Kagan argued AGAINST 2A

[Solus]

I think we should fight any appointment as vigorously as we can, but this one will be a BHO appointment.

Better than we force the decision until after the Nov. election and seating of the newly elected to force a nomination more to our liking.

It will still be a BHO appointment...but I'll listen to what they have to say before I decided how much I don't like them.

[fightingquaker13]

Why are you willing to even discuss the possibility of this woman appointment? That is what I don't understand. Gotta agree with Eric on this one, The woman has no experience. That alone should disqualify her. I realize that the one appointing her doesn't have any either, but..... This is why I will not listen to their side of the story, as you put it. I don't hire someone who has no experience, no track record, and who I cannot fire to a position where their decisions cannot be challenged. That's not a debate, that's called having your head in the sand.

Pretty much how we got here in the first place.

I tend to agree with you (and oddly enough Eric) in that I don't think she should get the nod for this position. The lack of jusdicial experience isn't the issue. Rhenquist didn't have any, and he was one of the most effective justices in the last 50 years. I didn't like him either, but he did the job. My problem with Kagan is that she falls into a very old trap for government employed lawyers. They start to think of themselves as advocates for the state, not the Constitution. They make excuses for government power and the individual is forgotten. Doesn't matter about ther politics. Alito and Rhenquist were the same way. The only difference is what sorts of government power they will defend. They still side with the state.  All I was trying to say with Kagan is that I want to hear her, under oath, tell me about how she views the Constitution. Not specific issues, just her general view. I doubt it will change my mind, but I think that the woman should have the chance to speak.
Peace
FQ13

[ericire12]

The lack of jusdicial experience isn't the issue. Rhenquist didn't have any, and he was one of the most effective justices in the last 50 years. FQ13

Thats poor logic...... Because Rhenquist was an "effective justice" then Kagan will be fair and impartial

There is no coorelation there. The fact is, if you believe that she will dish out blind justice then you are basing that 100% on faith - there is nothing to point to in her past that proves that she will act accordingly. When there is no substancial proof in her history (or anyone's) that she will be fair and just it should be an automatic disqualifier.

Lets remember that this is a lifetime appointment, with no way whatsoever to hold her accountable. 






*Read the entire thing again, and this time read for content.

[fightingquaker13]

Thats poor logic...... Because Rhenquist was an "effective justice" then Kagan will be fair and impartial

There is no coorelation there. The fact is, if you believe that she will dish out blind justice then you are basing that 100% on faith - there is nothing to point to in her past that proves that she will act accordingly. When there is no substancial proof in her history (or anyone's) that she will be fair and just it should be an automatic disqualifier.

Lets remember that this is a lifetime appointment, with no way whatsoever to hold her accountable.  


*Read the entire thing again, and this time read for content.

Having read for context, and not disagreeing with you, I will say two things. Judicial experience has never been a prerequisite fo the court. Warren Burger and Roger Taney along with William Rhenquist just to name three of the most effective Chief Justices we have had (though not ones I always agreed with), had no judicial experience. Its not a DQ by any stretch of the imagination and never has been. As far as dishing out blind justice? No one ever will,  or else they'd just be swinging about wildly. We all have a basic ideoglical bias. Something that roots us and gives us a perspective. You have yours and I have mine. A judge should and must be able to overcome it. Its like I tell my tell students. I am not neutral, but I am objective. Neutrality is a pipe dream. Objectivity is a job requirement. Does she have it? Damned if I know. Thats why I want to hear from her. As far as that basic world view that shapes her? I don't like what I've seen so far and am leaning against based on that. Her view of the BOR is not mine from what I have heard FROM OTHERS. I want to hear her view. We're not arguining here Eric, I am just withholding final judgement until I hear the woman explain her view of government power vs individual liberty. As I have said, if I had to vote now, it would be no. I don't have to though. I can wait till I hear her speak.
FQ13

[tt11758]

Having read for context, and not disagreeing with you, I will say two things. Judicial experience has never been a prerequisite fo the court. Warren Burger and Roger Taney along with William Rhenquist just to name three of the most effective Chief Justices we have had (though not ones I always agreed with), had no judicial experience. Its not a DQ by any stretch of the imagination and never has been. As far as dishing out blind justice? No one ever will,  or else they'd just be swinging about wildly. We all have a basic ideoglical bias. Something that roots us and gives us a perspective. You have yours and I have mine. A judge should and must be able to overcome it. Its like I tell my tell students. I am not neutral, but I am objective. Neutrality is a pipe dream. Objectivity is a job requirement. Does she have it? Damned if I know. Thats why I want to hear from her. As far as that basic world view that shapes her? I don't like what I've seen so far and am leaning against based on that. Her view of the BOR is not mine from what I have heard FROM OTHERS. I want to hear her view. We're not arguining here Eric, I am just withholding final judgement until I hear the woman explain her view of government power vs individual liberty. As I have said, if I had to vote now, it would be no. I don't have to though. I can wait till I hear her speak.
FQ13

While I will grant you that more than one previous SCOTUS Justice has been appointed and confirmed without Judicial experience, the fact that it has never been a disqualifier does not change the fact that, at least in my opinion, it SHOULD be.  As has been pointed out to you in this thread ad nauseum this is a position of SUPREME power.  This is a lifetime appointment.  She can SAY any damn thing she wants at the confirmation hearings, but without a paper trail to back it up, her words ain't worth the paper they're NOT written on.  I will further say that any Senator who votes yes on the conrfirmation of a SCOTUS Justice nominee with no Judicial experience should be impeached for violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  Because in voting yes, they have violated not only the spirit, but the letter of that oath.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

How does it violate the letter of the Constitution ? It doesn't say SCOTUS appointees need to be judges.

[Pathfinder]

My take on the issue.

She is bho's nominee. She is a carbon copy of bho in thought, political leanings and associations.

She will - as have many of the nominees - shuck and jive and give bland, non-specific responses even to direct questions, responses such as "I don't pre-judge cases" and "I support the Constitution".

In her case, since she is a leftist and a statist, IMHO, she will be lying as she fully intends to use the law to justify any opinion she writes in support of her political viewpoints and desires. And I seriously doubt she supports the Constitution in the same way we believe in it as a foundational (i.e., not "evolving" document). She will interpret it to mean things that were never written, and would make the Founding Fathers spin in the their graves.

If you don't learn from history . . . .

[tt11758]

How does it violate the letter of the Constitution ? It doesn't say SCOTUS appointees need to be judges.

I said it violates the OATH OF OFFICE, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  Inasmuch as this nominee has NO Judicial experience for those responsible for confirming her to review and get a TRUE idea of how she could be expected to behave as a Justice, but DO have evidence of things she has been quoted as saying about such matters as two  of the 10 Amendments comprising the Bill Of Rights, voting to confirm would violate that oath to preserve, protect and defend.

I firmly believe that the Constitution has been lost, trampled, and shred by our government in recent history, and the confirmation of this candidate would take us several steps further down the road leading AWAY from the country our forefathers had in mind.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary. 

[tombogan03884]

From TT's Post.
"I said it violates the OATH OF OFFICE,"

My mistake, I misunderstood your first post.

[tt11758]

From TT's Post.
"I said it violates the OATH OF OFFICE,"

My mistake, I misunderstood your first post.

Understandable.  When I'm on a rant I tend to babble like a frickin idiot.