Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/5/2010 9:24:03 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		Congratulations Ms. Kagan.



So what happened to the big fight?


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/5/2010 9:27:42 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/5/2010 9:38:19 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		The cons folded like a cheap camera.


It was like watching limp dicks trying to fuck.


Gross but kinds funny.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/5/2010 10:26:45 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59




It was like watching limp dicks trying to fuck.


Gross but kinds funny.


Got that mirror above your bed, eh?

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 12:25:25 AM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline 		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?



(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 12:33:25 AM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline
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


(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 12:42:16 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 6:29:37 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline 		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...


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 9:14:48 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 9:17:21 AM   
Hanscuff18


Posts: 22
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 9:23:37 AM   
Hanscuff18


Posts: 22
Status: offline
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...

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 9:41:27 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Hanscuff18)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 10:12:59 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 10:18:53 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/6/2010 10:20:18 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 10:21:27 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 10:33:40 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/6/2010 10:37:37 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - 8/6/2010 11:00:05 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 8/6/2010 11:03:39 AM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125