were never sitting judges: 40.

They include: John Marshall, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Felix Franfurter, Louis Brandeis, Lewis Powell, John Jay, William O. Douglas, Byron White. Many of the most illustrious justices were not judges prior to their membership on the Court.
Prove me wrong

Albany, NY

#5 May 20, 2010
Bush tried to nominate a woman who was not a judge and remember how the liberals howled?
Brian in MA - not MN

United States

#6 May 20, 2010
Prove me wrong wrote:
Bush tried to nominate a woman who was not a judge and remember how the liberals howled?
They howled because she was unqualified, a belief shared by many conservatives on the far right who also howled, just as loudly. Meiers stepped down from the nomination because it was clear that these conservatives were not going to give her a pass, not because of criticism from liberals. Have a nice day.
Ian Scuffling

Santa Clara, CA

#7 May 20, 2010
Prove me wrong wrote:
Bush tried to nominate a woman who was not a judge and remember how the liberals howled?
If I recall correctly, I think everyone howled, it was a terrible nomination.

In fact, I think the right showed more outrage than the left.
Jeffrey Reel

Stamford, CT

#8 May 20, 2010
Prove me wrong wrote:
Bush tried to nominate a woman who was not a judge and remember how the liberals howled?
Bush's handler, Carl Rove -- who would never have allowed Harriet Meyers to be considered in the first place -- was temporarily side-tracked with subpoenas issued against him, so he took no part in the vetting process. The brilliant idea to nominate Bush's attorney was... Bush himself. It proved to be an embarrassment for all concerned: Bush, Meyers, and our Representatives of all political stripes. As soon as Senators began asking her questions concerning constitutional law, it became apparent to all that she was unqualified to sit on the bench, not because she had no previous experience as a judge but because she simply did not have the intellectual skills or knowledge. She quickly pulled herself out of the process.

Liberals didn't "howl" They, along with their Conservative counterparts, were embarrassed for her. Through no fault of her own, she was nominated by Bush.
George

Albany, NY

#10 May 20, 2010
Bud Wiser wrote:
We need as many "liberal" Jews (especially homosexuals) from Brooklyn, Bronx and Manhattan in SC of the USA. Zero experience and other non-significant things do not matter. These people are the best to represent American values and believes! Zig Heil Obummmma!!!! Insane!!!
Why does it matter how many Jews we have on the Supreme Court?
HAD ENOUGH

Pittsfield, MA

#11 May 20, 2010
Way to go commrad Marcia
Jeffrey Reel

Stamford, CT

#12 May 20, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it matter how many Jews we have on the Supreme Court?
George, as you have found out, there are certain people who contribute threads who are about as rational as a bed post. I'm not sure what kind of response you actually expect from that person except more of the same venom. My advice is to let them vent their anger and frustration, and simply do an end run around them in order to connect with others who are more stable.
professor

Cohoes, NY

#14 May 20, 2010
Hey reel, are you at your work station? You are out of these tread more than 3 minutes already! Working hard???
Ku - Ku!!!
Jeffrey Reel

Stamford, CT

#15 May 20, 2010
Bud Wiser wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we should follow the "liberal rules" of "affirmative action" - to discriminate white males. Would you mind to have SC look like ACORN staff? And what about diversity? Or it should work only one way in your view?
"to discriminate white males"

White males are going to confirm her, from both sides of the aisle.
She is the least controversial nomination in many, many years.
Her nomination is a non-issue. Stop trying to make it one.
down

Cohoes, NY

#16 May 20, 2010
bernstains promotes kagans and vise versa. Surprise!!!
Yoga Man

Allentown, PA

#17 May 20, 2010
Ms Bernstein

I believe that Ms. Kagan's appointment will add to our nation falling into an ideological abyss. Though this is Mr Obamas perogative.

I do agree her lack of judicial experience should be a minor point, if at all.

I do hope the Republicans act like Senator Obama did, when he said President Bush's nominees were qualified, but he didn't like their political views (something like that) so he was going to vote against them.

Let us use the 'Senator Obama standard' for his nominees now. I'll bet there are many on here who will not like that, but tough luck, filibuster her butt.
Sanity

Midland, TX

#18 May 20, 2010
The entire Obama Administration is "an ideological abyss."

[:-(

Have a good day.
Dick Nixon

Williamstown, MA

#19 May 20, 2010
studio5b wrote:
Meanwhile, In Reality Land, You Do NOT Replace A Legacy
Judge on the Highest Court in the land with a person who
has never been a judge seated anywhere in the country,
least of all one who is against our military in any way.
Liberals please reply with hateful rhetoric now,,,,,
You deserve nothing so you get nothing.
George

Albany, NY

#20 May 20, 2010
Bud Wiser wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we should follow the "liberal rules" of "affirmative action" - to discriminate white males. Would you mind to have SC look like ACORN staff? And what about diversity? Or it should work only one way in your view?
So, the entire supreme court needs to be white males in order for it to be diverse? Right now we've got 6 white males on the bench out of 9 seats. If a new justice were to be chosen solely on diversity, then a white male would not get the seat anyway, would they?

Don't pretend you care anything for diversity, you won't be happy unless the new justice is a white male. I'd ask you to look at her qualifications and make your stupid rant based on that, but I really thin that you are far too ignorant to do such a thing.
George

Albany, NY

#21 May 20, 2010
Jeffrey Reel wrote:
<quoted text>
George, as you have found out, there are certain people who contribute threads who are about as rational as a bed post. I'm not sure what kind of response you actually expect from that person except more of the same venom. My advice is to let them vent their anger and frustration, and simply do an end run around them in order to connect with others who are more stable.
I like to respond to him to see how bent out of shape he gets over the simplest questions. I also like the opportunity to make fun of him.
just me

Redmond, WA

#22 May 20, 2010
Hey look they put a spanish speaking-scum sucking--bottom feeding woman by the name of Sotamier in. Even after ALL her flawed rulings were exposed they garsiously opened the door for her---JUST MORE ILLEGALS GETTING A NOD FROM THE TOP OF THE CHAIN.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Canaan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Berkshire Farm to eliminate on grounds SECURITY 11 hr Lark Lancer 4
NY Who do you support for Governor in New York in ... (Oct '10) 21 hr henu 6,429
NY New York Primary Election Sept 14: Will you vote? (Sep '10) Sep 12 Stan Stasiak 16,786
NY Who do you support for U.S. Senate in New York ... (Oct '10) Sep 8 positronium 6,387
NY Who do you support for Comptroller in New York ... (Oct '10) Sep 2 Austrian Expat 439
NY Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in N... (Oct '10) Aug '14 dew4794 673
NY Who do you support for Attorney General in New ... (Oct '10) Aug '14 tbird Cat Controller 756
•••
•••
•••

Canaan Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Canaan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Canaan News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Canaan
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••