Kagan confirmation vote a sign of future troubles
With yesterday’s Senate confirmation, Elena Kagan is now a Supreme Court justice. She has the intellect and experience to do well in that post.
For the moment, though, I’d like to focus on the fact that 37 senators voted against her confirmation, which is perilously close to the 40 votes that would have been required to filibuster her nomination. I think that’s an ominous sign, confirming a sense that American government is coming close to a breakdown.
As an Obama nominee, Kagan is of course going to be different than, say, a Palin or Romney or Gingrich nominee. That’s how the system works. The right to make such nominations is part of the “spoils of war” that come with winning the presidency. Historically, the Senate has respected that reality.
Kagan is also well within the legal mainstream and eminently qualified for the court. In fact, one of the worst things you could say about her is that she has spent her life and career trying to avoid controversies that might prevent confirmation. Some Senate Republicans have tried to make an issue of the fact that she had never served as a judge, but on that too she falls well within the historical norm. Roughly a third of our Supreme Court justices had no prior experience on the bench, including the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who became a conservative legal icon.
So the fact that 37 senators nonetheless voted against an utterly mainstream, determinedly “safe” nominee such as Kagan ought to be taken as a serious warning sign. Most of those votes weren’t against her as a individual, they were a statement of general political opposition and would have been cast against any nominee that Obama was likely to propose.
“We are well on our way to a huge train wreck,” Tom Goldstein, a veteran Supreme Court litigator, told Politico. “I do think this is a corner we won’t be able to turn back [from], or at least there’s no sign the Senate will turn back from, for a long time.” If 60 “yes” votes “is the best anyone is going to have, a Supreme Court confirmation fight could easily turn into thermonuclear war.”
Sen. Lindsay Graham, one of five Republicans to vote for Kagan, is among those worried.
“Things are changing,” he said. “I worry the direction we’re drifting. I don’t question any of my colleagues’ decisions; I would just like to get us back to more traditional ‘advice and consent,’ where the [presidential] election is respected. I worry about where this takes us as a nation with the judiciary.”
In 1986, Antonin Scalia was confirmed by 98-0. Five years ago, John Roberts was confirmed by a vote of 78-22, with 22 Democrats voting for him. In 2006, Samuel Alito was confirmed by just 58-42, with just four Democrats voting for him, indicating that both parties are edging closer to the line. As Graham notes, the trend is ominous, threatening not just future Supreme Court nominees but the overall ability of government to conduct necessary business.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
967 comments Add your comment
Dave R.
August 6th, 2010
11:50 am
“just remember it was THIS guy who had the balls to nominate Harriott Miers.”
And it was the REPUBLICANS who got him to pull that nomination, Saul.
Dave R.
August 6th, 2010
11:51 am
First on the third! Waaaaaahoooooo!
Del
August 6th, 2010
11:51 am
Don’t Forget@11:46,
Too much common sense for liberals to comprehend. They don’t understand that money in the private sector is what fuels the economy, not money in the public sector.
JohnB
August 6th, 2010
11:53 am
Am I wrong about Kagan being a lesbian?
http://www.queerty.com/will-obama-pick-u-s-solicitor-general-elena-kagan-for-the-supreme-court-20100405/
And my only comment was about the fact that it will bias her rulings in the same way that the judge that ruled against the California constitutional amendmenent was personally biasesd in his decision.
Saul Good
August 6th, 2010
11:54 am
Dave R… I wasn’t sleeping at the time…I remember it.
I mean to even CONSIDER her out of anyone else that he knew that was a lawyer or judge…yeah…that took BALLS alright. CT Cowboy (The Original) kinda balls!
mrs. w.
August 6th, 2010
11:54 am
I don’t believe she “has the experience” Jay.
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
11:54 am
Del, money is money. It all spends the same if you’re talking about a demand problem. As soon as the money is spent it’s back in the private sector too. There’s no guarantee that tax cuts will actually be spent is there?
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
11:55 am
“All Harry has to do is CHANGE THE FRICKING SENATE RULE and get back to majority vote = 51. Nuf said…”
You’re making the HUGE assumption that he can actually DO that. Sorry, but it takes a 2/3 majority vote to change the Senate rules. That’s 67 votes. Even if you assume every Democrat will vote to change it, do you REALLY think the current minority is going to go along with eliminating their only real power in the Senate?
