Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice

Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/5/2010 9:24:03 PM)
Congratulations Ms. Kagan. So what happened to the big fight?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/5/2010 9:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Congratulations Ms. Kagan. So what happened to the big fight? None was expected, so nothing happened to it. In fact it was surprising how many Republicans remained firm on principle and voted no.

Owner59 -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/5/2010 9:38:19 PM)
The cons folded like a cheap camera. It was like watching limp dicks trying to fuck. Gross but kinds funny.[:D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/5/2010 10:26:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 It was like watching limp dicks trying to fuck. Gross but kinds funny.[:D] Got that mirror above your bed, eh?

Brain -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 12:25:25 AM)
They were just blowing smoke. This court is still political and with right wing bias; I also think its recent judicial activism and disregard for precedent is dangerous. I won’t be surprised if that California gay marriage decision is overturned even though it was made by a Republican judge appointed by Ronald Reagan. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Congratulations Ms. Kagan. So what happened to the big fight?

Brain -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 12:33:25 AM)
How Will the Supreme Court Rule on Same-Sex Marriage? A strong Supreme Court decision against gay marriage would create a precedent that would take decades to undo. With our society moving generally in the direction of more tolerance for gays and lesbians, many activists wanted to wait a few more years before bringing a case to the high court. But they may be too pessimistic about the current Supreme Court. So long as the question of marriage equality turns on Justice Kennedy's vote, Ted Olson and David Boies -- and those in the gay and lesbian community who are depending on them to win this case -- are in good hands. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/how-will-the-supreme-cour_b_671096.html

joether -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 12:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Congratulations Ms. Kagan. So what happened to the big fight? The GOP didn't want to totally alienate the Hispanic community (or any other minority community). Since after Arizona's anti-Hispanic law went in to effect, the GOP is looking like a bunch of racists. At least they have TEA at their PARTY's, and open to 'everyone'. So yes, to fight this, would have been the last nail in their coffin for the november elections.

DarkSteven -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 6:29:37 AM)
THE GOP didn't have the votes. They didn't want to rubber stamp her, so they raised as many silly objections as possible (she has almost no judicial trail, what could they seize on?) and voted against her for show. Unless she had been an ax murderer or something, it was a done deal from the minute that Obama announced her. Back in the old days, the President's nominations were shoo-ins. Nixon managed to change that with a supremely unqualified Carswell. Since then, things have gotten more partisan and nominees have been voted down for political views...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 9:14:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven THE GOP didn't have the votes. They didn't want to rubber stamp her, so they raised as many silly objections as possible (she has almost no judicial trail, what could they seize on?) and voted against her for show. Unless she had been an ax murderer or something, it was a done deal from the minute that Obama announced her. Back in the old days, the President's nominations were shoo-ins. Nixon managed to change that with a supremely unqualified Carswell. Since then, things have gotten more partisan and nominees have been voted down for political views... .....starting with?

Hanscuff18 -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 9:17:21 AM)
Since when did judicial experience become a requirement for the Supreme Court? I was under the impression that it was knowledge of the law. At least that's what William Rehnquist said. Senator McLellan back in 1971, when President Nixon selected Rehnquist and Lewis Powell (neither with prior judicial experience) said: "Do these nominees have personal integrity? Do they possess professional competency? Do they have an abiding fidelity to the Constitution?" Forty Supreme Court justices have come to the court without any prior judicial experience, half of them serving during the 20th century.

Hanscuff18 -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 9:23:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven THE GOP didn't have the votes. They didn't want to rubber stamp her, so they raised as many silly objections as possible (she has almost no judicial trail, what could they seize on?) and voted against her for show. Unless she had been an ax murderer or something, it was a done deal from the minute that Obama announced her. Back in the old days, the President's nominations were shoo-ins. Nixon managed to change that with a supremely unqualified Carswell. Since then, things have gotten more partisan and nominees have been voted down for political views... .....starting with? I'm thinking Bork (can't remember his first name) and and Douglas Ginsberg. Not sure if Harriet Miers would have passed a vote or not...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 9:41:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hanscuff18 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven THE GOP didn't have the votes. They didn't want to rubber stamp her, so they raised as many silly objections as possible (she has almost no judicial trail, what could they seize on?) and voted against her for show. Unless she had been an ax murderer or something, it was a done deal from the minute that Obama announced her. Back in the old days, the President's nominations were shoo-ins. Nixon managed to change that with a supremely unqualified Carswell. Since then, things have gotten more partisan and nominees have been voted down for political views... .....starting with? I'm thinking Bork (can't remember his first name) and and Douglas Ginsberg. Not sure if Harriet Miers would have passed a vote or not... Bingo (in the modern era). No, Miers wouldnt have passed. The GOP and Dems were both firmly against her. Bush was delusional with her nomination, but more than made up for it with Roberts and Alito, two of the most accomplished Justices ever, and even their votes were close to party line.

