Obama Nominates Lesbian Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

[pete rose]

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.

because im sure no one else has an agenda

 

[Facetious]

No, not homophobic here (check previous posts for reference).

Either way, her selection is a moot point: lib for lib swap will have little consequence. This thread needs to go away...:ban:

Even if so homophobic, maybe it's not a choice, maybe some people are just born that way :dunno: :1orglaugh

Oh, my ! Did he just say that ?

 

[Petra]

TBH...I really don't care if she's a lesbian or not. Unlike the US military, I honestly don't think sexual preference dictates one's ability to do his or her job.

I would hope that she would be confirmed because of her experience, not because of being a lesbian, though my hopes of that aren't too high since she has no prior experience as a judge at all.

Guess we'll wait and see.

 

[bustybbwlover]

i don't care if she's a t/v hermaphrodite as long as she knows the law and the constitution

 

[Member2019]

The only court in the land ...

i don't care if she's a t/v hermaphrodite as long as she knows the law and the constitution

Agreed, however ...

A) Kagen is a judicial non entity, exactly like Harriet Miers.
I thought that judicial non entities must not be selected too the highest court in the land ?

The US Supreme Court is the only court in the land where you don't have to have judicial experience.

However ... I think she should get the exact same treatment that W.'s appointee did. Her lack of expertise and experience should get trashed heavily, just like W.'s nomination did.

This will be a litmus test. Does the media demonize the Republicans who scrutinize this? Or does it cover it as evenly as they did W.'s nomination, noting her utter lack of experience.

It doesn't really matter who Obama appoints to the scotus, Obama has spoken and that's that, it's the best choice, end of story, get over it ! :thefinger
Don't you dare go against the grain of this D minus administration from, not the Land of Lincoln so much as from the land of legendary political high crimes & scandal.

Indeed. There's nothing driving more people to the Tea Parties that people screaming "racist" for merely criticizing the President's actions. In all honesty, I'm tired of the "hate" of alleged "hate" at this point.

As far as "don't ask, don't tell," last time I checked, people aren't supposed to discuss any sexuality in the military, and are prosecuted for any sexual misconduct, even heterosexual activities. Ironically at work, I have been exposed to discussions of homosexual activities that are "protected," while I've been reprimanded because someone was bothered by the fact that I discussed my wife and I stopped trying for kids when I started travelling.

I'm starting to agree more and more that the US is becoming a nation of "special privileges" for some. So it's not becoming the fact that people allegedly "want normal," but that anything "normal" is being considered "wrong" and "outcast." That's what is pissing off conservatives more than anything, and frankly, I have to agree with them at this point.

 

[SRF]

From what I've heard, she'd be the only person in the Federal government with even less experience than Obama.

 

[HELLRAISER]

She looks like a female version of "the penguin" out of Batman when it was played by Danny Devito. It is hard to find a woman uglier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Sonya Sotomayor but I think they have done it.

Selecting a Supreme Court judge is not a popularity contest based on great looks unless one is an idiot viewer or GeneriCon pundit of Faux News

 

[pornoguy]

I don't care in the slightest if she is a lesbian, and her position on abortion doesn't bother me (thought that's not to say that her philosophical beliefs are of no consequence), my problem is that she is the solicitor general.

Of course, there have been LOTS of solicitor generals who have gone on to become justices, and my beef with that really has to do with the way that the supreme court is set up to begin with.

The supreme court is the single entity responsible for interpreting the constitution, which is THE law that restricts the power of government. And who gets to pick the members of the supreme court ? The government. HUGE conflict of interest.

Anyway the solicitor general, for those who don't know, is the government's representative to the supreme court. In other words, when someone challenges the government on something, arguing that it's unconstitutional, the solicitor general is the one who sticks up for the government. So while I don't think the President (or any branch / member of government) should be choosing supreme court justices, it's even worse when they choose a solicitor general.

 

[d'histoire]

I think she'll do a great job.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

When I was a kid I always thought that if people would stop talking to me then I would stop wanting to beat the shit out of them. Now as an adult I think that if people would stop pissing and moaning about their whiny needs and special circumstances and the rights of this and the rights of that, then I'd stop wishing they were dead.

It doesn't bother me that she's a lesbian, it bothers me that Obama nominated her which means she can only serve to further the Obama regime's quest to strip away any remaining capitalistic freedom and plunge this country into a Greece like financial ruin.

The world is financially crumbling all around us under the heavy burden of unsustainable debt. I am debt free, I am not part of the problem. But nor do I wish to be part of the solution, I just want to know how to financially benefit from the impending doom to come from the Fed's decision to artificially supress interest rates for years on end and our government's insatiable appetite to confiscate the fruit of the populace's labors and STILL run at an unconscionable deficit.

Any ideas? Sell short government bonds? Bet on the dollar? Anyone with any financial acumen please chime in.