USinUK
August 6th, 2010
11:57 am
“And my only comment was about the fact that it will bias her rulings”
by that argument, straight people shouldn’t be allowed to decide on it as it will bias theirs
neither men nor women whould be allowed to decide on discrimination or harassment
only people WITHOUT race (albinos, maybe?) should be allowed to vote on racial discrimination
and neither the able-bodied nor the handicapped should be able to decide on things like the ADA.
Doggone … the stoopid is making my head hurt again …
TaxPayer
August 6th, 2010
11:59 am
It’s good to see you doing comedy again!
You ain’t no Jon Stewart and I was just feeling sorry for ya, out there on a limb like that. No need to thank me. My regular fee for bailing you out will do instead.
Dave R.
August 6th, 2010
11:59 am
Yes, USinUK, I do realize that they don’t know what is going on in federal, state and local governments.
And to your 11:49, the recession isn’t over yet. Just because Biden and Geithner say it is, doesn’t make it so.
Saul Good
August 6th, 2010
11:59 am
JohnB… is there bias by the Jews on the court anytime a Jewish defendant or Jewish attorney comes before them? How about Scalia…should he recuse himself each and every time an Italian American comes before the court? If so…I think all that are Christians on the bench should step aside each and every single time a christian defendant, plaintiff, or attorney comes before the court. Because based upon your “reasoning”… those would be legitimate claims of bias against each and every member of the court…
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
11:59 am
“the stoopid is making my head hurt again”
Mine too, actually
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
12:00 pm
which is why it usually takes about 2 years from the end of a recession for unemployment to get back to “normal” …
Exactly. We are an instant gratification society and when there is suffering there is even less patience. Funny how people don’t even remember that Reagan had a double dip recession in his first term. Or that his approval rating was 35% a mere 18 months before the ‘84 election. Just gotta give it time.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:03 pm
JohnB, you claimed she “kept the military off Harvard”.
She did not. She was trying to implement existing school policy, of which DADT ran afoul. As she pointed out during the hearings, military recruitment apparently actually increased during her years as Dean.
And of course you remember the poutrage, given the propensity for GOPers (and too damn many Dems) to cry and moan any time their precious, keepa-you-hands-off DoD is ever inconvenienced in any conceivable way.
Southern Comfort
August 6th, 2010
12:03 pm
I think I’m gonna copyright the term Instant gratification society. I could probably make a few dollars that way.
JohnD
August 6th, 2010
12:04 pm
“Eminently qualified”? Maybe. “Well within the legal mainstream.” Yes, but that’s the legal mainstream and those in journalism. For the American people she is to the left, although I’m not yet sure how far left. The fact is, by the standards of the Constitution, she is qualified and should be appointed. You’re not voting on her political leanings, unless there is overbearing evidence that whe will vote that rather than her understanding of the Constitution and associated law.
But a quick question, Jay, did you write a similar column when Alito got 58 votes or when Clarence Thomas got, what was it, 52 or 53? Or is it only disturbing when it’s a left leaning appointee?
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
12:04 pm
You’re making the HUGE assumption that he can actually DO that. Sorry, but it takes a 2/3 majority vote to change the Senate rules. That’s 67 votes. Even if you assume every Democrat will vote to change it, do you REALLY think the current minority is going to go along with eliminating their only real power in the Senate?
He couldn’t do it now. But at the start of each senate session (after the election) the senate has to adopt the rules all over again and it does so with a simple majority. So it could be done with the new senate in 2011 but it’s a shame it may have come to this.
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
12:06 pm
But a quick question, Jay, did you write a similar column when Alito got 58 votes or when Clarence Thomas got, what was it, 52 or 53? Or is it only disturbing when it’s a left leaning appointee?
It should be pointed out that the dems COULD have filibustered Alito but didn’t.
ATLDawg, ya dig?
August 6th, 2010
12:07 pm
The vote for Sotomayor was 68-31, which would buck your trend. Don’t you hate when facts don’t support theories? Best way is to ignore them.
The 42 votes against Alito was shameful on the same grounds you lay out for Kagan, yet not a peep. Bookman, you are either a dolt or an intellectual coward.
Bert
August 6th, 2010
12:08 pm
Liberal, Socialist agenda………could someone please tell me when Obama has been liberal or socialist about anything? He has been moderate at best. If any of you are old enough to truly remember Reagan’s presdency, you would realize that the two are remarkably similar.
