Obama to nominate Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS

[Sandy Eggo]

I didn't say it offended me. I think it's laughable how you ignore everything except those sources directly in line w/what you want to believe. I'd be willing to bet there are well written statements out there by people who endorse her appointment. Yet, you won't consider those.

BTW, do you think he was upholding his own policy preferences when he assisted with the Iran Contra coverup?

[Henry Hawk]

I didn't say it offended me. I think it's laughable how you ignore everything except those sources directly in line w/what you want to believe. I'd be willing to bet there are well written statements out there by people who endorse her appointment. Yet, you won't consider those.

BTW, do you think he was upholding his own policy preferences when he assisted with the Iran Contra coverup?

My job as the resident conservative is to show you MY view of things and WHY I choose to believe in what I beliven in........to get YOUR view of things, all one has to do is turn on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS or read the NY Times..........and btw, this is NOT about anything but the new SCOTUS nominee.....start a new thread if you want.

[Henry Hawk]

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. . .

there has only been one in the last 40 years, so the process of vetting is probably no different than it was back in those days..the point is made that SINCE she has NO judical experience ( as a JUDGE) then a thorough vetting is not at all out of line.........but please, knock off the sourgrapes crap, the maturity level of discussion is becoming like a second grade recess.....

that seems to be the best response I get anymore......."sour grapes"...

[Palehorse]

there has only been one in the last 40 years, so the process of vetting is probably no different than it was back in those days..the point is made that SINCE she has NO judical experience ( as a JUDGE) then a thorough vetting is not at all out of line.........but please, knock off the sourgrapes crap, the maturity level of discussion is becoming like a second grade recess.....

that seems to be the best response I get anymore......."sour grapes"...

Sad how it is increasingly difficult to get any kind of response from you anymore, that doesn't attempt in some way to deride and degrade anything that doesn't fall into goose-step with current political propaganda.

[Henry Hawk]

Sad how it is increasingly difficult to get any kind of response from you anymore, that doesn't attempt in some way to deride and degrade anything that doesn't fall into goose-step with current political propaganda.

I think I have been very fair, I hav not said anything negative about this lady, I have been attacked for posting a very well written peice about this person...I am merely defending myself....I honesty find it sad, where everything that does not say "obama is great"...you guys find offensive.....the fact is, his polls show, that he is NOT the all mighty popular POTUS, that many thought he was going to be.....it seems to me, that it is YOU guys who are falling for the political propaganda, and you just can't see it, because of you biasness....(is that a word?)

[Palehorse]

I think I have been very fair, I hav not said anything negative about this lady, I have been attacked for posting a very well written peice about this person...I am merely defending myself....I honesty find it sad, where everything that does not say "obama is great"...you guys find offensive.....the fact is, his polls show, that he is NOT the all mighty popular POTUS, that many thought he was going to be.....it seems to me, that it is YOU guys who are falling for the political propaganda, and you just can't see it, because of you biasness....(is that a word?)

Lincoln wasn't popular either. . .yet history indicates he is among our greatest presidents. . . In fact, the division within this country during Lincoln's time is remarkably similar to that which exists today. . .

[Henry Hawk]

Lincoln wasn't popular either. . .yet history indicates he is among our greatest presidents. . . In fact, the division within this country during Lincoln's time is remarkably similar to that which exists today. . .

you mean like Bush and his tenure?

[Henry Hawk]

 

  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.

In case you missed this from earlier...I will post it again...


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.

Oh, there is more if you like to see them...

[Sandy Eggo]

Fair = Objective.

Objective you are not, Henry. You said so yourself.

[Henry Hawk]

Fair = Objective.

Objective you are not, Henry. You said so yourself.

and YOU guys HAVE?....

[Palehorse]

you mean like Bush and his tenure?

Umm. . .

.........and btw, this is NOT about anything but the new SCOTUS nominee.....start a new thread if you want.

[Henry Hawk]

 

Umm. . .

nice save...

but typical...

[Palehorse]

Don't like your own medicine? Now there's a friggin surprise!

[Sandy Eggo]

Yes

[The Troll]

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.

  Just who is Ed Meese.  Holder of the Ronald Reagan Chair in public policy at the Heritage Foundation.

   Distinguished Fellow at the Herbert Hoover Institution.

   Now here in one person you would want to believe on a Democratic nomination for the Supreme Court.