Sorry about hijacking the thread but seriously, do we need anymore mindless debate on a supposed lesbian being nominated to the supreme court. In two and a half years this communist motherfucker will be voted out, we just gotta grin and bear it until then.

 

[Hot Mega]

I don't care in the slightest if she is a lesbian, and her position on abortion doesn't bother me (thought that's not to say that her philosophical beliefs are of no consequence), my problem is that she is the solicitor general.

Of course, there have been LOTS of solicitor generals who have gone on to become justices, and my beef with that really has to do with the way that the supreme court is set up to begin with.

The supreme court is the single entity responsible for interpreting the constitution, which is THE law that restricts the power of government. And who gets to pick the members of the supreme court ? The government. HUGE conflict of interest.

Anyway the solicitor general, for those who don't know, is the government's representative to the supreme court. In other words, when someone challenges the government on something, arguing that it's unconstitutional, the solicitor general is the one who sticks up for the government. So while I don't think the President (or any branch / member of government) should be choosing supreme court justices, it's even worse when they choose a solicitor general.

Not a very sensible post IMO.

I mean, what role do you think judges play in our judicial system if not the government??

Fulfilling the duties of some role in the legal branch shouldn't make someone unfit to execute a role as USSCJ. Everyone there now has worked for the government. The Solicitor General is no different. Working for the government as you put it doesn't change one's ability to interpret the US Constitution.

Who else should be nominating individuals for the USSC but elected officials???

 

[pornoguy]

I could never understand how people think that their freedom is being violated because other people have the freedom to do something that they don't like, but doesn't effect them in any way EG, gay marriage and abortion.

I want to respond to you regarding abortion specifically, but before I do I want to point out that I am pro-choice. So I'm sort of playing devil's advocate, but the argument that I'm going to use is the biggest reason that I have struggled with the abortion issue personally. I should also point out that I am atheist. So I am NOT approaching this from a christian, or religious person's, perspective.

As for gay marriage, there is no argument that can be made in favour of government having any involvement what-so-ever in the marriage process (even licensing marriage in the first place) while still talking about freedom. So I will not touch that.

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from coercion. It means that you are free to live your act in any manner that you want so long as you leave others free to do the same.

Thus, in the context of "freedom" if government has any reason to exist in the first place then that reason can only be as a means to protecting rights. Otherwise freedom becomes impossible because of what government is (a monopoly on the use of physical force).

There is a massive complication that I am just going to ignore for the sake of brevity. That complication is that in the case of a pregnancy you are dealing with two human beings (assuming that a fetus is a human being, but if it's not then that begs the question "when does a fetus become a human being?") and under the assumption that both the fetus and mother are recognized as human beings then they both have rights, because rights apply to all humans equally.

So to answer your point about "freedom being violated" remember that freedom, in a political context, means having your rights respected (freedom from coercion). IF a fetus is a human being then it has rights and if the government is in the business of infringing on the rights of one group there is nothing to prevent it from infringing on the rights of anyone else.

Side note: if you're wondering why I'm pro-choice it's because, to use an extreme oversimplification, I do not recognize a fetus as a human being. At most it is a "potential" human being. But, I also believe there is a third option. We do not have to be "pro-choice" or "pro-life". Because all rights are property rights we can treat the mother as a land-lord and ask ourselves what rights a land-lord has with regards to another individual that is currently occupying his property, but which he wants to evict. Also note then when I speak of rights I do not mean legal rights. I just mean rights. In other words, I do not hold that the government gets to decide what rights are. If government had that power (and no human being or group of human beings do), then government would be some sort of a god capable of altering the laws of reality and we would thus all live under a dictatorship by definition.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Right on pornoguy. I especially like the view that a woman is the landlord, her body is the property, and any inhabitants are her tennants. If she wants to evict her tennants before they have any willful opportunity to move out on there own then so be it. And no, I'm not a proponent of any of those "late term abortions" or whatever they're called, just the healthy ones. I'm already anticipating the "there is no such thing as a healthy abortion" post, to which hopefully someone else will respond 'cause I ain't gonna bother.

 

[pornoguy]

Not a very sensible post IMO.

I mean, what role do you think judges play in our judicial system if not the government??

Fulfilling the duties of some role in the legal branch shouldn't make someone unfit to execute a role as USSCJ. Everyone there now has worked for the government. The Solicitor General is no different. Working for the government as you put it doesn't change one's ability to interpret the US Constitution.

Who else should be nominating individuals for the USSC but elected officials???

It might be worth noting that Thomas Jefferson raised the exact same concern during the founding of the US government.

The entire concept of separating the government into branches was to have checks and balances in order to prevent the government from expanding and increasing it's power. But the group responsible for enforcing those checks and balances is the government itself (the supreme court). In other words, the government is being trusted to make sure that it doesn't abuse it's power.

