Obama Nominates Lesbian Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

[Facial_King]

Maybe she's not a lesbian:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100512/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2018

 

[mrtrebus]

I don't have a problem with lesbians, I don't have a problem with homosexuals. But lesbian homosexuals!!!! :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z23fZSa-QY4

 

[ballzano]

Maybe she's not a lesbian:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100512/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2018

wow, that is a really ugly man in drag

 

[Member2019]

The gay issue ...

The gay issue is besides the point.

I've long had the view that even if you aren't gay, but people accuse you of being gay, WTF should you deny it? Seriously! It just hurts gays, those who want their lives to be private -- same as many heterosexuals -- when you give into the sexual gossip of others by coming out and saying you're not gay.

So if she's not gay but not denying it, good for her and all of us! I, for one, am so fucking tired of the sexual gossip. I travel away from my wife for work and I get a shitload of it too -- from assumptions that I'm gay to I must be cheating. Why oh why do people feel the need to sexually gossip and judge others?

I understand on boards like this, that are built around sexual themes. That's why I'm very open with my sexual practices, anonymously. But in real life and person? Fuck no, no one's business. I don't need to explain my marriage to others. Fuck them.

 

[Nester6]

Doesn't matter to me if she is, as long as she is capable of the job she is being asked to perform.

I simply do not believe she is qualified! No judicial experience on the Supreme Court? What the fuck????

 

[CunningStunts]

Just when I think BHO's judgement can't get any worse, he proves me wrong.

 

[Hot Mega]

I simply do not believe she is qualified! No judicial experience on the Supreme Court? What the fuck????

Former Chief Justice Rehnquist had no "judicial" experience either. If that's your basis then that's not a terribly educated basis according to the facts.
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4469383&postcount=47

 

[georges]

let's see what kind of wonders this nominee will do in the supreme court.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I'm not so concerned about her being a lesbian as the lack of a paper trail. A lesbian could be far left, far right, centrist, god knows how that applies to interpretation of the Constitution. If she is as far left as many guess, being a lesbian isn't going to change her opinion on same sex marriage all that much.

Now some are calling her a Zionist, that could have more damning implications for the country, but what foreign policy matters are heading to the Supreme Court in the near forseeable future? She seems somewhat sympathetic to harsh measures for terrorism detainees, but that's favorable to NeoCons and most Republicans.

 

[Hot Mega]

Ya gotta love politicians. However, no one but no one can argue two sides of the same issue like GOPers do with themselves. Like I always say, the only principle these stand-for-nothings stand for is politics.

In 2005, when then-President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, plenty of Republicans said they found it refreshing that Miers' experience amounted primarily to her time as a corporate lawyer and Bush aide.

That included Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who noted then that "40 percent of the men and women who have served as Supreme Court justices" had no judicial experience.

"One reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers' qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court," Cornyn said in 2005. "Because right now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives or academicians."

Now, with a Democrat in the White House, what Cornyn once considered refreshing in a high court nominee is in Kagan's case "surprising."
"Ms. Kagan is ... a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience," Cornyn said Monday. "Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice."

A former Clinton administration aide and dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan once was nominated for the federal bench, but her bid was stonewalled by a Republican Senate majority.

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, likewise found Miers' qualifications suitable five years ago: "It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court," Sessions said. "It's perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position."

But on Monday, Sessions was seeing things differently. Kagan, he said, "warrants great scrutiny" because of her lack of time as a judge. "Ms. Kagan's lack of judicial experience and short time as solicitor general ... is troubling," he said.

And the list goes on. Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas thought Miers was a "wonderful choice" in 2005, but today she "has some concerns over Elena Kagan's lack of judicial experience."

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Monday that Kagan's lack of judicial record raises questions — though he said in 2005 that he was not troubled by Miers' lack of judicial experience.

Another Republican, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, likewise didn't see Miers' lack of time on the bench as a holdup. On Monday, he said the same factor is a cause for further scrutiny of Kagan.

Despite those senators' praise, Miers ended up withdrawing her name under heavy criticism from conservatives who questioned her credentials on constitutional law and worried she wouldn't be a judicial conservative.
The last nominee to serve without judicial experience? The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was nominated to the court by President Richard Nixon and served from 1972 to 2005, and is still lionized by conservatives.

