May 10, 2010
— DrewM Announcement is being made now.
Obama went on about Kagan's alleged commitment to diversity of thought. Then why exactly did she ban the military from recruiting at Harvard Law? This great champion of justice knowingly and willfully violated the Solomon Amendment.
So much for diversity of thought and commitment to law.
Obama also said the law is more than words on paper. A truly scary thought from a President.
Dave Weigel, the Washington Post's blogger focusing on that rare species of conservatives Tweets...
GOP approach to Kagan = otherize her as a troop-hating, gay-loving elitist who wrote a thesis about socialism, right?
That, along with her lack of experience and then they will vote yes (barring some sort of bombshell).
The 'lack of experience' line of attack will likely be met by Democrats with, "and the last justice without judicial experience was William Rehnquist".
Original Post:
The promised leak has been delivered.
Not that big of a surprise but looks like it's about to made official.
President Barack Obama will nominate U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, NBC NewsÂ’ Pete Williams reported late Sunday night.Kagan, 50, served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. Obama nominated her to serve in her current post as solicitor general early in 2009, and she won Senate confirmation by a vote of 61-31. She is the first woman to serve as solicitor general of the United States.
Initial thoughts...
The GOP should make a fight out of it just because the days of 90+ votes are gone thanks to the Democrats.
Baring some sort of unexpected revelation, there won't be a filibuster. She'll get beat up a bit over not allowing the military to recruit at Harvard Law during her tenure as Dean but it won't amount to much.
Kagan will play of the Sotomayor game of pretending to be a moderate who only interprets the Constitution when she'll be a run of the mill liberal vote on the Court.
The left will be disappointed that they didn't get an unabashed, in your face liberal. They want their own version of Scalia. Kagan ain't it.
Kagan is the safe pick. I really thought Obama was going to go for it here. What did he have to lose?
There's no guarantee he'll get another nomination, though you'd have to think Ginsburg might think about retiring next year, especially if Obama is still in bad shape. If he gets it next year, it will be with a smaller Senate majority and with some scared Senate Democrats. Will Obama want a fight then to rally the base going into '12?
Posted by: DrewM at
06:15 AM
| Comments (471)
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: typical liberal asshole at May 09, 2010 06:31 PM (6ApNg)
Elena Kagan and Janet Napolitano. Separated at birth?
Posted by: blaster at May 09, 2010 06:35 PM (su3hy)
Posted by: ECM at May 09, 2010 06:37 PM (nYKDd)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 06:38 PM (ONBbr)
You know, this is probably true. Tossing aside her own beliefs, she was supposedly more friendly to the Federalist Society at Harvard than past Deans. That's not saying too much and she by no means identified with the group, but it at least shows a little more tolerance and less single-minded ideology than other academics.
And yes, "best" here =/= "good."
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 06:39 PM (AMhst)
I'd bet she turns out to be.
then again trade one lib for another. no matter.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 09, 2010 06:40 PM (7VvJB)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 06:41 PM (ONBbr)
As Solicitor General, she acted one way.
As a Supreme Court Justice, she will be free to act another.
And of course, this will change the conversation for a few weeks, away from the currency melt-down, falling stock market, floods in Tennessee (what floods?), the oil slick in the Gulf, Obama's golf game, and hopefully FIFA (I hate soccer).
Posted by: Reader CJ Burch says.. at May 09, 2010 06:42 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: damian at May 09, 2010 06:44 PM (4WbTI)
They want somebody who rip into the other side when writing their decisions as thoroughly as Scalia does. Since it either doesn't occur to them, or they are unwilling to admit, that Scalia is able to do this because they have the wrong position, they conclude they just need the right Justice to do it. Kagan hasn't shown a record yet of being that person.
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 06:46 PM (AMhst)
Posted by: The Honorable Senator Lindsey Graham at May 09, 2010 06:49 PM (j4xgZ)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 06:49 PM (ONBbr)
What percentage of "qualified" people that age are women?
All those race-based lawyers and advocacy groups must know this number. I'd like to see it. It seems to me that these should be long odds.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 06:49 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Granny Jan at May 09, 2010 06:50 PM (ISIY7)
The GOP should make a fight of it for the same reason that they need to fight everything The Precedent and Wahington junta try to do, because they need to save the nation. The Precedent must not be allowed "free movement" of the Executive or legislature for ANYTHING. The GOP needed to be full force on this from Jan 20th.
On top of that, the GOP needs to specifically fight this because Kagan is probably going to be a total nut on the Court. The Indonesian Imbecile wouldn't have nominated her if she didn't exhibit this potential, in spades.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 06:52 PM (Qp4DT)
Good health to Scalia and Thomas.
Posted by: damian at May 09, 2010 06:53 PM (4WbTI)
I bet she'll be compassionate.......in all the wrong ways.
Her lesbianism is also a problem.
Blackmail material there....since that seems to be something she feels the need to hide.
Then again, no one has published pics of Sotomayor with a roll of quarters and a donkey. But you just know they exist.
Posted by: Snorty McBrearty at May 09, 2010 06:53 PM (Wjv9m)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 06:53 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: tjexcite at May 09, 2010 06:56 PM (CulhV)
You mistake The Precedent's intention and motivation. He doesn't care who he gets on the court. His main motivation is to put unpalatable nominees up in order to cause friction and chaos in the process of confirmation. The Precedent is really out to destroy the system, not to move the Court left. He will move it left, if possible, but he's really intending on destroying everything (if he can) before too long. It's the chaos in Congress that he wants to foment (as with the Porkulus, as with the health scare) more than the details of what's happening, seen in how he let Congress run hog wild on the Porkulus and health scare and even started throwing dems in Congress under the bus on health scare because he needed to scare them into the suicide run.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 06:57 PM (Qp4DT)
I just posed a question which I would love to hear the morons weigh in on...
yes, it was a preposition
Had Obama given Kagan the call last time around, is there any way in hell he could get a Sotomayor through now? I think the answer is no, and I'm somewhat encouraged by that (that he's seeing just how low his stock has fallen).
Anybody?
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 09, 2010 06:57 PM (Wh0W+)
Had Obama given Kagan the call last time around, is there any way in hell he could get a Sotomayor through now? I think the answer is no, and I'm somewhat encouraged by that (that he's seeing just how low his stock has fallen).
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 09, 2010 10:57 PM (Wh0W+)
Well, we have to see what the Kabuki theater in the judiciary committee ends up being for Kagan, but generally I would think that Sotomayor would get the same votes today that she got before. In fact, with the bullshit flying around the Arizona law and the dems going full racist on it, I think they would be committed to their votes for her, now, more than before. And Lindsey Grahamnesty would vote to give her a committee vote to get to the floor and the GOP wouldn't get a filibuster together.
That's what I think, at least.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 07:03 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: typical liberal asshole at May 09, 2010 10:31 PM (6ApNg)
Are you sure?
Posted by: Ruth Bader Ginsberg at May 09, 2010 07:03 PM (Mmw0q)
In no other academic field can you get tenure with as sparse a record as she has.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:05 PM (T0NGe)
And the GOP amnesty votes would be there for her on the floor. They would argue some crap about giving The Precedent the courtesy of nomination ... blah blah blah.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 07:05 PM (Qp4DT)
I agree. No--not with the election coming up, not with the chance now we could filibuster.
Of course, never underestimate the spinelessness of our side, but we were able to get our leaders to hold a hard line on healthcare. With the all the stuff in Sotomayor's past, we could have stopped her.
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 07:06 PM (AMhst)
In no other academic field can you get tenure with as sparse a record as she has.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 11:05 PM (T0NGe)
And the ones that have written extensively are idiots. Harold Koh was Dean of Yale Law School and he doesn't even believe in the concept of the basic sovereignty of the nation-state. You can't get much dumber than that.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 07:08 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: JD at May 09, 2010 07:09 PM (04dlQ)
Kagan is the safe pick. I really thought Obama was going to go for it here. What did he have to lose?
I don't think they want a big fight just before midterms.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 07:10 PM (ArWGd)
She's hidden her views carefully, just as Obama has. As an academic, she's published less stuff than I did as a fucking student. How did she get to Dean? It's actually hard to say.
And her few noteworthy calls are exceptionally liberal. The Military decision was fucking nuts and intemperate. It's saying you oppose a functional military, in time of war, if you disagree that some T has been crossed. It's the same reasoning of that birther who won't take orders. You have to obey some level of rules and law and advocate to the right place to change the intolerable ones. I can't expect everyone to handle this, but judges and law Deans? Of course they should get it.
No, there's this pack of Chicago people, Obama and Kagan being but two, who strangely promote eachother for no apparent success. I think they know eachother well enough to know they are both radicals. I think a lot of them are radicals and have been playing along with this 'how you get in power' shtick for decades. Their favorite book is called "Rules of Radicals" after all, and about lying a lot.
Kagan and Obama knew Kagan would be on the Court before Obama even announced his candidacy.
Now, elections have consequences, and lots of moderates flipped to O and lots of conservatives didn't turn out for Mccain. This is one of the most dear prices we pay for the 2008 election. I would vote for a ham sandwich over Obama, and I would even vote for Romney over Obama if not decent human beings manage to get to that point.
This is why. 3 justices will change hands. Ginsburg has cancer. Obama will be a powerful part of our lives for ... the rest of our lives. Let's not let that happen again.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 09, 2010 07:11 PM (dUOK+)
They better change those judicial robes to judicial burkas and I mean soon!
God I hope so. Seen her face?
But srsly, ugh.
It'll be interesting. I remember reading that she wrote an article in the mid-90s stating that she thought that potential SCOTUS justices should be requried to give substantive answers on their views on the constitution and other issues during the confirmation process.
