Elena Kagan
- Thread starter abe23
- Start date
I don't think activist judges are good. Does not matter what side they are on.
Clearly thats the way barry has gone with his two choices.
No surprise here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.breitbart.tv/kagans-own-...ks-because-government-wont-really-enforce-it/
Clearly thats the way barry has gone with his two choices.
No surprise here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.breitbart.tv/kagans-own-...ks-because-government-wont-really-enforce-it/
abe23
Active Member
Beardo, what values and rights won't she hold up and why? I don't know if you saw the hearings, but she's got a pretty good understanding of the law and the constitution. Is this just a hunch or are you basing it on something...?
And gorac, the term "activist judge" doesn't mean anything. If the criteria is overturning precedents, then the conservative judges on the court are the biggest activists. It's basically campaign speak for thinking a judge is too liberal or conservative, depending on where you stand. And both his choices have been outstanding legal minds with enough real world experience and common sense to make good supreme court justices. Alito and roberts on the other hand think corporations should be treated as people as far as political money goes. And scalia and thomas are basically corporate lackeys....
And gorac, the term "activist judge" doesn't mean anything. If the criteria is overturning precedents, then the conservative judges on the court are the biggest activists. It's basically campaign speak for thinking a judge is too liberal or conservative, depending on where you stand. And both his choices have been outstanding legal minds with enough real world experience and common sense to make good supreme court justices. Alito and roberts on the other hand think corporations should be treated as people as far as political money goes. And scalia and thomas are basically corporate lackeys....
Iron, Lion, Zion
Active Member
and
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Kagan would not say what the interstate commerce clause / limitations were. That's because she doesn't believe there are limitations on what the government can give itself permission to do. She is very dangerous to liberty.
My gut feeling is she doesn't get laid very often either...go figure.
My gut feeling is she doesn't get laid very often either...go figure.
R2F
Active Member
That pretty much sums up my opinion of her as well.
I'm not -as- concerned with her getting appointed with the current mix (liberal stepping down, liberal appointed). If it was changing the balance of the court I'd be much more concerned.
Countryfarmer
Active Member
Ditto.
And to Kagan, she is a "progressive" which means she thinks government is always the answer, hence why she wouldn't give a solid answer to the commerce clause question. She is also antagonistic to second amendment liberties, which is why she wouldn't answer questions on that front as well. At least she didn't lie like Sontamayer did when asked about second amendment liberties.
Iron, Lion, Zion
Active Member
I don't even understand why people say "Yah, I'm a progressive..." What exactly does that even mean? What exactly are you progressing to?
Countryfarmer
Active Member
"Progressive" is the new buzzword being used by socialists to describe themselves.
abe23
Active Member
Not really...it was actually pretty popular around teddy roosevelt's time. Is 'libertarian' the new buzzwords conservatives that were had by the bush administration use to describe themselves...? Neither really means anything. There's little point in those labels unless you're glenn beck or some other idiot.
In fact, jeff sessions asked her if she was a 'legal progressive' and her answer was 'i don't know what that means'. Good for her.
My question was actually whether there was anything specific you guys object to about her, not why you don't like barack obama and the people he is likely to appoint. "She's a progressive" is sort of a BS glenn beck answer...
And the commerce clause question was gotcha politics. There was no answer to that question and definitely none that she could have given that would be acceptable to the interrogators and the freedom crowd.
She held up pretty well all things considered...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
because we all know lesbians are super secret reverse vampires that want to destroy america...
seriously though, what the fuck difference would that make? please spell it out, as i really don't get how that should disqualify someone
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The term libertarian has been hijacked. If you don't beleive in inititating force you might be libertarian, if you do believe in initiaing force you are NOT a libertarian. Many so called libertarians are NOT libertarian, regardless of their assertions.
Disagree with the gotcha question. She could have said there IS a limitation on government, she chose not to. The interstate commerce clause became elastic years ago and is responsible for many evils, she prefers to keep it in her arsenal for more government control should she become a Supreme.
Free(er) people means less government. Kagan represents more government, she will be part of an element that will steal freedom and call it "for your own good". That's the same kind of "logic" that causes prohibitive laws....like Marijuana prohibition. I encourage people to seek truth and reject political partisanship. Other than Clarence Thomas, most Supremes have shown me they are political creatures and use their positions to bolster an ideology rather than safeguard freedom.
Kagan's non answer was indicative, she will not protect freedom ,she will steal, wait and see.
beardo
Well-Known Member
how about maybe she supports abortions wants more global government and might be a lesbian
because we all know lesbians are super secret reverse vampires that want to destroy america...
seriously though, what the fuck difference would that make? please spell it out, as i really don't get how that should disqualify someone . I dont think it should disqualify her...but those are not things i agree with so she is not someone who represents me...or my beliefs so if i could vote on the nomination it wouldnt be for her.
beardo
Well-Known Member
just gave answer screwed up trying to quote you..because we all know lesbians are super secret reverse vampires that want to destroy america...
seriously though, what the fuck difference would that make? please spell it out, as i really don't get how that should disqualify someone
I will tell you why she is a cunt. She thinks that the Centralization of power is a good thing, she thinks that the government should be able to edit content out of web based traffic. She sees nothing wrong with the govt eavesdropping on all your conversations and employing black booted thug treatment on those who speak with dissonant tones. She is wholeheartedly against people owning guns, and that right there is the worst of it, for it is the guns that allows the populace to ultimately be able to wrest control away from a tyrannical State.
Similar threads
