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.
Great link. Anyone with a brain knows she is a dangerous radical and has no buisness being on the Supreme Court. However, we are in Obamaland now, where "sense" is nonsense.
1. what is the wisdom in appointing a "judge" with no judicial experience? Does one hire an airline pilot who has only driven a bus?
2. When one bars the military from the campus of Harvard, one knows in advance what her position is toward the military
3. When one associates and idolizes radicals, do you not think that reflects her core values, which will influence ALL of her decisions?
4. Can a raical lesbian be trusted with being objective with regard to cases involving the gay agenda at the expense of objectivity for all?
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.
This woman (and I use the term loosely) is a bloody troll. She is without question the worst nominee for the court in the HISTORY of this country, and she is an ideological plant to be the swing vote on a court that just upheld the 2nd amendment by one skinny vote.
Her dancing and dodging the questions regarding her personal views on unalienable rights (claiming she doesn't have a personal view) should send shivers down the spine of any thoughtful American who values constitutional protections.
But .. her confirmation is a foregone conclusion, with these hearings nothing but a dog and pony show from a fraudulent group of congressional pimps.
History will record the death of the US Constitution with the confirmation of this godless, soulless anti-American troll.
History will record the death of the US Constitution with the confirmation of this godless, soulless anti-American troll.
Legally speaking, we are a god-less, soul-less government. I mean that's the point of America. A nation free from the depsotic rule on monarchy/aristocracy as well as the proverbial church.
I mean should Obama have picked Pat Robertson for the job? Would that make you happy. I bet if he did, you'd still be pissed at it-b/c it's Obama.
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.
They only want a Christian Fundie on the bench. Someone who will force Protestant prayer and Creationism, and death to gays down our throats.
I'm looking at her thesis in the context of her life events and goals. She never held a job in private industry, and has surrounded herself with ivory tower residents. This would not be a problem if she was actually held a judicial position for a period of time. Sorry, I know way too many people in my academic circle to know that overexposure to its halls stagnates the brain and creates an atmosphere for cognitive dysfunction. She's too one dimensional for my tastes.
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.
Yes, that was a really "factual" link you used there.
I didn't say it was a factual link.
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.
