Obama to nominate Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS

[Henry Hawk]

Due to the fact I do not trust anything that Obama or the democrats do or their motives, I am very reserved at this point to make any judgement about this potential appointment to the SCOTUS....let the vetting process begin.

[Sandy Eggo]

No merit, just narrowmindedness.

[Henry Hawk]

No merit, just narrowmindedness.

whatever..   I really don't give a shit, He could have nominated Ronald McDonald, and you guys would have been "thrilled"...........so, don't try to tell me WHO is narrowminded...

[The Troll]

whatever..   I really don't give a shit, He could have nominated Ronald McDonald, and you guys would have been "thrilled"...........so, don't try to tell me WHO is narrowminded...

  Henry, why don't you enlighten us with your intelligence and tell us 5 things that Obama has done to lose you trust.  With #1 being the worse.

  It would be very interesting to me, because after you voting for George W. and Prick Cheney twice and the for the dumb old man McCain and dumbass and stupid Sara Palin.  Obama is a breath of fresh air.

[Sandy Eggo]

Nice Henry

The point is that you give Republicans a pass regardless of what crime they commit and wait until you can pin one on a Democrat.

You seem to care more for your own blind partisanship than the well-being of our country or its leaders.

[Sandy Eggo]

Oh and he's not reserving judgment, he's waiting for Faux to tell him what to think.

[Henry Hawk]

Oh and he's not reserving judgment, he's waiting for Faux to tell him what to think.

I can say this, FoxNews is the only source that is remotely honest about issues....all of the others are so biased it has become a joke.

Sandy, you are so biased and anti conservative, and have made your self believe that YOU are being intellectually honest...when it is so blatantly obvious that you could not be open minded about anything but a liberal issue....

I have not said anything bad about this lady, other than I don't trust Obama or his croanies...

Troll, I have pleanty of reasons WHY I dont' like him....

for one, he is a liar!

"I'll get rid of earmarks"...LIE

"Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus."...LIE...we passed the stimulus and it is 10%

"I am immediately instituting PayGo "Pay as you go""......BIG LIE...

"Recovery Act will save or create jobs"....WHEN?..OH, another LIE

"Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year"....LIE

"We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages."  ...the foreclosure rate has shot up the last quarter of 09....months AFTER he passed the bill..a LIE!

"Health Care deals will be covered on C-span"......okay.. ..LIE

he said he would "Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009"...on his campaign trail....well, again just another big LIE!!

and that along with the massive spending ...well, I simply don't LIKE HIM!!!  do I need to give MORE reasons?

I have no problem with WHY you don't like W or Cheney.............they are NOT my hero's...they made their mistakes...but, I would take them OVER what is happening today...in a heart beat.

[Sandy Eggo]

You're not qualified to assess intellectual honesty and even if you were, your bias prevents it from being worth a damn.

While we're being honest, sources?

[Palehorse]

Let's just hope the confirmation hearings don't rip her to shreds and make mountains out of molehills in order to get back at the POTUS. . .

. . .

I must be a psychic! 

[Henry Hawk]

I must be a psychic! 

hey, I have NOT said one bad word about this lady, she may very well be a great justice....I am merely expanding on my dislike for democrats and the current potus....like i said, let the vetting begin, and if she passes the muster...then there will be no problems....

and it REALLY doesn't take a "psychic" to figure that she is going to get a rough time.....can you name one that has NOT had a rough process of becoming a justice in recent years?

[Henry Hawk]

U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese issued the following statement yesterday:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan's complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.
Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the "despised and disadvantaged." The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama's frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as "despised and disadvantaged." The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

[Sandy Eggo]

Oh good, a nice biased opinion for you to hang your hat on. I was beginning to worry that you wouldn't find one. Nevermind the "sour-grapes" sound of it. It mirrors what you want. That's the important thing.

[Henry Hawk]

Oh good, a nice biased opinion for you to hang your hat on. I was beginning to worry that you wouldn't find one. Nevermind the "sour-grapes" sound of it. It mirrors what you want. That's the important thing.

that is really gettin old Sandy, and your buddies!!....it happens that it is a very well written statement that explains the conservative view of this nominiation...it was not mean, nor was it claiming anything but what it is.  It applies to whomever want's to sit in that seat.....it sounds to me like you won't be happy until all those on the right just get all excited about anything that the left want's to do.....that is not the way it works Sandy, and it was no different when the repubs was in charge.....I think it helps with the balance of powers.....we gotta keep it from going too far to the left, you guys gotta keep it from going to far to the right.

[Henry Hawk]

Tell me Sandy, what was said that offends you in that statement?

[Palehorse]

For me personally, it is the front loaded bias surrounding a requirement that an individual had served as a judge prior to appointment. That is plain hogwash and alarmist propaganda! MANY of the SCOTUS members were NEVER judges prior to serving!  40 of them to be exact. . .

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

So there goes that argument. . .

Then there's the sour grapes aftertaste of it all. . .