Complete article at link....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_when_experience_counts;_ylt=AgG9_STz6.A_s9sIvJaaMmZMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTM2NXVvMzFtBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNTEyL3VzX2thZ2FuX3doZW5fZXhwZXJpZW5jZV9jb3VudHMEcG9zAzMxBHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA3NwaW5tZXRlcmdvcA--

 

[Hot Mega]

Conservative friends rise in support of Kagan

I'm not so concerned about her being a lesbian as the lack of a paper trail. A lesbian could be far left, far right, centrist, god knows how that applies to interpretation of the Constitution. If she is as far left as many guess, being a lesbian isn't going to change her opinion on same sex marriage all that much.

Now some are calling her a Zionist, that could have more damning implications for the country, but what foreign policy matters are heading to the Supreme Court in the near forseeable future? She seems somewhat sympathetic to harsh measures for terrorism detainees, but that's favorable to NeoCons and most Republicans.

WASHINGTON – Conservative lawyers and academics are voicing support for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, praise that could soften criticism from the right and provide cover for any Republican senators inclined to vote for her nomination.

The essence of their take on Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean who now serves as solicitor general, is that she clearly has the smarts to be a justice and has shown an ability to work with all sides on thorny issues.

"She has had a remarkable and truly unusual record of reaching out across ideological divides," said Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge who was nominated by President George W. Bush.

Longtime Kagan friend Miguel Estrada, whose appeals court nomination by Bush was blocked by Senate Democrats, said, "She's clearly qualified for the court and should be confirmed. Obviously, she's a left-of-center academic who never would have been picked by a Republican. But no one can doubt her intellectual accomplishments."

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday, Estrada said, "If such a person, who has demonstrated great intellect, high accomplishments and an upright life is not easily confirmable, I fear we will have reached a point where no capable person will readily accept a nomination for judicial service."

Continued at link...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100514/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_conservatives;_ylt=An0MLlSDnAVwoa9U11nXGmxMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTJ0OGVyaTJ0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNTE0L3VzX2thZ2FuX2NvbnNlcnZhdGl2ZXMEcG9zAzEwBHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2NvbnNlcnZhdGl2ZQ--

 

[Uppercut]

CBS, Wash Post: Obama nominates Lesbian Homosexual Elena Kagan to Supreme Court
CBS News reported that President Obama's new Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be the "first openly gay justice," pleasing much of Obama's liberal base. But after complaints by an anonymous White House staffer that parts of the report were not public, the CBS reporter updated the post to say "I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted -- odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles." The CBS report has now been pulled, after The Washington Post repeated the CBS report, and the White House denials, but criticized CBS policy, saying "most major news organizations have policies against 'outing' gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties." The sudden media blackout on the 'taboo topic' is ironic, since Kagan's private sex life already has, and will directly impact her public Supreme Court decisions.

Regardless, The Daily Caller confirms Kagan's policy record reflects extremist sexual views in matters of law:

"Kagan's boldest foray into public life was, as dean of Harvard Law School, throwing the military off campus over its 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gay soldiers. Kagan called the policy, implemented by her former boss President Bill Clinton, 'a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.' She pursued the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices unanimously slapped down her arguments, forcing Harvard to allow the military to return....

"On the Defense of Marriage Act, Kagan damned with faint praise — she defended the law, but not without first saying the Obama administration opposed it, thought it was discriminatory and hoped to overturn it. Pro-homosexual marriage lawyer Dale Carpenter wrote the move was a 'gift to the gay-marriage movement' because the administration was 'helping knock out a leg from under the opposition to gay marriage.'...

"Long ago, Kagan wrote a memo while clerking for the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall that said religious organizations that provide care for teen pregnancies shouldn't get federal funds because of a strict line separating church and state."

Needless to say, Kagan is a bomb-thrower, who would rule as a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-Christian activist, and she must be filibustered if nominated.

Obvious whoosh.

 

[JayJohn85]

To cut a long story short.....This has what to do with her ability to perform her job?

 

[Member2019]

no one but no one can argue two sides of the same issue like GOPers do with themselves.

That's because GOP'ers tend to be both Libertarian-Capitalists as much as Totalitarian-Capitalists (with a mixture of Fascist economy model too). There is a lot of in-fighting.