USinUK
August 6th, 2010
12:08 pm
oh, yeah … we should listen to what Real Clear Politics has to say …
they ALWAYS get it right
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/can_john_mccain_win_in_spite_o.html
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:08 pm
Sorry, but it takes a 2/3 majority vote to change the Senate rules. That’s 67 votes. Even if you assume every Democrat will vote to change it, do you REALLY think the current minority is going to go along with eliminating their only real power in the Senate?
way-ell… back when GOPers were threatening to go nukeyouler back in 2005, they said they didn’t really have to get a 2/3 majority when they were in session.
I don’t really know. I think it’s up to the Senate to police itself; they have to answer, ultimately, to voters who may or may not think such things are irresponsible.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:10 pm
we should listen to what Real Clear Politics has to say …
without even clicking your link, I remember it was poor Andy’s go-to place in fall 2008; they always had Good News For Republicans! whenever things were otherwise looking bleak.
And yes, I’ve gotten my share of jollies reminding him of that.
USinUK
August 6th, 2010
12:11 pm
dB … RCP … AmSpec … the man’s brain must be about the texture of cotton candy by now …
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
12:11 pm
“But at the start of each senate session (after the election) the senate has to adopt the rules all over again and it does so with a simple majority.”
Have you got a link for that? I can’t find anything that states that.
Paul
August 6th, 2010
12:12 pm
stands for decibels
“you claimed she “kept the military off Harvard”.
She did not.”
Correct. She didn’t keep them off. She kept military representatives away from the normal jobs recruitment area and provided a separate, restricted area.
I sure wish one of the Republican senators had asked her, “Are there any other areas in which you consider ’separate but equal’ appropriate for different classes or groups of people?”
But still and all, the real issue was her assertion that an institution like a university was somehow empowered to try to enforce what it saw as a proper ruling of the law.
USinUK
August 6th, 2010
12:14 pm
trying to beat the raindrops to catch the train …
have a great weekend!!
Jay – have a fantastic vacation !!
Normal
August 6th, 2010
12:16 pm
USinUK, Doggone,
I’ve moved to WWII love songs now…today we see how our educational system has failed us in logical throughput. I think some of us here
forgot to get off the school bus…
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
12:17 pm
“I sure wish one of the Republican senators had asked her, “Are there any other areas in which you consider ’separate but equal’ appropriate for different classes or groups of people?””
She was enforcing, as best she could, a rule passed by Harvard BEFORE she became Dean. When that rule was disallowed by the courts, she complied and gave them full access to the normal recruitment area.
She NEVER “kept them off campus”
“the real issue was her assertion that an institution like a university was somehow empowered to try to enforce what it saw as a proper ruling of the law.”
Do you see all the “ifs ands and buts” in this statement? Clue – look for “somehow” “try” “what it saw” – Harvard had a university rule against allowing ANY “company” that discriminated against homosexuals to recruit on campus. The military did that, and so Kagan did her best to allow them access and yet still follow the rules of HER employer. She kept them out of the jobs office, but allowed them acces on campus by other means.
When that was shot down by a court, she complies and allowed them full access.
Normal
August 6th, 2010
12:18 pm
Toodles, USinUK…
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
12:18 pm
Oh yes, and one more thing…now that we have AGAIN debunked the Kagan/military lie…shall we start taking bets on how long the next RW nut states it again as if it’s some kind of revealed “truth”?
getalife
August 6th, 2010
12:18 pm
cons are sore losers and can’t let go when they lose.
Economy is still teetering yet they fight for tax cuts for the rich.
The gop do nothing for their voters yet they still vote for them.
conservatism is a mental disorder.
Normal
August 6th, 2010
12:21 pm
conservatism is a mental disorder.
The next great bumper sticker!!!
Paul
August 6th, 2010
12:23 pm
Doggone/GA
We’ve been over this before. I just said she allowed the military access. Just in a different location, with a restricted opportunity level, compared to the other corporate types.
Realizing that a university rule for some ’social justice’ standard might put it at odds with Federal requirements isn’t too difficult. I think she well knew they were not acting in accordance with requirements. She was rather like the Arizona governor – “okay Feds, you aren’t gonna enforce what we see a justice, we’ll do it ourselves.” ‘cept, of course, when there was a lot of money involved. As soon as fed bucks were gonna be withdrawn, it was “hey guys, only kidding.’