Heh. Wonder if she'd be willing to be such a stand-up gal.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 09, 2010 07:12 PM (IjWky)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 09, 2010 07:13 PM (Yq+qN)
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 09, 2010 07:15 PM (1kwr2)
Isn't it funny how Obama's team overreacted to the rumors about her sexuality?
I mean, really funny in that it was stupid as hell.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 09, 2010 07:16 PM (Wh0W+)
She doesn't have the intellectual firepower to be a liberal Scalia, and alter our understanding of the Constitution by dint of argument.
She also doesn't have the gravitas of Stevens. He could flip opinions. I'm doubtful she'll be able to replicate that feat in any significant way.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 07:16 PM (P33XN)
Kagan has no experience whatsoever, and should be compared to Miers.
She will be annoying to those on the Court now, in particular Kennedy. I think, since we were replacing a liberal with another certain liberal, this is, at worst, another horrible missed opportunity. If Mccain had been picked, well, Mccain would probably have picked some nutty choice so I have no argument ,,,'
Fucking mccain.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 09, 2010 07:16 PM (dUOK+)
Sounds like a stealth radical to me. The only real skill she has shown is in politicking to get hired.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 09, 2010 07:18 PM (1v6gM)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 07:19 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: sfdsdfsdf at May 09, 2010 07:19 PM (Tfuib)
'gina-- check
lesbo-- check check.
empathy gene---check check check
I'm just disappointed she's not a bi-racial, transgendered, club footed, hermaphrodite.
Fingers crossed on the dyslexia though!
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 09, 2010 07:20 PM (IjWky)
Posted by: logprof at May 09, 2010 07:20 PM (Mmw0q)
No judicial experience.
None. She's basically nothing more than a legal pundit.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:20 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: dfdsfsdf at May 09, 2010 07:23 PM (Tfuib)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 09, 2010 07:23 PM (Yq+qN)
Posted by: SCOTUS lavatory attendant at May 09, 2010 07:25 PM (ilU8T)
So, don't let me stop anybody from doing that, but it's also not going to get us anywhere. Everybody's going to see "Dean of Harvard Law School" and that will be enough. We're not going to win this one. Again, don't let me stop you, but just sayin'...
Okay, now I feel like Bob.
Sorry.
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 07:25 PM (AMhst)
Posted by: Doc at May 09, 2010 07:25 PM (rzJpR)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:26 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 07:26 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:26 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: logprof at May 09, 2010 07:27 PM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: OCBill at May 09, 2010 07:27 PM (p28Ei)
Posted by: dfdsfsdf at May 09, 2010 11:23 PM (Tfuib)
--Now that is an interesting theory.
Posted by: logprof at May 09, 2010 07:28 PM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 07:30 PM (ONBbr)
Can we at least get some Celeb Reality show to give her a makeover for the Confirmation hearings??
I will need nausea meds just to even watch the recaps.
These lib scrunts go out of their way to not even try.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 09, 2010 07:30 PM (IjWky)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 07:32 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: Steven Breyer at May 09, 2010 07:32 PM (8OTio)
There are simply no vacancies on the US Supreme Court right now! I'm a Lieutenant, dammit!
Posted by: Chuck DeVore, the One True Conservative! at May 09, 2010 07:34 PM (FD3EH)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 11:22 PM (ONBbr)
Unless something shocking comes out we don't know about now, she'll get in the neighborhood of 70 votes (+/-5).
Posted by: DrewM. at May 09, 2010 07:35 PM (9B5OK)
Wouldn't it be cool if she broke right? Everybody always breaks left. I'm sick of that.
I dream like the wind.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 07:37 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 07:37 PM (ONBbr)
I hope you're right. Sometimes justices you think you know change pretty dramatically once they get to the Supreme Court. Weren't several supposed to be conservative, and once appointed they turned out to be pretty moderate at best?
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at May 09, 2010 07:38 PM (eNxMU)
I think an issue could be made of that situation, at least questions asked and answered about it, to shed light on how such an inexperienced person could even be considered for such a major role on top of a political branch on lifetime appointment.
I'd like to know if Kagan was selected for her record as a jurist. Her SG record is terrible. As an academic, she has published less than most undergrad professors. She's really terrible from all angles, figuratively I mean, and I think there's reason to ask her about her work with Obama. How did HE get hired? He had a terrible resume at the time. Did someone urge his hiring? What where his grades and recommendations?
And really, how did Kagan get her job at Harvard?
Is this just a system where people from Chicago, with no qualifications, have managed to circle jerk eachother into higher and higher positions?
Yes.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 09, 2010 07:38 PM (dUOK+)
She got 61 for Solicitor General. Specter voted no but he'll be a yes, Graham didn't vote but he'll be a yes,, Kennedy didn't vote but I bet Brown is a yes.
The worst part of this nomination is how boring it will be.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 09, 2010 07:38 PM (9B5OK)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 07:39 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 07:39 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: dfdsfsdf at May 09, 2010 11:23 PM (Tfuib)
Meh, I don't think the law school transcripts will show much. Grades? His grades were probably OK. I'm sure he beguiled a lot of professors who were happy to give him an A. (Besides, who flunks out of law school, especially Harvard?) Would they show anything else? Maybe that he took "Critical Race Theory I, II, III" and "Activism via the Judiciary" and "Alinsky and the Law" a few too many times. Maybe his LSATs were embarrassing.
I think his undergraduate transcripts would be far more revealing. Lots of very embarrassing course titles and mediocre grades, but that's just a guess.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:40 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at May 09, 2010 11:38 PM (eNxMU)
Yeah, but they don't get smarter. She'll vote the same as any hard lefty Obama could pick. She just won't write snappy opinions that rally the troops or serve as benchmarks for future judges like Scalia's opinions (majority and dissents) do.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 09, 2010 07:41 PM (9B5OK)
Future WaPo headline: Sotomeyer and Kagan Both Break Right
Don't beat it too hard. And you're welcome.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 07:44 PM (ArWGd)
#88
I do. She could be worse. Whatever. From what I've read, she's slightly to the right of Stevens. What does that mean though. Who knows. She was Obumble's best choice. She will get thru pretty easily I suspect.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at May 09, 2010 07:45 PM (8OTio)
Most of that is based on her defense of holding some detainees. She's made arguments about executive power both in her Solicitor General nomination and as SG.
How does that translate to her decisions as a judge? I bet not very well.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 09, 2010 07:46 PM (9B5OK)
I think I read somewhere that she doesn't appear to be as left as Stevens, which would be nice.
Umm, no. Because she threw conservatives a bone by hiring a few at Harvard? Not much of a qualifier there.
This is really nothing more than yet another example of the left in general and Obama specifically indicating that exceptionalism no longer exists in this country. Lowest common denominator rears its ugly head again with this administration.
It's the highest court of the land. Yet he's treating it like a mock court session in high school where everyone gets a turn to set up on high with a robe and gavel.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 09, 2010 07:46 PM (IjWky)
"Man that chick would make a pretty good lookin dude"
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 09, 2010 07:46 PM (1v6gM)
Reckon, thunder thighs Michelle will put her on a diet?
Posted by: Kemp at May 09, 2010 07:47 PM (2+9Yx)
Not "really damaging" but she has lived a long time in the bubble. She's likely to say something stupid. She'd get confirmed, but Republicans would feel free to vote no.
The basic lines of attack are either "no experience" or the DADT military thing. I'm thinking that Obama doesn't want DADT brought up again because he tiptoed up to it and then backed off. But who knows?
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:47 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:49 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 07:49 PM (ONBbr)
Maybe. Maybe she'll pull a Souter and 'grow in office'.
With any justice you can look at their background and note (or guess) that they have a certain philosophy, and that there are also certain issues on which they'll bend that philosophy to mollify their own particular distastes.
So we've got a Scalia whose philosophy of constrained constitutional powers goes right in the crapper when states want to loosen pakalolo laws.
Kagan might turn out to be center-left with a buzz for gay-rights issues (supposing DADT was in fact her criteria for stiff-arming military recruiting) which would be a modest improvement over where we are now.
Posted by: mrkwong at May 09, 2010 07:51 PM (G8Eo0)
I have noticed that Barack Obama does not like any African-Americans in power who do not work directly for him.
Prediction: Kendrick Meek will "drop out" of the FL Senator's race before November.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:52 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:55 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Moron with popcorn under his Snuggie at May 09, 2010 07:56 PM (FD3EH)
#104
Amen.
And Crist will promise to caucus with the Dims. Meeks is a non entity and the Dims know it. He is toast.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at May 09, 2010 07:56 PM (8OTio)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 07:57 PM (ArWGd)
I think his undergraduate transcripts would be far more revealing. Lots of very embarrassing course titles and mediocre grades, but that's just a guess.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 11:40 PM (T0NGe)
Obama graduated magna from Harvard before Kagan was ever there. For that to happen, it's pretty much set in stone that he had good grades and that Kagan had nothing to do with his HLS transcript. Now, being on law review, he had access to the law review's outlines (basically class notes of professors that past law review members keep), so that gave him a leg up grade-wise, especially he apparently didn't do much, such as write a note, while he was on law review. There is almost no chance his grades at HLS were whitewashed. He had good grades, though he did get a decent leg up over other students with them.
As you're saying, he and his campaign made it clear everybody knew he graduated magna from Harvard and yet they didn't say anything similar about Columbia. They didn't say he graduated summa, didn't say he graduated magna, or just cum laude. Just nothing. Given that and given that he already wrote that he "undoubtedly benefitted from affirmative action," I think it's pretty much a given his grades at Columbia left a lot to be desired.
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 07:57 PM (AMhst)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 07:58 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Guy Who Axes Questions at May 09, 2010 07:58 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: Zombie Harry Carey at May 09, 2010 07:58 PM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 08:01 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: hutch1200 at May 09, 2010 08:01 PM (huxrl)
Posted by: Moron with popcorn under his Snuggie at May 09, 2010 08:02 PM (FD3EH)
I've heard speculation that the second Obama was made president of HLR, he was going to be magna, no matter what. It would have been unseemly otherwise. I don't know if it's true. I do know that at the schools I've been at, the right paperwork can change grades retroactively. It isn't all that hard to do, especially if not too much time has passed.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 08:04 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Wayang Kulit at May 09, 2010 08:08 PM (1Twp5)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 08:10 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: Melvin Winter at May 09, 2010 08:11 PM (SvmVa)
Posted by: Guy Who Axes Questions at May 09, 2010 08:12 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 08:13 PM (ONBbr)
As liberal as it is, there would have been conservatives there who would have heard about that at some point if the liberals did and I have to think they would have piped up by now. Yeah, I'll concede I'm essentially relying on guys like David Frum now, but it just seems too much for me--maybe I'm being naive. Do you remember where you heard it or has it just been going around?
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 08:14 PM (AMhst)
Posted by: sandi at May 09, 2010 08:17 PM (mFp4E)
Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 08:20 PM (ONBbr)
Posted by: Filly at May 09, 2010 08:20 PM (dSJW9)
Cracks me up that Kagan is almost perfectly the judicial equivalent of 0bama.
I suspect that Kagan is actually smart.
Posted by: Guy Who Axes Questions at May 09, 2010 08:22 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: The Not Impressive Sexist Latina at May 09, 2010 08:24 PM (ArWGd)
Yeah, like I said, just speculation -- not even a proper rumor -- and I inferred that it wasn't all that organized. The basic idea is: you're a HLS prof in the mid-80s, leftist as the day is long, do you want to be the one to give the golden child a bad grade?
He told us himself, he sought out the Marxist professors. If he had a lot of leeway in his course selections, it's entirely possible that he wouldn't have chosen anyone who would have given him anything but HLS's "gentleman's A". Grades in all graduate programs range from A to B. Really. A C is usually a failing grade, so a single grade will not kill your magna chances.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 08:24 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: The Not Impressive Sexist Latina at May 10, 2010 12:24 AM (ArWGd)
I think she'll finally get her second vote to have Old Country Buffet run the SCOTUS cafeteria.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 08:26 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 09, 2010 08:28 PM (A6ae8)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 09, 2010 08:31 PM (A6ae8)
I can't say that I give a rat's ass if she's a lesbian or not. That she didn't want military recruiters at Harvard says a lot about the Military wanting to recruit Harvard students!!
But I'm afraid that she's not so much in love with our Constitution as I would like and she had NO courtroom experience prior to becoming Obama's Solicitor General in '09. THAT does trouble me; appellate judges - especially the SCOTUS Justices, know that they are supposed to rule only on the trial court record and their interpretation of the constitutionality of the issue(s) of law at hand.
That she is such a rookie at this should disqualify her for SCOTUS - at least Sotomayor was a trial lawyer and a trial judge and an Appellate Judge before going up to SCOTUS.
Posted by: realwest at May 09, 2010 08:32 PM (NaJR0)
Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 09, 2010 08:34 PM (ITzbJ)
Are you thinking of Yale?
In the 80's at Harvard the school was overrun by Critical Legal Studies professors and they played kingmaker. The Critical Race Studies are an offshoot of CLS. Bambi was right at home.
Yeah, I'm guessing that Obama was all about the contacts. And there really is no objectivity to grades. Even a prof who isn't all that corrupt will sometimes bump a student up a grade for some intangible issues. The cutoffs between grades are completely subjective. But I don't know enough about Ivy League law schools to say more than what happens generally in academia. I have heard that the grading is supposed to be blind.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 08:36 PM (T0NGe)
Agreed. Miers had far more courtroom experience, for example.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 08:39 PM (T0NGe)
See the reason I'm more skeptical about that is that law schools are hard-asses when it comes to the curve. You can focus on seminars where they'll go easy on you and anybody intent on graduating with a high GPA would have done that, but he would have had to have taken some large classes where the attitude towards students in general is "no, f' you, this is the curve and we aren't giving everybody As."
Those classes are also supposed to have blind grading. Yeah, quit laughing, no really they're supposed to have blind grading.
Harvard had a much easier curve. Barely any students would have gotten Cs, so you would have gotten grades that looked good on paper no matter what you did, but to get in the top 10% (or whatever inflated amount counted as magna there in the 80s), he would have had to get a better GPA than 90% of the students. Your career prospects in law school also depend mostly on your grades during your first year, so, already having law review under his belt, it isn't really the end of the world if he doesn't graduate with honors. Just for show...just given his position as the golden child...I guess I might see it, but I'm just really inclined against it. Oh well, I hadn't heard of it prior to this so I'll dig around myself.
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 08:43 PM (AMhst)
Posted by: Moron with popcorn under his Snuggie at May 09, 2010 08:46 PM (FD3EH)
Posted by: Z Ryan at May 09, 2010 08:49 PM (cMo6P)
I didn't know Adam Sandler's lunchlady will be nominated to the SC...
Posted by: One-L guy at May 09, 2010 08:49 PM (mHQoR)
law schools are hard-asses when it comes to the curve.
Naa. Maybe some. Some are hard ass about attempting objectivity, but you have individual professors who find ways to find out who's who. If they can't generate the mental horsepower to work to be objective, they aren't qualified to teach.
I've heard of "the gentleman's C" at Harvard.
Posted by: John Bigbooty at May 09, 2010 08:50 PM (ArWGd)
Weird. A Kagan seems backgroundless too.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 09, 2010 08:51 PM (7VvJB)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 08:53 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 08:53 PM (TRJxR)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 08:55 PM (TRJxR)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 08:56 PM (ArWGd)
Harvard and Stanford Law schools, rounding out the top 3, just switched to a similar H/P grading system last year. But where YLS doesn't have a fixed curve and the H/P ratio, whether to blind grade, etc., is totally up to the individual professor there, I understand that at HLS and SLS there is a fixed standard for Hs and Ps.
Since YLS grades are so weird, I've heard employers literally count how many Ps applicants got and rank them that way, while realizing that this means very little (other than for the few students who graduate with all or almost all Hs, who are the SCOTUS clerkship set) ...
Posted by: Knemon at May 09, 2010 09:01 PM (9+fMa)
I guess I might see it, but I'm just really inclined against it. Oh well, I hadn't heard of it prior to this so I'll dig around myself.
My theory has always been that Obama's transcripts are not released because of the course titles, not for the grades.
Is it possible to award a magna independent of grades? I know that's the way they're always awarded, but it is an award, after all. It is possible that the law school has carte blanche as to how all awards are chosen. They could just give one to anybody they like, for example, as an award for being HLR president.
The HLR editor used to be the student with the best grades, but shortly before Obama got there, it was turned into a elected position, a president, presumably with the intention of getting a woman or minority into the position.
So I think the previous editors had received cum laude awards naturally. This would explain why there would be motivation to award something to the HLR president.
Still, I agree with you that it seems unlikely, it's idle speculation and would have happened long before Kagan showed up with her threadbare CV to become Dean.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 09, 2010 09:02 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 10, 2010 12:04 AM (T0NGe)
I would assume that, after he was made Precedent of the Law Review, professors (who were inclined to treat him in class the same way the MFM treats him, now - it's almost impossible the count of the utter stupidities he's stuttered through that they have totally ignored, versus the few gaffes by Dan Quayle that they hung onto for more than a decade) were pumping up whatever his grades already were. When I was in grad school, a "B" was pretty darn crappy. The fact that he only made magna, and not summa, as Precedent of the Law Review, is pretty pathetic, really, and shows how contrived his election was.
I don't assign any malevolent motivations to the professors. They're just idiots who are moved by skin and preserving the Hah-vahd name. Can't have a Precedent of the Law Review, written up by the New York Slimes, just barely making it through. It would only be years later that the world would be confronted with how incredibly stupid Mr. "profit and earnings ratios" ... Mr. "reduce premiums by 3000%" is, and then the MFM would cover for him, anyway.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 09:05 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 09, 2010 09:07 PM (ITzbJ)
She'll eff up and say something really damaging during the hearings.
She could hardly do worse than Sotomayor. Good lord was she a bumbling idiot up there. Really, really pathetic. Kagan will likely sound like a genius compared to Sodapop.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 09:08 PM (P33XN)
BTW, in the wake of the sit-ins and such at HLS, they changed the grading system (around the same time they changed the procedure for picking editors and the President of the review) so that professors were allowed more subjectivity in their grading. They were pretty explicit about doing all this to enhance minority representation adn performance, much as they still argue for their program for special tutoring programs only for minorities and women, with special access to the professors. Harvard is absolutely shameless with all this crap.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 09:10 PM (Qp4DT)
You're giving him too much credit--"Gentleman's C" is 1950s stuff. I think the average GPA there was something on the order of a 3.5 before they got rid of grades a couple years ago (make yourselves more indistinguishable and get rid of inflated grades right when the recession hits...awesome idea!...somebody should get a couple unemployed Harvard grads to ask Kagan about that). Unless he was caught sleeping with the professor's wife, yeah, there was no way he or just about anybody else was getting a C. I mention blind grading with sarcasm also, but I did run into a decent number of professors when I was in school who clearly took it seriously.
My theory has always been that Obama's transcripts are not released because of the course titles, not for the grades.
I agree, though the guy could still give his class rank, honors, etc., which is why I'd still bet just about anything his undergrad grades were nothing remotely impressive.
