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.
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.
First Republicans and Teapartiers gripe that there are too many politicians in Washington and now they gripe because someone who is not a Washington insider gets appointed to the Supreme Court. The OP says writing a paper on the history of socialism in NYC in the early 1900s disqualifies the author from sitting on the court and yet a guy who posed nude for Playgirl Magazine is a fine example of a Republican senator with family values.---oh, wait, I get it. There's a different rule book for the democrats and democratic appointees.
First Republicans and Teapartiers gripe that there are too many politicians in Washington and now they gripe because someone who is not a Washington insider gets appointed to the Supreme Court. The OP says writing a paper on the history of socialism in NYC in the early 1900s disqualifies the author from sitting on the court and yet a guy who posed nude for Playgirl Magazine is a fine example of a Republican senator with family values.---oh, wait, I get it. There's a different rule book for the democrats and democratic appointees.
There ARE too many politicians in Washington.
This is not about a political seat- it is about the Supreme Court. Now would you not think that judicial experience (or experience as an Attorney General) would be important?
This is not about "family values". It is about the Supreme Court and a radical who has views far different from those of the rest of the nation. Her rulings will reflect her past, and as this is the best indicator, they will be far from objective.
Whatever happened to blind justice? Now it is political stacked justice.
How would you feel if the nominee was a radical right winger with no judicial experience and was a member of an extreme group such as the KKK? It is the same thing as appointing a radical left wing lesbian with no experience. Neither would be an appropriate SCOTUS justice, as they cannot be objective.
First Republicans and Teapartiers gripe that there are too many politicians in Washington and now they gripe because someone who is not a Washington insider gets appointed to the Supreme Court. The OP says writing a paper on the history of socialism in NYC in the early 1900s disqualifies the author from sitting on the court and yet a guy who posed nude for Playgirl Magazine is a fine example of a Republican senator with family values.---oh, wait, I get it. There's a different rule book for the democrats and democratic appointees.
Nobody is looking for a Washington insider for the SC. We are, however looking for someone who is not an idealougue.
This is not about a political seat- it is about the Supreme Court. Now would you not think that judicial experience (or experience as an Attorney General) would be important?
This is not about "family values". It is about the Supreme Court and a radical who has views far different from those of the rest of the nation. Her rulings will reflect her past, and as this is the best indicator, they will be far from objective.
Whatever happened to blind justice? Now it is political stacked justice.
How would you feel if the nominee was a radical right winger with no judicial experience and was a member of an extreme group such as the KKK? It is the same thing as appointing a radical left wing lesbian with no experience. Neither would be an appropriate SCOTUS justice, as they cannot be objective.
If the Founding Fathers had felt it was important to have judicial experience it would have been written in the Constitution....or are you saying they made a mistake here?
As for your comment that a "radical left wing lesbian" can't be objective in reading and ruling on the law....that's just bull poop. Studying the law is not done with the sex organs, even if it were proven that she is a lesbian which it hasn't been. Nor has the 'radical left wing' part been proven.
If the Founding Fathers had felt it was important to have judicial experience it would have been written in the Constitution....or are you saying they made a mistake here?
As for your comment that a "radical left wing lesbian" can't be objective in reading and ruling on the law....that's just bull poop. Studying the law is not done with the sex organs, even if it were proven that she is a lesbian which it hasn't been. Nor has the 'radical left wing' part been proven.
I think that any rational person would understand why a radical left wing lesbian is a good choice for the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be unbiased and interpret the laws fairly for everyone.
Has anyone ever met an objective radical left wing lesbian? Kagan will pull a "Sotomayor" and just lie about what her real positions are. Look at the recent Supreme Court ruling in which Sotomayor showed her true radical colors. Kagan is OBVIOUSLY a lesbian. The fact that she will not admit it is disturbing and shows he lack of transparency and honesty. How many straight women have a female "partner"?
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.
They were allowed to be there.They (the military) had it's most successful recruiting period on campus while she was there.
Quote:
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.
The court is already tilted so far right it is on its side. Every one in your book who is not exactly like you is far left. Jews who grew up in Jewish neighborhoods tend not to know any republicans. I grew up without knowing any blacks, and Im still liberal.
Quote:
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.
The only thing gay (and racist, since you insist) here is people like you.
They were allowed to be there.They (the military) had it's most successful recruiting period on campus while she was there.
The court is already tilted so far right it is on its side. Every one in your book who is not exactly like you is far left. Jews who grew up in Jewish neighborhoods tend not to know any republicans. I grew up without knowing any blacks, and Im still liberal.
The only thing gay and racist here is people like you. It not because of your politics its because of your actions.
1. Almost half were not judges. Again, read the link. 40 had no judicial experience, but most were Attorneys General. That is about one third.
2. Hey- she banned the military because she did not like the don't ask don't tell bit because she is gay. She ignored objectivity and made a decison due to her PERSONAL sexual orientation. What the hell do you think she will do as SCOTUS?
3. The court is to the "right". That is funny. You mean that the court currently interprets the constitution, rather than engaging in judicial activism. Witness the recent 2nd amendment ruling, thank God.
4. If you did not know any blacks or republicans, it shows how narrow and warped your childhood was. It is probably why you are a liberal today. I am glad that you pulled the "racist" word out. Try "poopy head". It is just as clever and relevent. Political correctness is a creation of Stalinism and you libs are too dense to realize that you have bee tricked. As a Jew, you should be embarassed.
This is not about a political seat- it is about the Supreme Court. Now would you not think that judicial experience (or experience as an Attorney General) would be important?
This is not about "family values". It is about the Supreme Court and a radical who has views far different from those of the rest of the nation. Her rulings will reflect her past, and as this is the best indicator, they will be far from objective.
Whatever happened to blind justice? Now it is political stacked justice.
How would you feel if the nominee was a radical right winger with no judicial experience and was a member of an extreme group such as the KKK? It is the same thing as appointing a radical left wing lesbian with no experience. Neither would be an appropriate SCOTUS justice, as they cannot be objective.
For much of this nations history, one did not have to be a lawyer to become a judge.
So how many held these posts without a law background?
The supreme court isn't about the "views" of the nation.
The court is already full of right wingers and centrists.
2. Hey- she banned the military because she did not like the don't ask don't tell bit because she is gay. She ignored objectivity and made a decison due to her PERSONAL sexual orientation. What the hell do you think she will do as SCOTUS?
You keep saying it but that does not make it correct.
The policy was in place when she got the job.
Military recruiting took place on campus while she was there.
Quote:
3. The court is to the "right". That is funny. You mean that the court currently interprets the constitution, rather than engaging in judicial activism. Witness the recent 2nd amendment ruling, thank God.
Another wrong ruling by the current radical court.
Quote:
4. If you did not know any blacks or republicans, it shows how narrow and warped your childhood was. It is probably why you are a liberal today. I am glad that you pulled the "racist" word out. Try "poopy head". It is just as clever and relevent. Political correctness is a creation of Stalinism and you libs are too dense to realize that you have bee tricked. As a Jew, you should be embarassed.
I grew up in a republican family. But that was then. The party is not anything like it was back then.
The racist was based on your comments, everybodys one for their views but you. your the one that focuses on it first
Quote:
....And Sotomayor is not a Hispanic racist
and foremost.
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.