At least she’s flexible on her positions -
RB from Gwinnett
August 6th, 2010
12:23 pm
“All Harry has to do is CHANGE THE FRICKING SENATE RULE and get back to majority vote = 51. Nuf said”
That sounds like a great idea when your party is in the majority and a lousy idea when they’re not regardless of which party you’re in.
The current rules are in place to force the 2 parties to work to a compromise both groups can live with; something the dems appear to be unwilling to do in any way shape or form. It’s been “here’s the bill, whine to the press about the party of “no”, and then skirt their own rules to get their way. A complete lack of leadership.
It’s funny how you same idiots who’ve been clammoring for a whole day about the courts protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority are now whining because your majority can’t get their way and even suggesting they change the rules to allow it. What a joke you tools are.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:23 pm
For the American people she is to the left, although I’m not yet sure how far left.
I suspect if you were to look at actual polling of actual Americans on actual issues you’d be shocked at how “left wing” we are.
here’s a good place for some reality-checking…
http://pollingreport.com/issues.htm
Paul
August 6th, 2010
12:24 pm
Doggone/Ga
What was the lie that was debunked?
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
12:24 pm
“She was rather like the ”
the point of my post, that you seem to be ignoring, is that it was not HER – it was the UNIVERSITY, that put that policy in place. Give her the credit she is due…she did HER best to comply with BOTH her university policy AND federal rules.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:25 pm
for instance:
“In general, do you think gun control laws should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?”
a whopping 16% say “less strict.”
when asked “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?” — it’s an even split.
and check this out:
“Right now, which ONE of the following do you think should be the more important priority for U.S. energy policy: keeping energy prices low or protecting the environment?” — 56% say protecting the environment.
And those were just two I picked, honest to god, at random.
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
12:26 pm
“What was the lie that was debunked?”
The whole thing started with JohnB posting this: “The liberal lawyer who kept the military off Harvard until the courts ordered her not to”
Dave R.
August 6th, 2010
12:28 pm
“She was enforcing, as best she could, a rule passed by Harvard BEFORE she became Dean. When that rule was disallowed by the courts, she complied and gave them full access to the normal recruitment area.”
Sorry, Doggone, but as someone who should have known the law, rather than enforcing something she should have known was un-Constitutional, she should have worked to have Harvard change their rule to something that was.
She may not have created it, but being an accomplice to something wrong is just as bad, ESPECIALLY given her academic chops.
Chris D.
August 6th, 2010
12:32 pm
Jay, You really need a history lesson.
You do not need 60 votes for confirmation. You need 60 to send close the debate and send the nominee to the floor for the vote. The Democrats changed all for the worse with their 48 NAY votes for Clarence Thomas. Thomas was confirmed 52-48
Left wing management
August 6th, 2010
12:34 pm
Normal says: “Jay, neither party wants to conduct the necessary business, they only want the other party to fail.”
Flat wrong. This cannot be said equally of both parties at present.
Ivan
August 6th, 2010
12:35 pm
“They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community;..”
-George Washington
Everytime you see a Liberal with nothing to say but, “here come the right-wingers..”, and a Conservative who just votes down the line of R’s, the politcal parties have done that much more to destroy what we were founded on.
Paul
August 6th, 2010
12:38 pm
Doggone/Ga
Wasn’t ignoring it. I just take a different view. She was the head of the university. She made policy. She didn’t meekly acquiesce to that with which she disagreed.
As far as the later post – both sfd and I have noted she, thru Harvard, granted access to military recruiters. Just not the same access as other recruiters. It was separate. And not all that equal. Kinda 1950s.
Palouse Guy
August 6th, 2010
12:38 pm
The “1987 the eminently qualified Robert Bork” (rejected for the Court in 1987) was, in the opinion of many, an active participant in Nixon’s obstruction of justice in fall 1973. When principled, moderate Republicans Elliot Richardson (Attorney General) and William Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG) resigned, rather than firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox (whose investigation was getting too close to the president), Robert Bork, solicitor general, “followed orders” and fired Cox. That made him an unprincipled choice for the Supreme Court, who should never have been nominated.
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
12:41 pm
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
12:11 pm
“But at the start of each senate session (after the election) the senate has to adopt the rules all over again and it does so with a simple majority.”