Take special note of your language "Working for the government as you put it doesn't change one's ability to interpret the US Constitution." (emphasis mine). The constitution can be interpreted by anyone in any number of ways (of course I submit that there is a correct way to interpret it), what is important is that the constitution is enforced as it was intended to be (to clearly define and limit the power of government).

The supreme court has a long LONG history of failing at that task. From anti-trust legislation to it's "interpretation" of the commerce clause to historically siding with the government on the CLEARLY unconstitutional federal reserve system. The supreme court is arguably THE reason government has constantly expanded over the last ~ 200 years and has never once reduced itself in size and power.

As far as who should be responsible for choosing justices, that would take us into a whole different conversation. While emphasizing the importance of enforcing the constitution as the supreme law of the land, I'm not convinced that the supreme court per se is the best solution. But the founders themselves struggled with that very question.

Edit: it occurred to me after posting that there are a few, very isolated, examples of the government reducing it's power. Andrew Jackson succeeded at repealing the 2nd US national bank. But such examples are very sparse.

 

[flemishgael]

does it matter who she fucks, what race she is or what languages she speaks? As long as she does the job she's in.
Never heard of her so doubt she's the best person for the job but maybe she'll proof me wrong.
Best of luck to her.

 

[Hot Mega]

It might be worth noting that Thomas Jefferson raised the exact same concern during the founding of the US government.

The entire concept of separating the government into branches was to have checks and balances in order to prevent the government from expanding and increasing it's power. But the group responsible for enforcing those checks and balances is the government itself (the supreme court). In other words, the government is being trusted to make sure that it doesn't abuse it's power.

Take special note of your language "Working for the government as you put it doesn't change one's ability to interpret the US Constitution." (emphasis mine). The constitution can be interpreted by anyone in any number of ways (of course I submit that there is a correct way to interpret it), what is important is that the constitution is enforced as it was intended to be (to clearly define and limit the power of government).

The supreme court has a long LONG history of failing at that task. From anti-trust legislation to it's "interpretation" of the commerce clause to historically siding with the government on the CLEARLY unconstitutional federal reserve system. The supreme court is arguably THE reason government has constantly expanded over the last ~ 200 years and has never once reduced itself in size and power.

As far as who should be responsible for choosing justices, that would take us into a whole different conversation. While emphasizing the importance of enforcing the constitution as the supreme law of the land, I'm not convinced that the supreme court per se is the best solution. But the founders themselves struggled with that very question.

Edit: it occurred to me after posting that there are a few, very isolated, examples of the government reducing it's power. Andrew Jackson succeeded at repealing the 2nd US national bank. But such examples are very sparse.

The purpose of the US Constitution is to be the supreme law of the US, be the basis for the legal existence of the US, define each branch of g'ment and their responsibilities and serve the basis for our fundamental rights under it.

Other than where it limits specific terms, etc and while the US Constitution implies by way of rights it protects..a limit on g'ment...there is no express intent of the Constitution to limit the role of g'ment.

Who should be responsible for nominating USSCJs? The same person the Constitution calls for.

Again, your post it pretty nonsensical IMO.

You claim essentially the g'ment shouldn't have a role in nominating USSCJs but if not then who??? Understanding the theory....while we don't all serve in official government positions..the US is in theory a citizen governed country. As long as our governance doesn't violate what's spelled out in the constitution.

I mean, you cite pretty nebulous concepts in your post. Jefferson's concerns...the g'ment can't enforce checks and balances on g'ment.

Your argument seems to be little more than the perfect as the alternative to the best.

The g'ment isn't some logical device. It is made up of people ..including the courts...that's why plurality is built in to so many parts of it.

For example...since the USSC is a lifetime appointment..it's highly unlikely one man will get to decide it's entire make up. Even when one man decides who gets nominated the nominee still must undergo Senate confirmation where the person's entire career and life is poured over.

So I'm not sure what your beef is. You believe in the constitution but just not certain parts of it? Or that the country does't work exactly according to some fundamental design?? As if anything ever does...

A person is vetted by the man the majority of the country gave that responsibility to, that person is vetted by 9 Senators, then voted on by 100 them where he/she will decide cases that have channeled through an entire court system among 9 others.

That ain't enough checks and balances for you???:dunno:

 

[titsrock]

The world is financially crumbling all around us under the heavy burden of unsustainable debt. I am debt free, I am not part of the problem. But nor do I wish to be part of the solution, I just want to know how to financially benefit from the impending doom to come from the Fed's decision to artificially supress interest rates for years on end and our government's insatiable appetite to confiscate the fruit of the populace's labors and STILL run at an unconscionable deficit.

Any ideas? Sell short government bonds? Bet on the dollar? Anyone with any financial acumen please chime in.

