Grill the Snot out of Kagan

[Turbo_pro]

Jason Mattera
06/29/2010


Wow, these Kagan hearings are boring as hell. As expected, Barack’s girl, Elena, is dancing and dodging her way out of substantially answering any question. Heck, this kabuki theater has already gotten to the point where Kagan said with a straight face that she didn’t know what the term “legal progressive” means. Um, riiiiight.

Folks, weren’t we told what an intellectual powerhouse Kagan is? That she’d be able to counterbalance the intellectual heft of Justices Scalia and Roberts? And yet, Miss Kagan lacks even the cerebral nimbleness to answer a question about her “progressive” worldview without using the phrase, ‘I don’t know.’ If confirmed, it looks like the only balance Kagan will bring to the Supreme Court is that now Clarence Thomas has a viable opponent to arm wrestle.

Of course, Kagan knows exactly what she’s doing—obfuscating and avoiding tough questions with twaddle responses, such as the one she’s been giving all day: “It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases, you know, to grade cases because those cases themselves might again come before the court.” Blah, blah, blah.

Thus far, she’s flubbed her very own standard on how Supreme Court proceedings should operate. Here are the three ways the Kagan of 15 years ago would rebuff the Kagan of today.

1. In 1995, writing in The University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan opined: “The problem is not that senators engage in substantive discussion with Supreme Court nominees; the problem is that they do not. Senators effectively have accepted the limits on inquiry. … The challenge now is to over-throw" those limits.

2. Also writing in The University of Chicago Law Review journal, Kagan argued, “I suspect that both [Justices Ginsburg and Breyer] appreciated that, for them as for most, the safest and surest route to the prize lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence. Who would have done anything different, in the absence of pressure from members of congress? And of such pressure, there was little evidence.”

3. During the same time, Kagan determined that the current manifestation of the confirmation hearings have taken on “an air of vacuity and farce,” when the Senate “ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues" and doesnt "properly evaluat[e] nominees or appropriately educat[e] the public."

On those three points, we agree. The GOP should “over-throw” the urge to play paddycake with Kagan and instead grill the snot out of her. And if she continues to give non-answers (as she’s been doing all day), then Kagan would be an epic failure by her own standard.

Why is it that this administration, Zero in particular can not see the value in experience? Nominating Kagan is a move 20 years too soon. Given a touch of life experience and some actual bench time she might make a good justice but at this point she is literally unknown quantity.
Intellectual rarely equates to practical or reasonable.

[RWebb]

I thought it was a move 50 years too late?

[red-beard]

Well, Sotomeyer said she was for an individual right to keep and bear arms, but voted against it in the court.

[Tobra]

So Red, are you saying that Justice Sotomayor lied? Are there any consequences for lying in this situation?

[Turbo_pro]

The only recourse when candidates lie is to only confirm those candidates that have a record of judicial experience and believe what the record tells you.

Kagan has no record so Kagan gets no robe. If she believes she is Supreme court material, she should put together a judicial record that will qualify her to be seated.
She is a political tool not a justice of note.
Can't we please hire experts for the work we need done?

[Tobra]

We hired Mr Obama, why would we start getting people who are qualified for the job now?

[Turbo_pro]

Originally Posted by Tobra

We hired Mr Obama, why would we start getting people who are qualified for the job now?

Survival, the main quality lacking in the progressive agenda.

To make a better world first you must survive.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Tobra

So Red, are you saying that Justice Sotomayor lied? Are there any consequences for lying in this situation?

They can be impeached. I can't remember this happening.

[Racerbvd]

This covers it pretty well...

[BGCarrera32]

Well, Barak is definitely trying to build the heaviest Supreme Court we've ever had...

[island911]

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by Turbo_pro

Kagan has no record so Kagan gets no robe. If she believes she is Supreme court material, she should put together a judicial record that will qualify her to be seated.

........Can't we please hire experts for the work we need done?

FYI, there have been "only" 40 SC justices without prior judicial experience. Hardly unprecedented.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience

Hmmm. Did I hear this complaint from the right when SCJ William Renquist was sworn in? Uh, no.

Sherwood

[Turbo_pro]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

FYI, there have been "only" 40 SC justices without prior judicial experience. Hardly unprecedented.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience

Hmmm. Did I hear this complaint from the right when SCJ William Renquist was sworn in? Uh, no.

Sherwood

How many of those had little or no practical life experience?
You can't possibly believe Renquist lived in a political bubble ? or maybe like many Kool Aid aficionados you could.

I might also add that rarely will you find a court observer that will argue that Renquist was one of the courts better justices.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Tobra

We hired Mr Obama, why would we start getting people who are qualified for the job now?

[sammyg2]

Seems the libs like to pick real winners. here's an asshat lib clown who stole and election, get's put on the judiciary committee, but can't see to stay awake when a "person" nominated to the supreme court is speaking at her confirmation hearing.

Sen. Al Franken Naps, Draws Cartoons During Kagan Hearings
By Joseph Abrams
Published June 29, 2010

He's good enough, he's smart enough, but doggone it — he just can't keep his eyes open for Senate confirmation hearings.

Al Franken, the onetime comedian and current Democratic senator from Minnesota, used his position on the vaunted Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to doodle a lifelike bust of Sen. Jeff Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican, as Sessions raked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan over the coals.

But it wasn't all fun and games for the former "Saturday Night Live" star — Franken also found time to get in a good nap during the first day of hearings Monday.

Live video from Senate chambers shows a woozy Franken getting some much-needed shuteye as Kagan explains her intellectual approach to life and teachings in her opening statement to the Senate.

But Franken, the most junior member of the Judiciary Committee, had already been forced to sit through an endless round of statements from his senior colleagues on the 19-member panel as they droned on and on and on in the crowded Washington chamber.

When it finally came time for Kagan herself to speak, Franken had apparently had enough.

"I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other," said Kagan hopefully, as Franken slowly closed his eyes and appeared to doze off.

"I've learned that we come closest to getting things right when we approach every person and every issue with an open mind," she said, Franken now apparently lost to the living.

Kagan herself has expressed a profound scorn for Senate confirmation hearings, which she described as empty "lessons of cynicism" — a "vapid and hollow charade" that replace important legal discussions with repetitive platitudes.

It is unclear whether Franken shares that sentiment about the hearings or was simply bored by the proceedings. Sen. Franken's office did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment.

Kagan's questioning will continue for a third day on Thursday morning

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by Turbo_pro

How many of those had little or no practical life experience?
You can't possibly believe Renquist lived in a political bubble ? or maybe like many Kool Aid aficionados you could.

I believe the point was prior judicial experience, not "political bubble," whatever that means. And "no practical life experience", another non-sequitur. Do you mean she didn't work the coal mines or at the rendering plant like your favorite supremes?

I might also add that rarely will you find a court observer that will argue that Renquist was one of the courts better justices.

You're trying to use current opinions of Rennquist's performance as SC justice to pre-qualify his nomination as SC justice. This is only possible if you're Marty Mcfly, otherwise the reasoning behind the statement is flawed.

A more fair assessment would be to validate choosing a SC justice by evaluating their current performance. That's relatively easy in hind-sight, but not what you're talking about.

Sherwood

[island911]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Seems the libs like to pick real winners.....

I read as far as that and thought....









Anyway... Back to Kagen and the video above. Kagen will NOT answer the Q about the commerce clause. --Stunning!


If anyone can't see just how much of an extreme leftist ideaolog she is, I pity the fool.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

I believe the point was prior judicial experience, not "political bubble," whatever that means. And "no practical life experience", another non-sequitur. Do you mean she didn't work the coal mines or at the rendering plant like your favorite supremes?



You're trying to use current opinions of Rennquist's performance as SC justice to pre-qualify his nomination as SC justice. This is only possible if you're Marty Mcfly, otherwise the reasoning behind the statement is flawed.

A more fair assessment would be to validate choosing a SC justice by evaluating their current performance. That's relatively easy in hind-sight, but not what you're talking about.

Sherwood

What I'm trying to say about Renquist is that he wasn't much of a jurist, as history shows.
Perhaps using our experience, in hiring some one like Requist as an example of the kind of jurist a none judge makes, might be sensible.

As for current performance, I agree. When we look at Kagan and her current performance we have no reason to believe that she will make a non biased jurist and we can assume that she will actually bring to the bench an agenda that would be contrary to the understanding of most constitutional experts. Especially those constructionists that believe that our constitution actually works and should not be scrapped.
I believe that Kagan has indicated a contempt for strict constitutional precedents and will actively work to change those interpretations.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by Turbo_pro

What I'm trying to say about Renquist is that he wasn't much of a jurist, as history shows.
Perhaps using our experience, in hiring some one like Requist as an example of the kind of jurist a none judge makes, might be sensible.

As for current performance, I agree. When we look at Kagan and her current performance we have no reason to believe that she will make a non biased jurist and we can assume that she will actually bring to the bench an agenda that would be contrary to the understanding of most constitutional experts. Especially those constructionists that believe that our constitution actually works and should not be scrapped.
I believe that Kagan has indicated a contempt for strict constitutional precedents and will actively work to change those interpretations.

As they say, "YMMV".

And who on the SCOTUS doesn't have a bias when it comes down to it? It's a fine line - interpreting the constitution. GW had his picks (Roberts, Meir, Alioto). I guess it's the other side's turn.

Sherwood

[island911]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

As they say, "YMMV".

And who on the SCOTUS doesn't have a bias when it comes down to it? It's a fine line -...

Sherwood

Fine line Bias!?!


Are you shjtting me!?!

Kagen !?!!?

Hey Sherwood. . .