Have you got a link for that? I can’t find anything that states that
I was slightly off there in that the senate has the option to do this at the start of each session but doen’t have to. This explains it better.
http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=383
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:41 pm
It’s funny how you same idiots who’ve been clammoring for a whole day about the courts protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority are now whining because your majority can’t get their way and even suggesting they change the rules to allow it.
“Even suggesting…?”
RB, so are you just completely ignoring the threats of Senate Republicans in 2005 to eliminate the filibuster via a simple majority vote, aka “the nuclear option”? Is that how you’re able to post something like that?
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:43 pm
Just not the same access as other recruiters. It was separate. And not all that equal. Kinda 1950s.
Jeez, Paul, now you’re not only equating a college dean with a Governor of a state, you’re actually comparing the entire population of African American schoolchildren with Ivy League campus military recruiters?
really?
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:43 pm
ok, ok, not equating. likening. sorry.
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
12:44 pm
“She was the head of the university. She made policy. She didn’t meekly acquiesce to that with which she disagreed.”
She was not the head of the university, she was DEAN of the LAW SCHOOL. And she did not MAKE the policy, it was already in place when she got that position.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:46 pm
Oh, and RB–the GOP was willing to bring in Cheney to cast the tie-breaking vote to make the nuclear option happen, if necessary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7384708/
Forgotten all that, have you?
Normal
August 6th, 2010
12:46 pm
Left wing management
August 6th, 2010
12:34 pm
Maybe I should have said “the party not in power”…
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
12:47 pm
August 6th, 2010
12:11 pm
“But at the start of each senate session (after the election) the senate has to adopt the rules all over again and it does so with a simple majority.”
Have you got a link for that? I can’t find anything that states that
I was slightly off there in that the senate has the option to do this at the start of each session but doen’t have to. This explains it better.
http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=383
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
12:47 pm
Oops, sorry for the double post
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:47 pm
Just to keep this whole “oh noes she inconvenienced the military” thingie in perspective. Harvard Law school’s enrollment: 1,800 students.
John Birch
August 6th, 2010
12:54 pm
The polarization in Ameican politics has been fed, if not created, by all the talking heads out there. When everyone got their evening news from Cronkite, we got along much better. Now the sheeple blindly follow Rush or Oberman and subscribe to the party line on almost everything. Hopefully, the Reps will gain enough seats to stop this onslaught of terrible legislation. The government that governs least, usually governs best!
Dave R.
August 6th, 2010
12:54 pm
Stands, as I said yesterday, it doesn’t matter whether it is one, or one hundred and one, when it comes to matters of equality. Your argument fails the equality test.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:56 pm
anyway, here’s Glenzilla with some lessons learned from this:
[T]he supposedly safe, moderate-appearing, blank slate nominee (Kagan) received fewer confirmation votes, and was less politically popular, than the supposedly risky, clearly liberal nominee with a long record of judicial opining and controversial statements (Sotomayor). Aren’t there important lessons in those facts? Doesn’t that rather clearly contradict the endless excuse-making from the Democratic establishment that muddled moderation is politically necessary? If you’re going to attract a tiny handful of GOP votes no matter what, why not nominate someone who will enliven the public, inspire your base, and provide an opportunity to advocate and defend a progressive judicial philosophy?
The reality is — and this has long been clear — that Americans have little respect for, and even less interest in, people who stand for nothing and seem afraid of their own belief system. Clarity of principle and courage of conviction are almost always more politically appealing than muddled incoherence, calibrated careerism, or muted cowardice. The GOP’s recognition of this fact was the primary cause of George Bush’s otherwise inexplicable political success (the key line from his 2004 RNC Convention acceptance speech: “Even when we don’t agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand”). And many of the Democrats’ failures have been due not to excessively strong advocacy of liberal views, but to the opposite: confusion about what they believe, if anything.
In any event, what’s clear is that the Democratic establishment avoids progressive positions not because they wish deep down that they could embrace them but believe that it’s politically impossible to do so. As the Kagan episode demonstrates, muddled moderation is a political liability, not an asset.
Paul
August 6th, 2010
12:57 pm
sfd
Equate? Naw. Just a simile. A “this Ferrari is like a championship racehorse.” Not that a car is equal to a horse. Just that they’re both at the top of their categories.