Sorry about hijacking the thread but seriously, do we need anymore mindless debate on a supposed lesbian being nominated to the supreme court. In two and a half years this communist motherfucker will be voted out, we just gotta grin and bear it until then.

I think if Obama didn't do anything when the economy melted down and let the Big Banks--Citi, BofA, JPMorganChase all go belly up--that would've been the wrong thing to do.

The banking industry employs probably 2mill Americans (all things considered). If we let them go under, not only would 350 million Americans lose their checking and savings account balances, but the resulting unemployment would be 40% when we factor in all the businesses that rely on Banking Services to survive.

I'm not willing to sit back and let the nation ~burn~ because I'm not a banker nor do I have rampant debts either.

The problem is that the Republicans and Tea Bagger minions don't want to do anything with Financial Regulations. The Dems will swallow the bitter pill of TARP, but they know they have the HAMMER of regulations which they want to drop and the GOP won't join them in real regulations. Why is that? :dunno:

The more I see it, the more Obama will coast to re-election. There isn't any GOP or Tea Bagger to oppose him and Fox News is going to turn against the Tea Baggers in Sept, rendering them obsolete nationally....:dunno:

If things look bad for Obama he can always bring the troops home in August and that will boost his approval ratings before the election.:wave2:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I think if Obama didn't do anything when the economy melted down and let the Big Banks--Citi, BofA, JPMorganChase all go belly up--that would've been the wrong thing to do.

The banking industry employs probably 2mill Americans (all things considered). If we let them go under, not only would 350 million Americans lose their checking and savings account balances, but the resulting unemployment would be 40% when we factor in all the businesses that rely on Banking Services to survive.

I'm not willing to sit back and let the nation ~burn~ because I'm not a banker nor do I have rampant debts either.

The problem is that the Republicans and Tea Bagger minions don't want to do anything with Financial Regulations. The Dems will swallow the bitter pill of TARP, but they know they have the HAMMER of regulations which they want to drop and the GOP won't join them in real regulations. Why is that? :dunno:

The more I see it, the more Obama will coast to re-election. There isn't any GOP or Tea Bagger to oppose him and Fox News is going to turn against the Tea Baggers in Sept, rendering them obsolete nationally....:dunno:

If things look bad for Obama he can always bring the troops home in August and that will boost his approval ratings before the election.:wave2:

Or he can just continue to increase the national security level like W did.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

She is a lesbian. So fucking what. She is not pro abortion, she is pro choice. That's like saying you're pro unsafe abortion. How this makes her anti christian is beyond me. She may be anti right wing nut type of christian. There is a big difference B/S Scott.

Yes, she IS pro abortion. Quit with the wimpy euphamisms.

She either thinks abortions SHOULD take place or she thinks abortions SHOULD NOT take place. If you think a woman SHOULD be able to get an abortion, you are pro ABORTION. If you're for that, have the balls to say so.

As for myself, I am AGAINST women being able to let a doctor murder their babies for the sake of convenience. I have no problem telling people this, and I don't try to hide behind parsed words. You Might like my stance or You Might hate it. I don't really care. All I care is that everyone calls a spade a spade.

Whether or not you think abortion is murder, and you are either for it or against it.

As for this new Supreme Court Justice, I don't care if she's a lesbo or not. She was nominated by Barrack Hussein Obama. What do conservatives expect? Of course he is going to nominate a radical, because he is a radical himself. That's what we got when he was elected.

Liberals didn't like the conservative people George W. Bush nominated either, but they lost those two elections, so they had to deal with it. Now it's our turn. All we can do is make sure we find someone decent enough to beat the guy in the next election.

People need to stop trying to discredit the Supreme Court Justice nominees just because they don't agree with their political views. If you don't want a radical hippie on the Supreme Court, don't let one get elected to the White House. Simple as that. If you don't want, brace yourself, a Christian on the Supreme Court, don't let one get voted in as President.

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes, she IS pro abortion. Quit with the wimpy euphamisms.

She either thinks abortions SHOULD take place or she thinks abortions SHOULD NOT take place. If you think a woman SHOULD be able to get an abortion, you are pro ABORTION. If you're for that, have the balls to say so.

Wrong C4TB.

I know people think you can wrangle the words on this...

BUT the reality is there are only anti-abortionists and pro-choicers.

People who don't think abortions shouldn't take place in any event are "anti" it, right? They are indifferent at best over all life excepting the "unborn".

In order to be "pro abortion" a person would have to favor abortion in any case over birth. No reasonable person believes those who believe it's a choice for the person carrying the pregnancy actually favor abortions over births.

The most important value on the subject for them is the right to choose one way or the other...ergo they ARE "pro choice".

Now if you have evidence this woman steers pregnant women to abortion irrespective of circumstance then produce it. That would make her 'pro abortion'.:2 cents: