Kagan Hearings

TheMercenary • Jun 29, 2010 7:56 pm

They have been interesting. In the end I think she will be confirmed. NPR is doing a good one hour assessment each day at 7pm.

classicman • Jun 29, 2010 10:07 pm

Shes as much a shoe-in as they come. She has no rulings to object to since she has no judicial experience. Tough to argue anything when there is nothing, doncha think?

monster • Jun 29, 2010 11:37 pm

Too knackered to photoshop, please take Klingon Herrings clone as read.

kthxbai

Happy Monkey • Jun 30, 2010 12:21 pm

classicman;667475 wrote:
Shes as much a shoe-in as they come. She has no rulings to object to since she has no judicial experience. Tough to argue anything when there is nothing, doncha think?

They're so desperate to attack somebody that they're badmouthing Thurgood Marshall.

classicman • Jun 30, 2010 1:45 pm

HAHAHHA - Are they really?? What a complete waste of time. Don't they have something better to do?

Gravdigr • Jun 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Kagan's a man, baby.

Pie • Jun 30, 2010 9:15 pm

At least she has more balls than you, digr... :right:

classicman • Jun 30, 2010 9:23 pm

"You wouldn't answer anything," Specter complained to Kagan after she refused for perhaps the 100th time over the past two days to "grade" past cases or to offer her perspective on the validity of certain legal principles and standards.
When Kagan deflected a question by saying she'd first have to read briefs for background, Specter responded: "Why do you have to read briefs on a standard" of legislative interpretation, his voice rising with anger. "This is not a specific case. This is a standard as to whether the rational basis is sufficient or whether you are going to have congruence and proportionality." The answer is: she didn't have to read any briefs. She knows precisely what standard she thinks ought to be applied. She just doesn't want to say.

Gravdigr • Jul 2, 2010 2:01 pm

Pie;667713 wrote:
At least she has more balls than you, digr... :right:

Now, see you've taken a perfectly innocuous statement full of humor (and directed at no one), and returned with a personalized insult. Why would you do that? That makes at least a couple of times you've went out of your way to direct an insult at me personally. What the fuck? What did I do to you?

TheMercenary • Jul 4, 2010 9:02 am

I use to think it was a bad idea for someone with no bench experience to make it to the SCOTUS but I heard that some 44 previous Justices were in the same boat.

TheMercenary • Jul 4, 2010 1:05 pm

Well stated on the opposition side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5w-E55fZ1c&feature=player_embedded

FTR, I support "Don't ask, Don't tell". But I do not support the discharge of any member of the services because they have different sexual prefernces. We have lost way to many well qualified and well trained individuals for that stupidity.

Happy Monkey • Jul 6, 2010 1:37 pm

Huh? "Don't ask, don't tell" IS discharging any member of the services whose homosexual preferences become known.

classicman • Jul 6, 2010 2:29 pm

I'm still not sure why they didn't call it STFU instead of DADT?

Sundae • Jul 6, 2010 2:37 pm

Don't understand a word, sorry.

TheMercenary • Jul 8, 2010 10:29 am

Happy Monkey;668945 wrote:
Huh? "Don't ask, don't tell" IS discharging any member of the services whose homosexual preferences become known.

I just mean the general policy of "I could give a rats ass about your sexual preference", so I won't ask you and you don't need to tell me. Other than that, the process of discharging someone because of sexual preference needs to stop, we are wasting manpower and money. If you are caught in violation of general UCMJ you should be punished, regardless of sexual orientation, not because of it.

Lamplighter • Aug 7, 2010 2:04 pm

Kagan was sworn in this morning, and Judge Roberts got the oath right this time... he read it from an old fashion index card.

Spexxvet • Aug 9, 2010 5:49 pm

NOW she should answer all the questions congress asked, but her answers should all be Lenin quotes, bwaaaaa.