The Az gov took action in part because she saw the feds as not doing what they should. Kagan did about the same. (Kind of. Military didn’t create DADT, Congress did. Pres signed. It was law. But Kagan went after the military, not Congress. Or the Saudis, for that matter, who give oodles of money to Harvard and endow chairs, yet execute homosexuals),
The separate but equal reference was not about African American schoolchildren. It was about the facilities they were given, just as the military recruiters were given facilities separate from other recruiters.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
12:58 pm
it doesn’t matter whether it is one, or one hundred and one, when it comes to matters of equality.
You’re actually comparing the right of American citizens to an education to a “right” of the military industrial complex to force their way onto a private college campus?
what-evah.
Mary Elizabeth
August 6th, 2010
12:59 pm
Moderate Line, As always, I enjoyed reading your comments (10:15 a.m.) I just want to stretch the thought a bit. I remember a time in the South in which the “Democratic Process,” as you say, would have taken forever to alter Jim Crow or change the marriage laws for blacks and whites to legally marry. Many generations would have continued to suffer under Jim Crow with that democratic process, alone. The federal courts were essential in changing Jim Crow’s laws.
I believe humankind has evolved and is continuing to evolve, although moreso spiritually, now, than physically, as in the past. As we reach a higher conceptional understanding as humans of our essence, then gender, sexuality, as well as other divisions of humankind, such as race and nationality, will not be as important to us as commonality of spirit and mutual need. Perhaps the forefathers of our Constitution had the foresight to envision that evolution of change in humankind and, thus, designed the Constitution as a balance to the democratic process, which can sometimes present only the lowest common denominator, thereby hurting the souls and rights of minorities of any group.
Paul
August 6th, 2010
1:00 pm
Doggone/GA
Fine. Dean of Law School. But as Dave R pointed out, she didn’t push the problem with Harvard.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
1:01 pm
The Az gov took action in part because she saw the feds as not doing what they should.
Oh please. The AZ skank-ho’ “took action” because there was political hay to be made.
Crime was down. Including on the border counties. One (1) rancher–and he was a decent guy, and his murder was a terrible tragedy–was killed. Some thought it the perp might’ve been from south of the border–evidence supported it–although last I checked nobody has been charged.
That was the sole “justification”, other than being a political skank.
jeez.
Curious Observer
August 6th, 2010
1:03 pm
even if others had been approved before her with none, largely because she also comes to the court with no trial experience as well
She’s just leaving her position as Solicitor General of the United States of America, where she argued cases before the Supreme Court. Were you born with a moron gene or don’t you read?
Shawny
August 6th, 2010
1:03 pm
Here is something a litle radical…. abolish the two party dominant system. Allow lawmakers to use their own minds, not the mind of the Borg collective. The current system does nothing but waste money and get us little in return.
Regarding Kagan, at least she didn’t get Borked.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
1:06 pm
She’s just leaving her position as Solicitor General of the United States of America, where she argued cases before the Supreme Court.
Indeed, she’ll be working with people she already knows rather well.
This was a boring, legal establishment-figure appointment. It oughta be about as controversial as, oh, I dunno, keeping a veggie garden on the White House grounds… but then, I think that was some kind of Commie plot, too.
RB from Gwinnett
August 6th, 2010
1:06 pm
“RB, so are you just completely ignoring the threats of Senate Republicans in 2005 to eliminate the filibuster via a simple majority vote,”
Gee, SFD, you mean the dems and the reps do the same thing? Wow! Who knew? Were the dems the party of “no” back then or did you blame that one all on the R’s too? I never said the R’s don’t do the same things. I merely pointed out the whining yesterday about the majority overruling the minority and the same idiots wanting their congressional majority to have the power to cram it’s will down the minority throat just 12 hours later.
And the sad thing is I don’t think most of you even paying enough attention to know that’s exactly what you all just did.
stands for decibels
August 6th, 2010
1:07 pm
argh. must leave time-suck. Later, folks.
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
1:10 pm
Paul – you might want to read this:http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/what_elena_kagans_role_in_the_harvard_military_recruitment_ban_really_
It seems to be a pretty fair discussion of her actions on this.
Doggone/GA
August 6th, 2010
1:12 pm
“abolish the two party dominant system. Allow lawmakers to use their own minds, not the mind of the Borg collective”
Not gonna happen…plus, no matter what kind of party or no-party system you have…when it comes down to a vote, it’s going to alway default to a “2 party system” – yes or no
Scout
August 6th, 2010
1:13 pm
Another way of saying it is that :
“Hope and Change has metastasized into Change and Hope”
Paul
August 6th, 2010
1:13 pm
sfd 1:01
“Oh please. The AZ skank-ho’ “took action” because there was political hay to be made.”