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 09:10 PM (AMhst)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 09:12 PM (TRJxR)
Posted by: Moron with popcorn under his Snuggie at May 09, 2010 09:15 PM (FD3EH)
C? Obama promised me a gentlemans B+
Posted by: Edward M. Kennedy at May 09, 2010 09:16 PM (8OTio)
I'm waiting for the movie version of the hearings starring Kathy Bates as Elena Kagan.
A special guest appearance by Horatio Sanz as Sotomayor is in the works.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 09:18 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 09:20 PM (TRJxR)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 09:22 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: Eddie Baby at May 09, 2010 09:22 PM (Z6h0L)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 09:23 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 09:27 PM (TRJxR)
I'd still bet just about anything his undergrad grades were nothing remotely impressive.
It's fairly obvious he didn't merit the placement.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 09:28 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 09:32 PM (TRJxR)
Posted by: typical liberal dipshit at May 09, 2010 09:36 PM (ctR4U)
such a wonderful information for me..i am really impress it.
Posted by: Acai Max Cleanse at May 09, 2010 09:38 PM (X/wxO)
Go on making fun of lesbians, Republicans.
We're making fun of Obama and ugly chix, retard. There are a lot of gay AoS fans. They don't occupy some special position here where one must dance around the issues in order not to offend. And one of the cob loggers is gay.
But I understand why it's necessary for you to think of it that way. It reinforces your hatred. It strokes your emotion-driven limbic decison-making. After all, life is full of black and white good guys and bad guys, just like cops and robbers you saw on TV as a child. And now that you've thrown out your little insult, you've told yourself (subconsciously) you don't have to consider the merits of any argument made here. Party on, dummy.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 09:39 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: Cromagnum at May 09, 2010 09:39 PM (UGrme)
Posted by: koopy at May 09, 2010 09:40 PM (ctR4U)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 09:43 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 09:43 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 09:44 PM (ArWGd)
The Democrats will take 20 more seats in November.
Posted by: crapflagon at May 10, 2010 01:24 AM (Mmw0q)
What a bizarre rationale.
Tattoo Duh Plane? Sentient Nintendo? Is that you?
Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 09, 2010 09:46 PM (ITzbJ)
Dack, you forgot to make fun of her lesbianism again.
Now, now. We don't know for a fact that she's a lesbian. All we know is that she is one. I mean, when you're sporting basically the same coif as Rachel Maddow, well, there you go.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 09:47 PM (P33XN)
More reason to repeal the 17th amendment, so the states take back the Senate
1913 was the end of States Rights, with 16 (Fed income Tax) and 17, the Beast gained power, and food.
Posted by: Cromagnum at May 09, 2010 09:50 PM (UGrme)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 09:50 PM (P33XN)
I do hope dummy didn't leave. S/he should stick around and learn something.
Here's a lesson about subjectivity, dummy: Just because you have a tendency to see what you want to see rather than what is actually there doesn't mean Democrats will pickup 20 seats in November. Now, imagine growing up and perceiving the world with objectivity going forward. If you don't, you're more limbic and less neo-cortex, more animal and less human.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 09:51 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 09:55 PM (P33XN)
Kagan announces she will no longer be Michael Moore's stunt double, citing back problems.
Posted by: Moron with popcorn under his Snuggie at May 09, 2010 10:00 PM (FD3EH)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 09, 2010 10:01 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 09, 2010 10:01 PM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 09, 2010 10:07 PM (KkrUE)
Posted by: Lone Marauder at May 09, 2010 10:07 PM (p1iaB)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 10:10 PM (TRJxR)
Posted by: logprof at May 10, 2010 01:57 AM (Mmw0q)
Don't stop brewer. He's on a roll.
Posted by: otter at May 09, 2010 10:11 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: double snapdragon at May 09, 2010 10:15 PM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: Moron with popcorn under his Snuggie at May 09, 2010 10:19 PM (FD3EH)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 09, 2010 10:26 PM (TRJxR)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 10, 2010 02:07 AM (KkrUE)
The funny thing is with all the bitching, there's a good chance the opposite is happening. There's good reason to believe we've already had a gay Supreme Court Justice, David Souter, the guy who's leaving. Besides the previous rumors--a guy goes jogging in DC in a park at 5:00 in the morning; gets beat up; the other guy gets caught; and yet they didn't press charges? What do you think was happening, idiots?The rumors about Kagan were pretty widespread with little pushback, so the White House shouldn't be too surprised that people assume it, but as long as we're dealing in this stuff it's been tossed around for an equally long time that Souter was gay.
Posted by: AD at May 09, 2010 10:28 PM (AMhst)
BTW, during the debate today between California's Republican Senatorial Candidates Chuck Devore, Tom Campbell and Carly Fiorina, all three of them made pretty good showings.
But there was a disclosure about Carly Fiorina which has never been mentioned by the MSM, and which is that apparently when Ms. Fiorina was the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, she pulled a cutesy stunt, authorizing her subordinates to get around a ban and to sell large quantities of computers, printers, spare parts and other supplies to Syria and to Iran; further evidence that the woman is an unscrupulous, two-faced, back-stabbing sleaze who gets jobs by affirmative action, not by being qualified..
Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 09, 2010 10:31 PM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: Moron with popcorn under his Snuggie at May 10, 2010 02:19 AM (FD3EH)
"And... Clayton. Sidney. Jugears, Mohammet, Lonny."
"We already met."
"Super! Then you'll have lots to talk about, even though you seem to have written nothing in your life, thus far."
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 10:36 PM (Qp4DT)
Shivas, I read something about a CBS story today that was pulled w/o comment. Maybe a blog story. It was because the whitehouse wanted it. I don't care who she screws, but it seems like Obama went overboard denying the (unsupported?) allegation. I just skimmed, but I think someone at CBS repeated or reported the allegation. (I use "allegation" lightly.) (Because who gives a flying fuck on a rolling doughnut, anyway?) (That's like saying "alleged overeating.") (I do so love parenthesis.) Anyway, yeah, it does seem weird on Obama's part. Seems like a controversy generated out of thin air. And I don't know why. So. Because of Obama's big attack and denial, now I'd like to know if she's gay. Why? So I can kick it around with all the other political footballs.
I guess I'll unlazy myself and go back and actually read about the controversy.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 10:38 PM (ArWGd)
she pulled a cutesy stunt, authorizing her subordinates to get around a ban and to sell large quantities of computers, printers, spare parts and other supplies to Syria and to Iran
What's wrong with that? Sounds like what a good, zealous boss would do--represent the company and stockholders as much as she can.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 10:40 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 10, 2010 02:38 AM (ArWGd)
He always pulls this shit, and he always gets away with it. It's amazing, really. It's like being trapped inside a giant imbecile's brain.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 10:41 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 10:45 PM (ArWGd)
#206 - If not illegal, it was certainly unethical and sleazy, in view of the ban against selling technology to those particular countries ..., kind of like when Clinton authorized the sale of missle technology to Communist China. C'mon redbrewer, that's a no-brainer.
Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 09, 2010 10:49 PM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 10:53 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: yarrrrr at May 09, 2010 10:56 PM (LHfao)
Yeah, she looks like a cross of Chaz Bono and Susan Boyle...
Posted by: yarrrrr at May 09, 2010 10:58 PM (LHfao)
There is simply no evidence that a company called "Hewlett-Packard" exists! I have a track record, dammit!!!111
Posted by: Chuck DeVore, the One True Conservative! at May 09, 2010 11:00 PM (FD3EH)
Whitehouse upset over out of the closet rumor, says she isn't.
Yeah, odd thing to get upset about. I still don't know if she's gay or not, but it's funny to see the whitehouse thinking "out of the closet" is a negative accusation to be attacked. If they're going to be jumpy, they need to take their finger off the trigger.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 11:00 PM (ArWGd)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 09, 2010 11:03 PM (ArWGd)
O/T, okay, I'm going to tell that really funny joke again: "Eric Holder, intellectual."
HA!
Posted by: rdbrewer
at May 10, 2010 03:03 AM (ArWGd)
"President . . . Barack Obama!" [laugh track]
Posted by: logprof at May 09, 2010 11:34 PM (Mmw0q)
See, I think her time at HP show she was sleazy and I even grant the plausibility of back stabbing, but she was qualified for her work then, and she did a hell of a job at it.
I don't know about this Iranian computer thing. I'll have to look into it, but I think such things should be prosecuted and suspect there's some explanation (if there isn't, I'm asking her for a refund of my donation).
I like fiorina because she has a record of saying the hard truth to a hostile board and fixing seriously tough problems. Her methods got her kicked out, but her plan saved the ship and I think she's a more realistic contender who would be an improvement over Boxer.
Nothing against her competitors in the primary, who are not as electable in my view.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 09, 2010 11:38 PM (dUOK+)
I think her sex life is her business. Having seen her picture, I hope she keeps her business private.
Posted by: Adjoran at May 09, 2010 11:51 PM (3hg5M)
I rebuked him, saying, "Now, don't say that, she might be a great lay - you know that beauty is only skin deep."
Ted shot back, "Fine, let's skin her."
I miss that old boy, he was a hoot. Especially with a fifth of Chivas and a pair of waitresses.
Posted by: Bill Horndog Clinton at May 09, 2010 11:57 PM (3hg5M)
Yay! More time has been bought and the problem still festers.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 12:06 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 12:07 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 10, 2010 01:06 AM (9CzKK)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 10, 2010 02:15 AM (TRJxR)
Posted by: shivas irons at May 10, 2010 02:20 AM (TRJxR)
Posted by: Richard at May 10, 2010 02:52 AM (wrZBq)
Posted by: Richard at May 10, 2010 03:02 AM (wrZBq)
Affirmative action is racial profiling.
Posted by: Batman of Alcatraz at May 10, 2010 03:13 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: fluffy, mechanical thinker at May 10, 2010 03:27 AM (4Kl5M)
HP was a bunch of stupid white guys. They didn't know what they hell they were doing. It wasn't until I came along that they started selling stuff to those off-white guys (who aren't quite a stupid and incapable as white guys are, but still).