That's not always a bad thing, although it does make them fractured.

In the same regard, there is a bit of the Democratic party that tends to recognize that the US has had a strong economy in the past because it did not give into Libertarian-Socialism. Some do recognize that the latter sometimes is not so separable from Totalitarian-Socialism either.

 

[Hot Mega]

That's because GOP'ers tend to be both Libertarian-Capitalists as much as Totalitarian-Capitalists (with a mixture of Fascist economy model too). There is a lot of in-fighting.

That's not always a bad thing, although it does make them fractured.

In the same regard, there is a bit of the Democratic party that tends to recognize that the US has had a strong economy in the past because it did not give into Libertarian-Socialism. Some do recognize that the latter sometimes is not so separable from Totalitarian-Socialism either.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Are you serious???

READ the post!!!! These are people saying things that were 180 degrees away from their previous sentiments.

That's not one GOPer arguing against another...It's one doofus taking a position then arguing the complete opposite point later as easy as wheat grass blowing from one direction to the other.:1orglaugh

 

[Member2019]

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Are you serious???
READ the post!!!! These are people saying things that were 180 degrees away from their previous sentiments.
That's not one GOPer arguing against another...It's one doofus taking a position then arguing the complete opposite point later as easy as wheat grass blowing from one direction to the other.:1orglaugh

You're missing my point. But that's not surprising. Right now the GOP is fractured, and they will continue to be so. They only collaborate out of absolute last necessity, which seems to be all they are capable of lately.

Furthermore, anyone without judicial experience should be scrutinized, and heavily, when nominated to the Supreme Court. Confirmation is not designed to be simple, and this nominee has stated before that she doesn't think it should be.

Wrong answer in my view.

 

[Facetious]

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored.

Kagan’s extraordinary claims emerged during the second oral argument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the campaign finance case made famous by President Barack Obama when he publicly excoriated the justices for their ruling during his State of the Union address. The president alleged that Citizens United would allow corporations to subvert the political process with their economic power. In fact, the case concerns the fundamental political liberties of all citizens. The true stakes were dramatically revealed in the two rounds of oral argument heard by the Court.

more


Big surprise

Why does obama seem to gravitate toward appointing non entities to such high positions in government? What's the advantage? Do these lacky appointments become obama's yes-men & women due to the fact that they are unworthy of the positions for which they were appointed, is that how it works ?

The left wing used to be adamantly opposed to any form of censorship, yet today it's acceptable? Is this progress ?

Careful with that progress, it just might bite you in the ass in changing times.

 

[jewelcity]

Is her girlfriend hot?

 

[shayd]

Obama Nominates Homosexual Lesbian Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

From the department of redundancy department.

 

[Hot Mega]

That's because GOP'ers tend to be both Libertarian-Capitalists as much as Totalitarian-Capitalists (with a mixture of Fascist economy model too). There is a lot of in-fighting.

That's not always a bad thing, although it does make them fractured.

In the same regard, there is a bit of the Democratic party that tends to recognize that the US has had a strong economy in the past because it did not give into Libertarian-Socialism. Some do recognize that the latter sometimes is not so separable from Totalitarian-Socialism either.

You're missing my point. But that's not surprising. Right now the GOP is fractured, and they will continue to be so. They only collaborate out of absolute last necessity, which seems to be all they are capable of lately.

Furthermore, anyone without judicial experience should be scrutinized, and heavily, when nominated to the Supreme Court. Confirmation is not designed to be simple, and this nominee has stated before that she doesn't think it should be.

Wrong answer in my view.

Your whole post wasn't relevant to the point. The diversity of the GOP would be relevant if it were different members saying things at odds with others. In these cases these are people saying things at odds with their previous statements...what does the make up of the GOP have to do with that???

more


Big surprise

Why does obama seem to gravitate toward appointing non entities to such high positions in government? What's the advantage? Do these lacky appointments become obama's yes-men & women due to the fact that they are unworthy of the positions for which they were appointed, is that how it works ?

The left wing used to be adamantly opposed to any form of censorship, yet today it's acceptable? Is this progress ?

Careful with that progress, it just might bite you in the ass in changing times.