Maybe crime’s down because ONE county has 1000 illegals in jail for felonies? (My state – Harris County – includes Houston – 1000 a month are apprehended. And yes, many of them are released within Harris county because, according to the Houston Chronicle, ICE doesn’t do well when it comes to filing paperwork).
How’s this: don’t know what state you’re from. Let’s say Georgia. If it’s not a big problem, how about the citizens of Georgia pay Arizona or Texas or New Mexico their local law enforcement costs for dealing with illegals? I mean, it’s much ado about nothing, so… why not pick up the insignificant costs?
barking frog
August 6th, 2010
1:19 pm
If we’re really serious about removing illegal aliens
let’s hire the coyotes to take them back.
Del
August 6th, 2010
1:19 pm
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
Explains Obama and the congressional Democrats solutions for economic recovery.
Scout
August 6th, 2010
1:21 pm
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial …………… the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis
Paul
August 6th, 2010
1:23 pm
Doggone/GA 1:10
Thanks for the link. I think many of Kagan’s detractors went way overboard in inaccurately characterizing what she did and ascribed some pretty strong interpretations on the ‘why.’ I also think many of her supporters were equally disingenuous, as was Kagan herself, in relating what happened (saying military had access: true: Avoided fact they were prohibited from certain areas while other groups were not). I think the lawsuit she filed in support of was flaky. A federal department, following law passed by Congress, signed by the Pres (her boss at the time, Pres Clinton) is not any old employer like IBM.
I’m interested to see if this shading of events, inability to distinguish between an initiator of law from the group the law affects, and the condemnation of one group (military) while accepting the presence and $$$ from another group (Saudis) with a much harsher policy, will in any way play out in her decisions.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
August 6th, 2010
1:28 pm
Well, I reckon Bookman ain’t going to give us a mid-day sheet, so I decided to try and help him out by making up a list of things he needs to pack for his fishing trip:
1. 24 cases, Pabst Blue Ribbon
2. One fifth, Jack Daniels
3. One fifth, Wild Turkey
4. One rod & reel
5. Lures
6. 1 pr. extra underwear
7. 1 pr. extra socks
That ought to last him a couple weeks.
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
1:34 pm
Scout
August 6th, 2010
1:13 pm
Another way of saying it is that :
“Hope and Change has metastasized into Change and Hope”
Still sounds better than “abandon all hope for change” IMO
Normal
August 6th, 2010
1:37 pm
Redneck Convert (R–and proud of it)
August 6th, 2010
1:28 pm
He will also need:
8. Body paint
9. Moccasins
All for dancing around the campfire, appeasin’ the Fish God…
Normal
August 6th, 2010
1:38 pm
OH well, Kagan’s a done deal…next!
Bob
August 6th, 2010
1:40 pm
Senator Graham,
Where were you when the Dems obstructed Republican nominees all the way back to Reagan era? Now it’s an issue? Excuse me but you and this dingbat editor are late on the scene and I probably know why.
Dusty
August 6th, 2010
1:43 pm
Soooooo Kagan segregated the military recruiters from mainline Harvard Law School and she’s a fine lady for doing it. Oh yes! Since when? There are many forms of segregation and Kagan seems to know how to use them. I hope she sits in her “place” when the Supremes meet, right over there with the other two females. She’ll be famous: “I refuse to sit on the back of the bench!”
Maybe she did us a favor. Recruit Harvard Law Grads as strong military men/women? Puhleeze… Take Prez Obama.as a field military officer He’d be over there right now shaking hands with the Taliban and Michelle would be wearing a burka to show EMPATHY!!!
Nevermind Doggone. I know Pres. Obama is Comander-in-Chief and Michelle is in Spain, not the mountains of Pakistan. I think so. No no no …they did not go and shake hands with the Taliban, did they ? NO no no say it isn’t so…Oh OK….Obama is in Chicago…OK.
I am going to check with WIkiLeaks just to be sure. That’s another liberal activist group. Probably popular here.
Dave R.
August 6th, 2010
1:47 pm
“You’re actually comparing the right of American citizens to an education to a “right” of the military industrial complex to force their way onto a private college campus?
what-evah.”
No, Stands, I’m simply saying that equality works both ways; whether your trying to make a case for gay marriage or for equal access for military recruiters to be allowed on the same campus as privet sector recruiters. Some one supposedly as knowledgeable as Kagan claimed to be about the law should have known that
And you libs can be just as snarky as the religious right when it comes to only seeing equality when it concerns applying it to your favored causes.
Normal
August 6th, 2010
1:49 pm
Still walkin’ the straight and narrow minded, huh Dusty?
popeye
August 6th, 2010
1:50 pm
Dusty…What in the heck do you know about the military? Since you have never served I believe absolutely nothing! Go back to watching baseball and reporting it with how many POINTS the braves have scored.
You’re always good for a laugh!
larry
August 6th, 2010
1:51 pm
I just got in the mail a fund raising letter from …………………………..Paul Broun!!
LMAO!!!!
So i altered the letter a little bit and thanked him for being one of the most ineffective congressmen (431 out of 435, Congress.com) and then i thanked him for being on Faux news all the time instead of caring about the people he represents. And then i thanked him for being only one of three congressmen to vote for allowing people to view and send animal crushing videos.
What a joke!!! Russell Edwards for 10th district !!!!
larry
August 6th, 2010
1:53 pm
And yes i sent the letter back to him , hell i already paid for the postage.
SOUTHERN ATL
August 6th, 2010
1:53 pm
Listen up Georgia ….Are “YOU” registered to vote?
http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/
Start here if you want to move in the right direction!
If you have any complaints, “take it to the polls”!!
Normal
August 6th, 2010
1:54 pm
Off topic, but it looks like it’s time to tick off China again…
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/ap_navy_taiwan_080510/
Normal
August 6th, 2010
1:57 pm
larry,
Yesterday, while waiting for a call, I had to answer a call of nature (number 2) and took the phone in with me. While sitting there the phone rang and it was Newt calling on behalf of Deal. Typical, I thought….
ATF
August 6th, 2010
1:57 pm
We don’t really have 100 voices in the Senate. There are two voices – one Republican and one Democrat. Sometimes a few folks go back and forth – like Lieberman. But, mostly we have two voices.
sometimes we get someone who actually thinks about issues – like Lindsay Graham. I don’t much like the way he thinks on a lot of things, but I do think he thinks.
The rest. The just walk in lock step with whoever is the party leader. And that includes both Georgia Senators.
larry
August 6th, 2010
2:01 pm
Normal
August 6th, 2010
1:57 pm
LOL!!
larry
August 6th, 2010
2:05 pm
It also made me wonder about all these polls stating that the Democrats are going to lose control of the house.
I mean if a stalwart , tea party favorite (member of the tea party caucus) needs emergency funding ?
What does that tell you ?
Saul Good
August 6th, 2010
2:05 pm
Dusty…Obama shaking hands with the Taliban? Nah…but here’s a fine “Field Military Officer…. a TRUE American War hero, Purple Heart Recipient, and hand holder of the Prince of All Terrorist Fund Raisers:
http://www.harrisonline.com/GRAPHICS/bush-abdullah.jpg
(not seen in the photo…Daddy in the back ground playing Gin Rummy with some of the Bin Laden’s)…
And last but not least…. BFF!!! http://www.intellexual.net/images/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg
Del
August 6th, 2010
2:07 pm
Dusty,
You’re under lib attack. Congratulations you should feel honored.
Dave R.
August 6th, 2010
2:09 pm
“I mean if a stalwart , tea party favorite (member of the tea party caucus) needs emergency funding ? What does that tell you?”
Uh, that Hope & Change’s policies are grossly ineffective at repairing this economy?
Dusty
August 6th, 2010
2:09 pm
Oh dear, NORMAL thinks I am narrow minded. I am NOT. I’m a conservative.
GENERAL POPEYE Insults my dear BRAVES and says I don’t know NUTHIN about the military. Oh boohoo! Maybe but I surely do know brave and strong.
Hang in there, fellow, and eat your spinach. You need cheering up. Poor libs! Always down in the dumps! . Must be tough to be a liberal Democrat these days. Maybe Bosch can send all of you some new spark plugs.
Don't Forget
August 6th, 2010
2:11 pm
Dusty,
I am going to check with WIkiLeaks just to be sure. That’s another liberal activist group. Probably popular here.
Not with me. I have no respect for them whatsoever