Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,837,011 times
Reputation: 6438
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Let's pull it all together. You didn't read her thesis in entirety and instead just took a small snippet completely out of context - which you read in some other lame-brained smear blog or whatever that was put together by someone with the same caliber of intellectual integrity as those people who put together and forward on email chain letters. And based on that little snippet, you jumped to far-reaching conclusions about Kagan's personal views that conveniently match your own conservative bias.
Wow. That's really so...intelligent and not at all ignorant of you.
Your post made me chuckle. LOL @ email chain letter forwarding.
But, but .. I read somewhere if you don't forward it, you'll have bad luck for a year!
My conclusions are drawn from the factual portion of the story. That is, the topic of the thesis as well as her career.
Your conclusions are drawn from your own creepy personal issues: "...political science, psychology, and other touchy feely graduate programs are looked down upon by those who study REAL subjects."
1. This canard has been disproven again and again. 40 previous justices had no experience on the bench. These include Rehenquist, Fortas, Warren and Brandeis. She IS a legal scholar, which is the actual criteria you would look for.
2. This also has been explained again, again and again. She DID NOT bar the military from the Harvard campus. In order to use the Harvard Law career center for interviews companies and organizations were required to sign a non-discrimination form that included non-discrimination against gays and lesbians. The military would not sign it and therefore couldn't use the career center. Once the policy was changed the military recruitment rates from Harvard Law school did NOT change at all.... But feel free to keep screaming.
3. I think the line for a radical is a bit different from my perspective. I consider a radical someone who wants to legislate Christianity in to the law. I guess this is all a matter of perspective.
4. Ahh.. There we go. There is no information out there as to her sexuality, and gay, straight or bisexual... It's irrelevant. This is your personal bias and homophobia.
I know it's much more fun to scream half-truths that are congruent with your political perspective, however, people should do some reading and learn the truth so they don't make fools of themselves.
1. There has been 111 Supreme Court justices. The majority have had experience on the bench. Funny how that works- selecting judges for a judicial positon. To note the exception to the rule would be similar to supporting a community organizer for president. We know how that has worked out.
2. Right. She did not ban the military. That is why they were not allowed there. And, of course, we know that SHE IS NOT GAY, as the main defense was in regard to "don't ask, don't tell". That is simply hilarious. Of course she is anti-military.
3. I consider a radical to be someone who has been raised and expressed only views of one political EXTREME. This is Kagan. She said she did not even KNOW a republican while growing up and her father was a radical left wing New York lawyer. She has only expressed partisan political views and by that bias is exteremly dangerous on the bench. ALL of her views will be, and have been, far left wing. Justice is tilted far left with her and anyone who cherishes a free court should be frightened.
4. Right- she is not gay. And Sotomayor is not a Hispanic racist. Obviously, she IS GAY. The fact that she will not state so suggests that she is hiding her pro-gay agenda and is afraid of it. I am constrained by the fog of liberalism and can see who she is and exactly how she will vote- non objectively and totally left wing.
1. There has been 111 Supreme Court justices. The majority have had experience on the bench. Funny how that works- selecting judges for a judicial positon. To note the exception to the rule would be similar to supporting a community organizer for president. We know how that has worked out.
Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. Since 40 of the Supreme Court Justices (including some of the most storied and famous didn't have previous experience on the bench, that makes the proportion much higher than I though!
Over A THIRD didn't have previous experience as a judge. That's much HIGHER than I thought. I bet that almost makes it-- NORMAL! You would say if a third of a population had something in common, it would be normal, wouldn't you?
It kind of makes me think this whole shriek about previous experience as a judge is a canard!
Many German Socialist's endorsed the Nazis for one reason or another,as any student of modern european history aware.
IMHO the person who dressed this Jewish lady in Nazi garb deserves,richly, to burn in hell.
If the judge is jewish,as Christians believe, I suspect they will.
Granted, my dissertation concerns an area of study focused on engineering and computer science rather than a liberal arts graduate degree, but the citation is not used to discredit socialism in her thesis. Rather it appears to lament the demise of socialist "radicalism". It's little wonder why political science, psychology, and other touchy feely graduate programs are looked down upon by those who study REAL subjects.
As your post/s make clear beyond all doubt, you and reality are complete,
total and utter strangers.
Profoundly diseased mind.
Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. Since 40 of the Supreme Court Justices (including some of the most storied and famous didn't have previous experience on the bench, that makes the proportion much higher than I though!
Over A THIRD didn't have previous experience as a judge. That's much HIGHER than I thought. I bet that almost makes it-- NORMAL! You would say if a third of a population had something in common, it would be normal, wouldn't you?
It kind of makes me think this whole shriek about previous experience as a judge is a canard!
About one third have not had previous judicial experience.
If you look at the link, however, nearly ALL far eclipse the experience of Kagan and most were Attorneys General. That is a far cry from Kagan, who is grossly unqualified by any stretch of the imagination. You can spin all you want. Read it.
About one third have not had previous judicial experience.
If you look at the link, however, nearly ALL far eclipse the experience of Kagan and most were Attorneys General. That is a far cry from Kagan, who is grossly unqualified by any stretch of the imagination. You can spin all you want. Read it.
As your post/s make clear beyond all doubt, you and reality are complete,
total and utter strangers.
Profoundly diseased mind.
I'd be happy to address your disagreement, kind sir. What specifically would you like to challenge?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
