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.
Keep in mind, Kagan blocked military recruiters at Harvard...but the real issue coming up will be states who have legislated against the health care mandate....if appointed,she will certainly be involved when that issue comes before the Supreme Court....so the big question is how she supports/interprets intent of the constitution...
While being grilled during her Senate hearing,she can hardly be expected to answer how she would rule on the question.So, it all comes down to how the Senate interprets her responses.....ie,consttitution,gay rights,civil rights,etc...
It's right there in the first paragraph of your article, Roy, what Obama means by 'more representative: ".......the prospect of three women taking their seat on the nation’s highest Court for the first time in history. A Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.” He didn't mean that Kagan herself is more representative of American. He meant with herthe court as a whole would be more balanced when it comes to gender and martial status.
Oh you and your facts and full sentences !!!
You know that's too long for repugs to read !!!
Why don't repugs like my idea of having ol' down to earth Joe the Plumber on the Supreme Court? I'm serious ...what do you think they're objections would be???
The problem with your "logic" is that you are basically stating that a Black, Hispanic, Asian, gay or non-Christian will not have the ability to make an unbiased decision on the Supreme Court yet.....the only people who can be objective are straight, Christian, White males.
So you tell me who has the real "bias"?
Not at all. As I stated earlier, the white-male-dominated Supreme Court has issued MANY scathingly racist rulings, which proves that bias, whether it be societal norm or personal advocacy, does indeed affect rulings. White men have issued biased rulings. Homosexuals and minorities will issue biased rulings. It's part human nature. It's part societal expectation. It happens, and it will continue to happen. Look to history for your proof.
Because of natural human bias. Most American's view homosexuality as an abomination. When a person puts themselves in the purview of public scrutiny, its at that point that whatever comes of it, comes of it. Homosexuality should not be exempt from that scrutiny. If she can't handle it, then she should reject the nomination.
I don't think that MOST Americans view homosexuality as an "abomination". Can you provide any current proof for that statement?
Keep in mind, Kagan blocked military recruiters at Harvard.....
That's not true...
REALITY: Kagan consistently followed the law, and Harvard students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters. Kagan briefly restricted (but did not eliminate) access to recruiters only after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could do so. As The New York Times explained in a May 6 article:
I don't think that MOST Americans view homosexuality as an "abomination". Can you provide any current proof for that statement?
Sure. 78% of American's are Christians. That's proof enough, no matter how watered-down the anti-religious try to portray Christianity. The truth is that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Christian God. Whether a Christian chooses to side with God or side with society is between that person and God.
Except I'm not lying, and now you're looking foolish. Why aren't you bringing up the quote? Do I have to do everything for you?
You claimed that she said that "she has superior judgement skills than a white man," when she said, referring to judges presiding over racial and discrimination cases, that
So basically she is saying that someone with experiences as a racial minority would have better grounds to judge a case dealing with racial discrimination than someone who does not, not that she has "superior judgement skills".
Your puerile twisting and reductionism is laughable, and considering this is a derail, I'll end it here.
Not at all. As I stated earlier, the white-male-dominated Supreme Court has issued MANY scathingly racist rulings, which proves that bias, whether it be societal norm or personal advocacy, does indeed affect rulings. White men have issued biased rulings. Homosexuals and minorities will issue biased rulings. It's part human nature. It's part societal expectation. It happens, and it will continue to happen. Look to history for your proof.
So...we need to keep the Supreme Court white male and straight so that only women, minorities and gay people will get the ***** end of the stick.
Sure. 78% of American's are Christians. That's proof enough, no matter how watered-down the anti-religious try to portray Christianity. The truth is that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Christian God. Whether a Christian chooses to side with God or side with society is between that person and God.
Again, Sir, please respond: you acknowledge that black people were unfavorably ruled upon. A big argument in the slavery discussion was that it is seemingly accepted if not propagated in the bible. Obviously, the Good Book proved faulty in this aspect.
Now, let me ask you: where does your opposition to homosexuality come from? Is it perchance that same bible? What could that imply regarding your stance towards homosexuality if you take the above paragraph into consideration?
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.
