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.
It looks like once again the President is moving to improve the representation of an important and historically under represented group.
You're missing the point. The objection is not that Obama appointed a woman. But rather that he appointed a person who appears oblivious to leftist dogma of racial politics in her hiring practices, which, by the way, I'm ok with. The point, though, is that a Republican appointee with an idential hiring record would be pilloried by the media and the left. Which nicely illustrates the point that, in the final analysis, for the Left it's all about power and all the yelling and screaming about racial this and racial that is only window dressing.
You're missing the point. The objection is not that Obama appointed a woman. But rather that he appointed a person who appears oblivious to leftist dogma of racial politics in her hiring practices, which, by the way, I'm ok with. The point, though, is that a Republican appointee with an idential hiring record would be pilloried by the media and the left. Which nicely illustrates the point that, in the final analysis, for the Left it's all about power and all the yelling and screaming about racial this and racial that is only window dressing.
You would have a point had he nominated a Black candidate that only hired blacks. Again, I see this as a none issue that was bought about by Roland Martin. The fact that those of you who are not really familiar with Roland, would jump on this bandwagon should be an issue to you.
Last edited by CaseyB; 05-10-2010 at 06:30 PM..
Reason: off topic
The following is for liberals here to consider about her nomination. FOXNews.com - BRAINROOM: Background on Elena Kagan Below is a quote from the above article
"Many liberal critics are unhappy with Kagan's arguments as solicitor general supporting the "state secrets" doctrine, detentions without trial, and other broad Obama claims of executive power to fight terrorism -- some of them similar to the Bush policies that liberals oppose.
"From the perspective of those who have been advocating change from Bush policies, she has been a disappointment," said Tina Foster of the International Justice Network, who argued against Kagan's deputy Neal Katyal over detention policies in an appeal in January.
"She would spell very bad news" if she became a Supreme Court justice, said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long challenged Bush and now Obama detention policies. "We don't see any basis to assume she does not embrace the Bush view of executive power.""
No "liberals" are not using her record as Solicitor General to argue for or against her ...because it was her job to argue for what the President wanted regardless of her political views.
Only "right wingers" who are too ignorant to know the word "Solicitor General", much less what the job entails will use that against her.
Last edited by padcrasher; 05-10-2010 at 02:35 PM..
We knew from the start that Republicans would declare whoever Obama picked to be a 'radical socialist', so the accusations they make here can be expected to receive not much more than an eye-roll. It's amazing that conservatives expect to be taken seriously when they've labeled anything that's not hard-right as socialist. If you were to replace the term "socialist" with any general derogatory term, the Republican lines of attack wouldn't sound much different.
Yes. And these same people probably thought Harriet Miers was a great choice for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush.
She had a difference of opinion with the Court, that doesn't mean she has bad judgment. The Court itself is often split, and sometimes quite divisively, and that doesn't mean that some of the Supreme Court Justices have bad judgment just because they are overruled. I certainly don't think that she was "embarrassed" by the military recruiter issue. As a lawyer, sometimes your arguments persuade the judges, and sometimes they don't.
Again, very few people have "Solicitor General" on their resume. The job requires an extraordinary amount of knowledge of federal law.
In this particular case, it does demonstrate bad judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled her decision. The Supreme Court was not split, even the most liberal justice on the court ruled against her.
When every justice rules against her, including her fellow liberals, that demonstrates embarrassingly poor judgment on her part.
In this particular case, it does demonstrate bad judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled her decision. The Supreme Court was not split, even the most liberal justice on the court ruled against her.
When every justice rules against her, including her fellow liberals, that demonstrates embarrassingly poor judgment on her part.
No SCOTUS didn't "overrule her decision"....She wasn't involved in the court case one iota nor was anyone at Harvard...LOL
After the ruling she complied with the decision like all other University Deans did to keep Federal funding.
Yes. And these same people probably thought Harriet Miers was a great choice for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush.
Glenn Greenwald says it best.
"the Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they're eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values. Beltway Democrats do the opposite: the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don't really believe those things, so the path that enables them to avoid confrontation of ideas is always the most attractive, even if it risks moving the Court to the Right. "
Harriet Miers was perfectly acceptable if the right was "sure" they were getting someone who reflects their values. But she didn't have a record, as Kagan doesn't have a record, so they rightly rejected her. Beltway Democrats don't have the balls to do that when it comes to their values.
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.