DomKen -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 10:12:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Roberts and Alito, two of the most accomplished Justices ever, and even their votes were close to party line. WTF? Roberts had only 2 years experience on the appelate bench before his nomination. His career prior to that was one marked by just 13 years in private practice out of his 24 years between passing the bar and being appointed to the bench. I can find no criminal case where he was the attorney of record. Alito has what most would consider the average legal career for a SCOTUS justice. Nothing really stands out but at least he spent a while on the appelate bench proving that he understood the role of the appelate judge.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 10:18:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Roberts and Alito, two of the most accomplished Justices ever, and even their votes were close to party line. WTF? Roberts had only 2 years experience on the appelate bench before his nomination. His career prior to that was one marked by just 13 years in private practice out of his 24 years between passing the bar and being appointed to the bench. I can find no criminal case where he was the attorney of record. Alito has what most would consider the average legal career for a SCOTUS justice. Nothing really stands out but at least he spent a while on the appelate bench proving that he understood the role of the appelate judge. Interesting that you try to refute my post using judicial experience in the same thread where you defend Kagan's lack of judicial experience as not being dispositive. Hint: There are other accomplishments that are not measured in time. FAIL again.

DomKen -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 10:21:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Roberts and Alito, two of the most accomplished Justices ever, and even their votes were close to party line. WTF? Roberts had only 2 years experience on the appelate bench before his nomination. His career prior to that was one marked by just 13 years in private practice out of his 24 years between passing the bar and being appointed to the bench. I can find no criminal case where he was the attorney of record. Alito has what most would consider the average legal career for a SCOTUS justice. Nothing really stands out but at least he spent a while on the appelate bench proving that he understood the role of the appelate judge. Interesting that you try to refute my post using judicial experience in the same thread where you defend Kagan's lack of judicial experience as not being dispositive. Hint: There are other accomplishments that are not measured in time. FAIL again. Where precisely do I defend anything in this thread? Or is this you making up your own facts again like what the Brown v Board ruling was about?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 10:33:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Roberts and Alito, two of the most accomplished Justices ever, and even their votes were close to party line. WTF? Roberts had only 2 years experience on the appelate bench before his nomination. His career prior to that was one marked by just 13 years in private practice out of his 24 years between passing the bar and being appointed to the bench. I can find no criminal case where he was the attorney of record. Alito has what most would consider the average legal career for a SCOTUS justice. Nothing really stands out but at least he spent a while on the appelate bench proving that he understood the role of the appelate judge. Interesting that you try to refute my post using judicial experience in the same thread where you defend Kagan's lack of judicial experience as not being dispositive. Hint: There are other accomplishments that are not measured in time. FAIL again. Where precisely do I defend anything in this thread? Or is this you making up your own facts again like what the Brown v Board ruling was about? My bad. It was hanscuff. You do so sound alike. If you want to debate Brown in the other thread fine. But read it and tell me that the decision hold water on any legal grounds if you throw out the financial side, despite their feeble attempt to dismiss that because of *stare decisis*. All of which is a diversion from my post. DarkSteven was bemoaning the loss of the "old days" when nominations were approved or denied on a far less ideological basis. I agree. The problem is that if nominations are MADE on that basis, then they have to be considered on that basis at risk of total loss of balance in the Court. Denial on an ideological basis has been the primary weapon of the left, not the right.

DomKen -> RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice (8/6/2010 11:00:05 AM)
Denial on an ideological basis has never happened. Bork was rejected because he did not have the temperment to be a SCOTUS justice. That Thomas was approved despite it being clear that he was to the right of Bork should make that clear. As to Brown v Board you made the claim that it was based on financial aspects and that is incorrect as I proved by quoting the ruling. There was no feeble attempt to dismiss it because of stare decisis. They threw out stare decisis and reversed plessy.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125