C'mon, all I did was give a little aid to them. And maybe a little comfort if they loaded up solitaire. And so what if they use our printers to print out photos of dissidents to be rounded up? I made money for my company (although I kinda ran the place into the ground, but still).
But none of these things are important to California. What is important is that you ignorant sheeple conservatives, vote for me because I am a woman.
Posted by: Carly Fiorina at May 10, 2010 03:43 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at May 10, 2010 03:46 AM (LBiLj)
Thank you for visiting unbootssale.com, where you can collect MBT shoes, from yesterday's classics to today's hits, all depends on your interests. Given our domain name, we aim to offer you an easy way to buy cheap women's MBT shoes here, and try to access instructions over how to buy, how to pay and how to ship.
First time here? Nothing to worry about, all our MBT shoes on sale are authorized by mbt manufacturer, and you could easily get what you want and enjoy yourself here: find your boots directly through search engine at the top of the site and middle of the left column, and click on certain genre to make a decision about what to buy, or get advice from others' favorite according to top sallers and hot sale. Most importantly, no one wanna run after fashion, thus to buy boots among new arrival would be a good choice.
Posted by: yzp0594 at May 10, 2010 03:57 AM (vZ5U1)
Posted by: Mal at May 10, 2010 04:02 AM (Z+qzA)
Posted by: Steve L. at May 10, 2010 04:11 AM (Gkhxf)
Posted by: zombie Cass Elliot at May 10, 2010 04:12 AM (4Kl5M)
Goddammit..THIS has my blood boiling. Seniors in Georgia elderly care facility are told they cannot pray before meals because the food is subsidized by the federal government.
I am going to write to Miss Lindsey Graham and the other real Republicans on the judiciary committee to demand they put this in a question to Mr. Allen Kagan.
Fuck..seriously pissed off here
Posted by: beedubya at May 10, 2010 04:23 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: beedubya at May 10, 2010 04:28 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Johnnyreb at May 10, 2010 04:37 AM (JSetw)
# 248
You can bet if they were Muslim and wanted to wash their feet in the sink before they prayed, nothing would be said.
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at May 10, 2010 04:40 AM (o+hgo)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 04:47 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 08:47 AM (0GFWk)
I read somewhere that she was raised in a Jewish house, but nothing other than that.
Posted by: Johnnyreb at May 10, 2010 04:51 AM (cqZXM)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 04:53 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: Mary Jo at May 10, 2010 04:58 AM (qSRHZ)
Posted by: Elena Kagan at May 10, 2010 05:07 AM (4Kl5M)
MBT shoes is it when your foot buffer, the ability to challenge your muscles known. MBT walking shoes to improve balance, posture and circulation. This apparent effect of your spine. It helps to improve the way you use your muscles and joints. In short, it has many advantages, there are no other shoes, to tell the difference.
Posted by: JOE khh at May 10, 2010 05:10 AM (vZ5U1)
What will be next?
Wookie. Right when his term is up and it looks like he won't get reelected.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 10, 2010 05:10 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Jean at May 10, 2010 05:17 AM (OlnxK)
That guy Obama wnts to nominate to the Supreme court looks familiar. Where did that guy work before?
Posted by: Silence DoGood at May 10, 2010 05:21 AM (k7Ddt)
Posted by: Jean at May 10, 2010 05:24 AM (6Njk9)
Posted by: Bill Clinton at May 10, 2010 05:24 AM (k7Ddt)
Posted by: UGrev at May 10, 2010 05:28 AM (862vz)
Posted by: dfdsfsdf at May 09, 2010 11:23 PM (Tfuib)
That was my immediate thought. Of course, I doubt she would have brought any incriminating information to light, because I think it must have been big, not just favoritism or embarrassing grades.
Remember Percy Sutton's comments? The Dean of Harvard would know how Obama got into Harvard -- legacy student, foreign exchange student or just a direct order from a Saudi prince with deep ties in our intelligence community. If there was a smoking gun, she would have seen it.
There was also John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, who saw Obama's passport during the election. The guy working for him died, and he got promoted. Brennan is a loose cannon. He made a speech in front of a crowd of Islamic law students, in Arabic, where he compared terrorists to shoplifters. There were calls for him to be fired.
It's not like Obama hasn't paid people off who have incriminating stories about him. There is probably significant dirt on our Manchurian President. Stuff that would make Clinton look like a choir boy. Speaking of which, Obama probably had them killed, too.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 10, 2010 05:33 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 10, 2010 05:38 AM (mHQ7T)
It would never happen but my criteria would be:
1) Currently serving on a state court level, preferably a state Supreme Court
2) Not a graduate of an Ivy League law school, nor ever worked for them
3) Extensive previous experience in private practice
4) Member of Federalist Society or similar conservative legal group
5) Must be anti-Roe V Wade rulings
Posted by: Prof. Venkman at May 10, 2010 05:44 AM (4JpPD)
Posted by: bill-tb at May 10, 2010 06:01 AM (y+QfZ)
I really don't give a damn if she is a carpet muncher. What gets me is that she is most likely just another communist who believes in a rubber Constitution.
The Republicans should fight this tooth and nail because the Dems do that EVERY damn time and especially when there is a nominee with no record.
We know how that works, no record means drift left. With a commie nominee that means they start out left and drift into bat shit crazy.
Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 06:14 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: ed at May 10, 2010 06:18 AM (Urhve)
So she's a radical leftist with absolutely no experience for the job. That sounds a lot like someone else in Washington.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 10, 2010 06:19 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 06:20 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: eman at May 10, 2010 06:20 AM (ONBbr)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 06:21 AM (0GFWk)
Hear, hear. Kagan's position against the military was unconscionable and totally indefensible. This should be enough for the GOP to not allow the worm out of committee, but of course, we have Lady Lindsey on the judiciary committee, so there's little chance of that. I would like to see Grahamnesty thrown out of the GOP caucus in order to take away his power to allow Kagan through committee, as he did with the empathetic, wise Latina.
Kagan should also be pounded about affirmative action racism at Harvard during her tenure and how she loves the marxist concept of 'race, class, gender' and will likely take such idiocy to the Court with her.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 06:22 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: alppuccino at May 10, 2010 06:23 AM (HC9nf)
Just sayin'
Posted by: Barbarian at May 10, 2010 09:34 AM (EL+OC)
So does Janet Incompetano.
So does the Wise Latina (think Noriega in drag).
So did Janet Reno.
Detect a pattern?
Posted by: CoolCzech at May 10, 2010 06:23 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: alppuccino at May 10, 2010 10:23 AM (HC9nf)
Are you saying Obama is a Lesbian trapped in a Muslim body?
Posted by: CoolCzech at May 10, 2010 06:26 AM (Iaxlk)
Snap.Out.Of.It.
Posted by: Barbarian at May 10, 2010 06:26 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 10, 2010 06:26 AM (1Jaio)
There's that Constitutional scholarship again.
At least he's being consistent in proving he didn't learn anything while someone spent a lot of money for it.
And we now get an inexperienced Justice to go with an inexperienced President. Hooray! We're screwed.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 10, 2010 06:27 AM (swuwV)
Anyone else still keep up with Zero Hedge? I check them off and on, the last week has had some pretty dark stuff. Stuff like don't keep your money in banks and now you better odds in Las Vegas that you have making money with your E-Trade account.
I think it is all a little over the top. What say you?
Posted by: Sam at May 10, 2010 06:28 AM (Cxsey)
Hahahqahaha; when have the Republicans ever got up back bone and voted to block ANY damn Dem nominee.
Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 06:30 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: Speller at May 10, 2010 06:31 AM (o0R2E)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 10, 2010 06:31 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 10, 2010 10:27 AM (swuwV)
The Precedent did learn (which is unusual for him). He learned that he can promote the most un-Constitutional, un-American idea of empathy being the most important quality in a justice and still get idiots in the GOP to go soft on the pathetic nominee and have the empathetic imbecile get onto the Court without much resistance, at all.
Thanks to all the GOP shitheads and pundits who were so scared that the GOP would oppose the insane empathetic, wise Latina - who never should have been allowed within earshot of the SCOTUS.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 06:31 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Jean at May 10, 2010 06:31 AM (h0rZ/)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 06:32 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: eman at May 10, 2010 06:32 AM (ONBbr)
Posted by: ed at May 10, 2010 06:33 AM (Urhve)
That was just the same stupid argument he made for the empathetic, wise Latina and she sailed right onto the Court (thanks to squishy "conservatives" who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground).
This is nothing new from the Indonesian Imbecile, and the Senate judiciary committee has already given its blessing for this type of reasoning in choosing justices.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 06:34 AM (Qp4DT)
He has said that repeatedly. The Constitution doesn't have the words in it he likes so it means NOTHING to him. It is painfully obvious since every bill that he has pushed since he came in office is unconstitutional.
We need congress so we can impeach the jug-eared lying SOB.
Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 06:34 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: eman at May 10, 2010 06:35 AM (ONBbr)
Posted by: huerfano at May 10, 2010 06:35 AM (qEf7Y)
I just don't buy it. I know 3 people who make their money as day traders. They are still doing their thing...
Things are bad, and are looking to stay bad for some time. But the complete collapse of our economic/financial system?
Posted by: Sam at May 10, 2010 06:36 AM (Cxsey)
Volatility is great for day traders.
>>>Things are bad, and are looking to stay bad for some time. But the complete collapse of our economic/financial system?
Posted by: Sam at May 10, 2010 10:36 AM (Cxsey)
Worse. The complete collapse of our monetary system, which also happens to be the monetary system the world is built on and which cannot be abondoned nor replaced.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 06:38 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: eman at May 10, 2010 06:40 AM (ONBbr)
So it's 99.44% certain.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 10, 2010 06:41 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: LincolnTf at May 10, 2010 06:42 AM (qSRHZ)
I agree, but good luck. Imagine the uproar if Congress even considered impeaching the first "African-American" President. I wish there was some Repub that had the balls to at least introduce Articles of Impeachment to the floor of the House.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 10, 2010 06:42 AM (9hSKh)
You can make money in this parlor game. That will always be the case.
The question is, can you RAISE CAPITAL in this environment? That is the big struggle. Black boxes don't try to raise capital. They merely are programmed to respond to changing conditions.
Posted by: wtfci at May 10, 2010 06:44 AM (+zo63)
Posted by: wtfci at May 10, 2010 06:45 AM (+zo63)
I disagree that you can't get a lot of mileage out of her contempt for the military.
Big, BIG difference between can't and won't as far as the RINOs on judiciary are concerned.
She'll get a pass, just like the Illiterate Latina.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 10, 2010 06:45 AM (fx8sm)
I was thinking more Obama is a lesbian married to a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Posted by: alppuccino at May 10, 2010 06:46 AM (HC9nf)
The Constitutional provision requiring Senatorial confirmation was a direct notice that the Chief Executive was not to be given whomever he wanted for various positions, but only those of whom the Senate approved. This was and is a check on the ability of the Chief Executive to execute the laws in a manner at variance with the majority spirit of the nation, as it is often a case that elections turn on issues that lose their salience once the election is over, and other issues take front and center that Chief Executive may wish to act on in tones that the that the electorate in no way has decided upon. Naturally, the Chief Executive must be able to act upon these issues as he sees best, but the Senatorial confirmation process--along with the Congressional power of the purse and the power to make law--are a natural and proper constraint on that power to act as he sees best, to ensure that he acts within a certain broad consensus to avoid undue strife, as major changes in the nation should arise from the people, not be handed down by a single would-be Cleisthenes who wishes to reorder the populace.
Thus, in this upcoming nomination hearing, Senators should feel no compulsion against voting "no" if they choose to do so. It is an election, in a sense, one of the direct checks the Congress has on the Supreme Court, and to not vote "no" due to an feeling of undue "deference" to the Chief Executive is to allow for too coarse a system of checks on the Court, and will eventually lead to its downfall as an anti-democratic element too powerful and yet too remote all at the same time; a Court fundamentally at odds with the belief that sovereignty resides in the people and that the will of that sovereignty is best expressed via the federal system of state and national legislatures, with a President to administer but not make law.
As for as filibustering, that is to each Senator's conscience. If 60% of the Senate cannot agree on something as momentous as a nomination to the Supreme Court, especially with the Court playing such a role in American life as it does now and constituted with life-time tenure as it does now, then perhaps, in the interests of national good-will and unity, another pick is best. Please feel free to bring this post up again in a administration of another party, for the belief will be the same. The Senate is a check on the President's appointment, and their actions should reflect that fact.
Posted by: Horatius at May 10, 2010 06:47 AM (oRBKv)
Posted by: LincolnTf at May 10, 2010 06:47 AM (qSRHZ)
just someone close enough to write a credible tell-all book.
You don't think Kal Penn getting a gun to his head after leaving the administration might have had a chilling effect on tell-alls?
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 10, 2010 06:49 AM (fx8sm)
Isn't Weigel supposed to be the conservative at WP?
Posted by: Ben at May 10, 2010 06:50 AM (wuv1c)
The Precedent did learn (which is unusual for him). He learned that he can promote the most un-Constitutional, un-American idea of empathy being the most important quality in a justice and still get idiots in the GOP to go soft on the pathetic nominee and have the empathetic imbecile get onto the Court without much resistance, at all.
Thanks to all the GOP shitheads and pundits who were so scared that the GOP would oppose the insane empathetic, wise Latina - who never should have been allowed within earshot of the SCOTUS.
Posted by: progressoverpeace
What if this is part of the strategm? Obamas nominates this person, and she either sails through, or is opposed, obstensibly because she's a lightweight. Obama then plays the discrimination card, and either fights for her, or allows this to drop, and comes with an obvious leftist as the replacement. This energizes the base, is seen by the compliant media as defending Gays, and casts Republicans as the party of 'no'.
Posted by: Blue Hen at May 10, 2010 06:50 AM (R2fpr)
casts Republicans as the party of 'no'.
Who gives a shit, you're just sticking to their script, just like the senate RINOs. We really have to get over caring about what the hell the MFM says.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 10, 2010 06:52 AM (fx8sm)
Posted by: Sam at May 10, 2010 10:36 AM (Cxsey)
The fact that gold is up in reaction to the trillion being thrown down black holes in Europe says something pretty nasty. Sure, the dollar is down (which would push gold up) but gold was up with the dollar's earlier rise, too.
I'm not a gold bug (I don't really trust gold to hold value) but it's clear that fiat currencies are rapidly driving themselves over the cliff and they don't seem to have any desire not to go for the full suicide run. THis bailout for Greece and the PIGS will do nothing to fix their problems. In fact, it only gives them reason NOT to fix the problems, which will just make them fester and return in much worse shape before long (and I mean "soon").
I liked the European commission president's comments last night about the strength of the EU. Asked about Greece leaving the monetary union, or other nations going, Barasso's idiotic reply was, "Estonia is coming into the EU" and that the EU is still 'growing'. Estonia? Wow!
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 06:52 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: LincolnTf at May 10, 2010 06:52 AM (qSRHZ)
Posted by: Original Roy at May 10, 2010 06:52 AM (jV0wG)
Posted by: Jean at May 10, 2010 06:54 AM (JaO+v)
Who gives a shit, you're just sticking to their script, just like the senate RINOs. We really have to get over caring about what the hell the MFM says.
Posted by: Dang Straights
Agreed. However, this is how some strategists and many politicians think.
Posted by: Blue Hen at May 10, 2010 06:54 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Lincoln Adams at May 10, 2010 06:54 AM (UqJ8A)
However, this is how some strategists and many politicians think.
Ask Bob Bennett how that worked out for him this cycle.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 10, 2010 06:55 AM (fx8sm)
Earth to Blow Job. Check the hash. Google the IP.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 10, 2010 06:56 AM (mHQ7T)
If they weren't ugly, they wouldn't be Marxist-feminist Democrats.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 10, 2010 06:56 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: Jean at May 10, 2010 06:56 AM (PjevJ)
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at May 10, 2010 06:58 AM (YVZlY)
Weight is just numbers on a scale.
Posted by: Worlds Fattest Man at May 10, 2010 06:58 AM (7VvJB)
In all fairness, his options are limited. He can only consider democrats.
Posted by: huerfano at May 10, 2010 06:58 AM (qEf7Y)
Posted by: LincolnTf at May 10, 2010 07:01 AM (qSRHZ)
I submit to you The Rule of Anyway™.
Republicans should argue against her inexperience, her thin academic record of published scholarship, and, if necessary, speculate that she'll advance the standard, living Constitution POV. It really is up to the GOP to argue principles and even spice it up a bit by referencing the Bush-Miers appointment attempt. The Right forced Bush out of that decision - and it was the proper one - so now they should do it against the "enemy."
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 10, 2010 07:01 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: Jean at May 10, 2010 07:02 AM (mtAmx)
What if this is part of the strategm? Obamas nominates this person, and she either sails through, or is opposed, obstensibly because she's a lightweight. Obama then plays the discrimination card, and either fights for her, or allows this to drop, and comes with an obvious leftist as the replacement. This energizes the base, is seen by the compliant media as defending Gays, and casts Republicans as the party of 'no'.
Posted by: Blue Hen at May 10, 2010 10:50 AM (R2fpr)
My view is that these appointments are all win-wins for The Precedent. He doesn't care if any of his nominees make it through, but he picks people who will do damage getting on the Court, if they do, and who will do damage to the institutions with bruising battles, if they don't. As The Precedent is driven by an overriding desire to destroy our institutions, he doesn't lose. It's like his Copenhagen Olympic trip. He didn't care if the US got the Olympics, or not. If it went to Chicago, he got a lot of political power from that (sadly, as it shouldn't have had an effect on Americans, but we have so many un-American Americans, now), his criminal buddies made tons of money and he had more power to screw the US in other ways. If he lost, then the US Presidency was harmed and US power took a hit in the world, which was his preferred outcome, anyway. And he had the added advantage of doing something totally and unequivocally un-American (having the White House being the main salesman for the Olympic bid, which we have never done, as our nation just isn't structured that way - as the rest of the world is) and chipping away at the American creed that way.
For The Precedent, it's always about harming the US and destroying American systems and institutions. That is what drives him. That's why he's even more "in your face" about his insane and un-American and stupid 'empathy' argument for justices. It's an offense to the intellect, but we don't have enough conservatives with brains to realize this and understand that this is a last stand this nation is experiencing. So many of our traditions have been shit all over and so many of our institutional taboos have been broken that there really isn't that much left, now. The damage is about irreparable, and The Precedent is just pushing it until it all breaks.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 07:02 AM (Qp4DT)
The modern version of the Ant and the Grasshopper..
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper' s sake.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010, ants Morons!
Posted by: sickinmass at May 10, 2010 07:02 AM (tamie)
Posted by: Worlds Fattest Man at May 10, 2010 07:03 AM (7VvJB)
Kagan could be the Left's version of Souter, but in reverse. They think she's a safe middle of the roader, and once she gets in she'll go full LEFT. I think Obama knows a lot more about Kagan than he's letting on. She's replacing a full-on lefty so it's not going to change the way the SCOTUS votes, but she is relatively young at 50 so she'll be there for generations.
Also in certain pictures she really looks like Dick Morris.
Posted by: Boots at May 10, 2010 07:04 AM (06JTY)
Biology is cruel. And I'm of the opinion that the "neo-feminists" hatred for every perceived slight not only warps them mentally, but that it changes them physically.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 10, 2010 07:04 AM (9hSKh)
But more importantly, she understands, "behind the law there are stories, stories of people's lives," Obama said.
Doesn't that just give you a case of the big warm fuzzies?
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at May 10, 2010 07:05 AM (YVZlY)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 07:06 AM (0GFWk)
Even scarier thought if it comes from a judge.
Posted by: damian at May 10, 2010 07:06 AM (4WbTI)
What is it with the wymyn of the left and those cold, dead, shark eyes?
Seriously, it creeps me out......
Posted by: wytshus at May 10, 2010 07:06 AM (C8byF)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 10, 2010 07:07 AM (mR7mk)
What is it with the wymyn of the left and those cold, dead, shark eyes?
They are true sociopaths, much like Wee Wee.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 10, 2010 07:08 AM (fx8sm)
Also in certain pictures she really looks like Dick Morris.
Posted by: Boots at May 10, 2010 11:04 AM (06JTY)
Have we ever seen them in a room together at the same time?
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at May 10, 2010 07:09 AM (YVZlY)
Off topic, but Ahhhnold gave an interview bemoaning he can't run for POTUS after his California Gov. gig is up.
Why the hell NOT?
He should run, and refuse to show his birth certificate.
Posted by: CoolCzech at May 10, 2010 07:09 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 07:09 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: ed at May 10, 2010 07:09 AM (Urhve)
Off topic, but Ahhhnold gave an interview bemoaning he can't run for POTUS after his California Gov. gig is up.
Isn't Austria the 57th State?
Posted by: Speller at May 10, 2010 07:10 AM (o0R2E)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 10, 2010 07:12 AM (0GFWk)
Once upon a time, there was a happy-go-lucky grasshopper who lived only to have fun. All through the long summer days, he would sing and dance, and laugh at the industrious ants who were busily preparing for winter. But then cruel winter came, and the grasshopper was starving. In desperation, he approached the ants' nest and begged for food. "You should have danced less and worked more," the ants scolded him, but then, being basically kind-hearted creatures, they decided to give him a few of their hard-won crumbs.
The next summer was exactly like the one before: Once more, the ants worked without pause, while the grasshopper sang and danced. When winter came, he appealed to the ants again, only this time, he brought his 10,000 children along with him. "It's thanks to your kindness," he said, "that I made it through the winter, and was able to father these little ones. Surely, you won't let us all starve to death."
The ants convened a meeting of their Council to decide what to do. On the one hand, they felt a certain responsibility for the grasshopper and his huge brood; on the other hand, feeding 10,000 growing grasshoppers could make a serious dent in their winter provisions.
Finally, one Council member had a brilliant idea. "Let's just take some food from the hardest-working ants. They've got more than enough, and won't mind sharing their good fortune with the needy grasshoppers."
The Council-of-Ants thought this was a splendid plan, and quickly acted on it. As a result, the grasshoppers survived the winter, the ants congratulated themselves on their compassion, and hardly anyone noticed that the hardest-working ants, whose food had been seized, left the nest in disgust.
Summer came around once again, and once again the grasshoppers danced and sang, while the ants toiled and saved. But without the hardest-working ants to do the heavy-lifting, the ants did not get very much accomplished, and barely accumulated enough food to get themselves through the winter.
And then, one cold and snowy day, the ants heard an ominous rumble approaching ever-closer. It was the sound of a million grasshoppers, all converging on their tiny ant-hill. "Since time immemorial," Grandfather Grasshopper solemnly declared, "the ant people have shared their winter provisions with the grasshopper people. We demand that you do so now, immediately, or we'll destroy your nest, and take by force what is rightfully ours."
This is how the Dilemma of the Welfare State, aka the Entitlement Crisis, came into the world.
Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 07:13 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at May 10, 2010 07:14 AM (YVZlY)
Yeppers. With it's own language.
/I cannot bear to think about the economic damage a President Schwarzenegger would bring. The Cali atmosphere has seriously warped his thinking.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 10, 2010 07:15 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Jean at May 10, 2010 07:15 AM (tTdaQ)
Posted by: ed at May 10, 2010 11:09 AM (Urhve)
There's no doubt abortion has become the Holy sacrament of Liberalism.
Never mind "Safe & Rare;" a few more years and Liberals will demand a holiday celebrating it and those women that got abortions.
Posted by: CoolCzech at May 10, 2010 07:17 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: Elena Kagan at May 10, 2010 07:21 AM (90oki)
Posted by: Original Roy at May 10, 2010 10:52 AM (jV0wG)
This is not good news for Jews, since the 3 Jews on the Court would all be America-hating shitbags who will harm American Jews more than anything in our history. This is a very dangerous development for American Jews, and is part of a strategy to marginalize Jews in America - which American Jews have been happy to go along with in large numbers, as they supported the Indonesian Imbecile in embarrassing numbers.
It is sad, but Jews are going to experience the 1930's all over again, except that it will be global, this time, and there will be no sanctuary. Once Israel is gone, it's pretty much all over. The chances that Israel does what it needs to survive, though, are not encouraging. Not one bit.
Having the left side of the Court packed with Jews is a terrible development that American Jews ought to rally against, just for survival. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping against hope.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 07:23 AM (Qp4DT)
From The Hill: (snip)
Republicans are questioning Elena KaganÂ’s ties to a liberal icon and the nationÂ’s first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall.
Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”
I tried to post more of the article but the system found an additional two sentences 'annoying'.
Posted by: Tami at May 10, 2010 07:34 AM (VuLos)
Fannie Mae requested another $8.4 billion from the federal government on Monday, saying that due to trends in the housing and financial markets, the company expects its deficits to continue. Â…
The request cames just four days after Fannie’s twin Freddie Mac also asked for a handout – to the tune of $10.6 billion – after posting an $8 billion quarterly loss.
Posted by: Mal at May 10, 2010 07:42 AM (Z+qzA)
Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”
Posted by: Tami at May 10, 2010 11:34 AM (VuLos)
Didn't Barry say the Constitution was flawed? This cow is as leftist as Barry is or she wouldn't have been nominated.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 10, 2010 07:45 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 10, 2010 07:54 AM (1fanL)
Didn't Barry say the Constitution was flawed? This cow is as leftist as Barry is or she wouldn't have been nominated.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 10, 2010 11:45 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at May 10, 2010 07:55 AM (YVZlY)
Didn't Barry say the Constitution was flawed? This cow is as leftist as Barry is or she wouldn't have been nominated.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 10, 2010 11:45 AM (1Jaio)
Obama, from a 2001 Public Radio interview: (source: American Thinker)
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it IÂ’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnÂ’t that radical. It didnÂ’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states canÂ’t do to you. Says what the Federal government canÂ’t do to you, but doesnÂ’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasnÂ’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Posted by: Tami at May 10, 2010 07:59 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: Tami at May 10, 2010 11:59 AM (VuLos)
The "Constitutional Scholar" evidently never read Amendments V, VI, or VII. All they talk about is what the various governments must do on your behalf.
V talks about due process that the government MUST do and just compensation that governments must give for seized private property.
VI discusses that the government must provide a speedy and public trial by jury, including details about the composition of the jury, the jurisdiction to be tried in, ...
VII forces the government to provide trial by jury for civil cases above a minimal amount.
Usually, people who characterize the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties" (which it isn't, anyway, as its main purpose is as the architecture and limits of the federal government) are only talking about the Bill of Rights (as the rest of the Constitution has little to do with 'negative liberties') and, even then, they are only talking about the few cherished amendments that the left has based most of its idiotic cases on - though the "Equal Protection" amendment is a favorite of lefties to abuse for all sorts of insane cases. Even the Bill of Rights involves positive instructions to the various governments as to what they must do on the citizen's behalf ... but I wouldn't expect Harvard retards to learn or understand this. It's too obvious.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 08:09 AM (Qp4DT)
Oops. I should have put quotes in to show that you were quoting the Indonesian Imbecile. Sorry, Tami.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 08:11 AM (Qp4DT)
This is where it all started. A lot of people said that the federal government had no authority to tell private businesses who they could serve at their "lunch counters", nor could they tell private owners who that could sell their house to, or private companies who they had to hire.
Even as people said that this was an abuse of authority even if it was for a so-called worthy cause they were accused of racism. Hell, that tactic worked so good it is used for everything now. Hell, if you are against anything that black people advocate now you are a racist.
The truth of the matter, as originally stated, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to have the authority to tell people who, what, or where they will do business. And as was originally stated this has morphed into other venues besides guaranteeing blacks. Now a bar can not allow smoking and the government can force you to hire based on a percentage of race, except in the case of Asians.
Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 08:29 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 12:29 PM (6taRI)
Not just the federal government, but even state governments are not allowed to infringe on private property rights without, at least, just compensation for the loss to the owner (amend V). But to have the federal government do it is doubly offensive, un-Constitutonal, and un-American.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 10, 2010 08:33 AM (Qp4DT)
But he refused to sign onto a bill that would tell people who they had to do business with. He knew that was wrong. He knew it would cement divisions. Instead of learning how to get along, we were always going to be forced to, and some would resent it.
And now this patriot and lover of all Americans was branded a racist by some for opposing one civil rights bill on his own more solid understanding of the true meaning of civil rights.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 10, 2010 09:29 AM (dUOK+)
Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 10, 2010 10:00 AM (ITzbJ)
Did anybody say that she looks like Dick Morris in drag? Or not in drag. Especially that pic on drudge.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at May 10, 2010 10:05 AM (JKe0g)
Posted by: wytshus at May 10, 2010 10:59 AM (C8byF)
Posted by: Alta White Teeth Whitening at May 13, 2010 07:21 PM (x90jR)
Thanks and IÂ’ll keep an eye of this ...
Posted by: Alta White Teeth Whitening at May 13, 2010 07:35 PM (x90jR)
Posted by: Force Factor Supplements at May 18, 2010 01:32 AM (Vm17f)
Posted by: dfcvbcb at May 18, 2010 08:56 PM (eU/Oa)
I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here often. I am quite sure they will learn lots of new stuff here than anybody else!
Posted by: Acai Max at May 28, 2010 03:11 AM (yio/c)
Posted by: Advanced Colon Max at June 04, 2010 09:46 PM (Eyd+N)
Posted by: Force Factor at June 28, 2010 02:07 AM (6B+uD)
Force Factor
Posted by: jakse nlanier at June 28, 2010 04:12 AM (h3aTC)
Acai Max Cleanse
Posted by: fiilfin sagen at July 14, 2010 09:17 PM (9Lekq)
Posted by: Pro Cleanse Gold at August 03, 2010 08:20 PM (uLCRT)
Posted by: Acai Max Cleanse at August 05, 2010 02:57 AM (HmRRl)
Posted by: laptop batteries at August 15, 2010 06:57 PM (Psqpc)
Posted by: Glamour Smile at August 17, 2010 02:43 AM (NCck3)
Posted by: Bactium at August 20, 2010 12:32 AM (4XzJK)
Posted by: LeanSpa Acai at September 03, 2010 05:27 AM (bUuTO)
Posted by: Pure Hoodia at September 06, 2010 04:21 AM (iVaIc)
Posted by: Pro Cleanse Gold at September 08, 2010 02:46 AM (9NT0X)
Posted by: Nox Edge at September 13, 2010 11:15 PM (pg96V)
Posted by: Natura Cleanse at September 15, 2010 02:03 AM (GphmP)
Nox Edge
Posted by: clerins madona at September 17, 2010 09:26 PM (fE/oD)
Posted by: globalization at September 19, 2010 02:08 PM (k1Pre)
Posted by: Natural Detox at September 26, 2010 08:35 PM (pjdt1)
Posted by: Pro Cleanse Gold at September 28, 2010 12:49 AM (FG4Vu)
natura cleanse
Posted by: unnuyi jkseno at September 29, 2010 08:57 PM (0UG7Q)
Posted by: Pure Cleanse at October 06, 2010 03:54 AM (7QMuD)
Posted by: MojoBlast at October 11, 2010 01:03 AM (1lixw)
dermalift
Posted by: udayso fakingso at October 31, 2010 08:16 PM (Iyn9X)
Posted by: leanspa at November 12, 2010 08:13 PM (b1rQq)
Posted by: Extamax at November 14, 2010 02:54 AM (txD8s)
Posted by: iPad to iTunes Transfer at November 20, 2010 07:42 PM (k84do)
Posted by: Brainquicken at November 26, 2010 02:59 AM (gi7f+)
Muscle X edge
Posted by: hallen madona at November 29, 2010 06:53 PM (Kv3y6)
Zetaclear
Posted by: bevil acqua at December 15, 2010 07:27 PM (9tXLQ)
Posted by: How to Stop Snoring at December 25, 2010 01:43 AM (JX26s)
colon lipo
Posted by: stephan ieiramire at January 03, 2011 09:10 PM (Wrf8y)
beta alanine
Posted by: deej crist at January 14, 2011 07:08 PM (DIREZ)
Posted by: Mitchel Osborne6826 at February 01, 2011 07:14 PM (FiJaF)
Lifecell wrinkle Cream
Posted by: amberkv msona at March 10, 2011 06:49 PM (LnXIa)
Plaque Attack
Posted by: christopherpl kiolpasen at March 11, 2011 09:20 PM (kXRzR)
<a href="http://healthproductadvice.com/acai-lipo-review-where-to-buy/">Acai Lipo</a>
Posted by: anitrask yiopasca at March 14, 2011 09:10 PM (8GTEl)
Zetaclear
Posted by: jamikabg hagesen at March 17, 2011 09:18 PM (vGyNB)
Complex Cleanse
Posted by: changmr pitterson at March 22, 2011 09:05 PM (Ii9aI)
Super Probiotic
Posted by: francescawo yuthup at March 25, 2011 09:21 PM (bacCk)
African Mango Plus
Posted by: cassyfa fuluopsan at March 27, 2011 10:33 PM (8InPF)
African Mango Plus
Posted by: malissagx thansan at March 31, 2011 08:58 PM (nja5/)
LeanSpa
Posted by: maxineia mobbins at April 05, 2011 08:45 PM (LR1ja)
Ultra Berry Blast
Posted by: lavonegj hognisp at April 06, 2011 08:51 PM (FQKU2)
Lifecell Wrinkle Cream
Posted by: dulcegm chucsen at April 07, 2011 09:50 PM (FN9OI)
Nutraslim HCA
Posted by: barberatf ganston at April 10, 2011 10:59 PM (lJ943)
Amazing HCG
Posted by: adrienetn fuckings at April 13, 2011 01:09 AM (PC9Xy)
Posted by: Pure Acai 300 at April 13, 2011 03:48 AM (VYxmc)
Posted by: Quick Detox at April 13, 2011 09:54 PM (zktJ5)
Quick Detox
Posted by: jaskens at April 14, 2011 01:28 AM (zktJ5)
Posted by: NutraSlim at April 15, 2011 02:41 AM (cji4p)
Posted by: Quick detox Cleanse at April 17, 2011 10:48 PM (lPbQF)
Quick Detox Diet
Posted by: lesterlock gandusen at April 18, 2011 08:42 PM (blOoL)
Posted by: paint zoom at April 18, 2011 08:52 PM (blOoL)
Posted by: Xtreme NO at April 19, 2011 11:25 PM (08C0Q)
Posted by: Beri Ultimate at April 21, 2011 02:26 AM (TxPx9)
Healthy Colon Cleanse
Posted by: keithwallerpa2l hadeny at April 21, 2011 11:29 PM (1BlC4)
Match.com Free Trial
Posted by: sharronlog chutke at April 22, 2011 09:27 PM (UFYtA)
Paint Zoom
Posted by: tonyaenglisho potter at April 24, 2011 09:39 PM (/tQ/V)
Hydroxatone
Posted by: tammiegillesp gaga at April 26, 2011 08:35 PM (z5Aji)
The New York Times Subscription
Posted by: fidelcasti marriy at April 27, 2011 11:15 PM (7Batx)
Radialabs
Posted by: derrickcoc bieber at April 28, 2011 08:42 PM (Qsp3A)
Radialabs
Posted by: irafreeman0ndqa gagsen at April 29, 2011 08:42 PM (IAKed)
Nue Science
Posted by: krischen0r mdona at May 03, 2011 08:49 PM (k3nrl)
Nitric Oxide
Posted by: laramoore hidalgo at May 10, 2011 09:10 PM (B4qud)
Best Nitric Oxide Supplements
Posted by: maxwellbaldwin dhogesn at May 11, 2011 08:48 PM (vmyLT)
Nitric Oxide Supplement
Posted by: thurmannews dhiklo at May 12, 2011 11:27 PM (tfOD4)
HCG Instant Diet
Posted by: florastokesu charli at May 17, 2011 03:00 AM (+o/J0)
Posted by: HCG Instant Diet Review at May 17, 2011 03:34 AM (RQ92k)
Cheap Airline Tickets
Posted by: stuartreyna maslood at May 17, 2011 10:04 PM (3Eb/5)
Nitro Muscle Mass
Posted by: natashapat hosod at May 18, 2011 08:32 PM (ET9IR)
ShoeBuy Coupons
Posted by: CraigHogan at May 23, 2011 09:50 PM (J7S6P)
Best Anti Wrinkle Cream 2011
Posted by: loydmcgillrjch milissd at May 24, 2011 08:45 PM (vEp/k)
Dell Coupons
Posted by: KayBlacka poetor at May 30, 2011 08:38 PM (Elmbg)
Acai Ultra Berry Slim
Posted by: duanestric jakseo at July 01, 2011 08:32 PM (p/3DE)
The truth about this 149 day wonder needs to be told.
Hcg Free Trial
Posted by: aurorapine yutho at July 03, 2011 08:18 PM (f3uNF)
Wrinkle Cream
Posted by: reginawinston actions at July 04, 2011 08:24 PM (m69+1)
Nue Science
Posted by: hughleekymx jack at July 05, 2011 08:52 PM (t4Rg2)
Posted by: Spray White 90 at July 07, 2011 11:02 PM (NGwPJ)
Spray White
Posted by: jacquelinepatino jacksen at July 08, 2011 08:48 PM (bqSrI)
Hcg Free Trial
Posted by: jessiefrank kelish at July 10, 2011 08:44 PM (Kidhy)
Mizulean
Posted by: drewbrookstf uthapio at July 12, 2011 02:46 AM (Mj+zg)
____________
Plaque attack for dogs reviews
Where to Buy Happy Nappers
Posted by: Siegfred at July 12, 2011 07:52 PM (TGn4i)
Hcg Activator
Posted by: fidelwattsbi marion at July 12, 2011 10:07 PM (AQSmh)
Amethyst
Rings Shop
Peridot
Rings Shop
Pearl Rings
Shop
Turquoise
Rings Shop
Mini
Trucks for Sale
Posted by: Amethyst at July 13, 2011 04:42 AM (ySWCA)
Force Factor
Posted by: shaunalbrig actions at July 13, 2011 08:16 PM (w/R+8)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2636 seconds, 599 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: mrkwong at May 09, 2010 06:29 PM (G8Eo0)