WisconsinBillzFan Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Of the list of people who Obama has nominated, she is the most qualified. I dont think she is. I think Obama picked her because of her lack of a paper trail but he is assured that she's a hardline leftist in tune with his ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 By woman you probably mean Jew. Pardon? What's the insinuation? By woman, I mean WOMAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Oh ok. Who else on his listis more qualified? Thats the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Oh, should we change the laws so the president cannot nominate justices anymore? Ok, I'm with you on this, it sounds splendid. No. Im just saying that a person with a strict interpretation of the constitution like we need would never be on obamas short list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 She's 50 years old. She'll be on the bench at least 20 years. This is a fight worth fighting. If we allow Obama to pack the courts with judicial activists our children will be the ones to suffer. Like you have any stake in not getting her approved. God you're a dolt. Do you not know how things work? Dont answer that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Pardon? What's the insinuation? By woman, I mean WOMAN. Okay, I will bite, what is wrong with another woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 She's 50 years old. She'll be on the bench at least 20 years. This is a fight worth fighting. If we allow Obama to pack the courts with judicial activists our children will be the ones to suffer. And Bush didn't pack the court with judicial activists? The only difference is that you agree with their activist decisions, so in your view they're not activists, they're mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Okay, I will bite, what is wrong with another woman? I think there's enough representation from women on the court already. I'm not a big fan of the Supreme Court as it is -- they wield too much power with no accountability to the people of this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I think there's enough representation from women on the court already. I'm not a big fan of the Supreme Court as it is -- they wield too much power with no accountability to the people of this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Pardon? What's the insinuation? By woman, I mean WOMAN. I was pulling your chain just because WBF is in this thread. Enough women on the court already? WTF are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 No. Im just saying that a person with a strict interpretation of the constitution like we need would never be on obamas short list. So just to be clear, you'd be against anyone Obama nominated simply because Obama nominated them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 So just to be clear, you'd be against anyone Obama a black guy nominated simply because Obama a black guy nominated them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 I think there's enough representation from women on the court already. 2 of 9 is enough, and 3 of 9 is too much? It's too much for 51% of the population to be represented by 33% of the court? If that's too much, where do the 6 white males out of 9 rank on the representation scale? Is Clarence Thomas "enough representation" for African Americans? Or could we just once go on the merits of the individual? I've yet to see much here on what of her judicial and legal acumen makes her either a good choice or a bad choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 I think you should be made aware it was designed this way by the founding fathers. They intentionally built the system so justices would not have to pander for votes. It was a brilliant move and it's part of what our country is built on. .. are you from Mexico? Let me see your papers. We seem to do well enough with judges in lower courts running for election. Why not the SC? AS it is, they reign in virtual fiefdoms for as long as they like. At least slap term limits on them...oh wait, you can't. They'll just overturn the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 This is enough for me - The Gray Lady doesn't like the nomination In a 2001 Harvard Law Review article, Ms. Kagan defended a robust assertion of presidential power unless specifically limited by Congress — albeit in the service of “progressive goals” on the domestic front. She told the Senate last year that she agreed the government has the right to indefinitely detain enemy combatants captured around the world. As Mr. Obama’s solicitor general, she has supported his administration’s positions, little changed since the Bush administration, on the use of military force against Al Qaeda, the habeas corpus rights of military detainees and the state secrets privilege. (In 2005, however, she did oppose a Republican attempt to remove judicial review from the cases of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 So just to be clear, you'd be against anyone Obama nominated simply because Obama nominated them. No, because Obama isn't even considering judges like Roberts and Alito who actually understand the constitution and he's shoving activists like Sotomayor and Kagan down america's throat. And not to mention that 31 of Kagans hires at Harvard were white. Imagine if Roberts/Alito had done the same? Im sure the mainstream media would have been all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 We seem to do well enough with judges in lower courts running for election. Why not the SC? AS it is, they reign in virtual fiefdoms for as long as they like. At least slap term limits on them...oh wait, you can't. They'll just overturn the idea. Judges running for election is a good idea? Are you serious? Gaaaah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 No, because Obama isn't even considering judges like Roberts and Alito who actually understand the constitution and he's shoving activists like Sotomayor and Kagan down america's throat. And not to mention that 31 of Kagans hires at Harvard were white. Imagine if Roberts/Alito had done the same? Im sure the mainstream media would have been all over it. Why would we be surprised that Obama is making these selections? When you look at how he's governed, it's easy to see that his comments over the last 10 years about social and economic justice were not just passing comments. This is who he is to the core. The cries of marxist and socialist tendencies are well founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 No, because Obama isn't even considering judges like Roberts and Alito who actually understand the constitution and he's shoving activists like Sotomayor and Kagan down america's throat. And not to mention that 31 of Kagans hires at Harvard were white. Imagine if Roberts/Alito had done the same? Im sure the mainstream media would have been all over it. She's an activist justice? You base this on...? What she's proven is that she's one of the brightest legal minds in the US--just like Roberts was when he was voted in. And frankly, there are activist judges on the right and left. We're still waiting for a second reason why you don't like her. So far, you're single reason for why she's "disgusting" is that she defends gay rights on a college campus! What a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 No, because Obama isn't even considering judges like Roberts and Alito who actually understand the constitution and he's shoving activists like Sotomayor and Kagan down america's throat. And not to mention that 31 of Kagans hires at Harvard were white. Imagine if Roberts/Alito had done the same? Im sure the mainstream media would have been all over it. Can you explain how Roberts and Alito "understand the Constitution" while Sotomayor and Kagan don't? What am I asking? Of course you can't. You don't even understand the Constitution yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts