Trying to transform the USA into a Socialist State like the ones in Europe which are failing is immoral and unconstitutional. Legislating from the bench without the consent of the governed is what this pick is all about. Obama might as well have appointed Oprah. At least people know where she stands on issues.

Come on man, be serious.

The Sarah Palin example that Danzig raised is perfect. I firmly believe that there are numerous grounds on which Palin can be legitimately criticized. The fact that she is as dumb as a box of rocks being first among these. However, it is also still true that some of the media coverage, internet discussion, etc about Palin was incredibly sexist. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

If you feel that previous judicial experience should be required before somebody is nominated for the Supreme Court, that's fine. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate critique (although not one I particularly agree with). Of course, it would be nice if you demonstrated a little more awareness of the numerous times that people without judicial experience have been put on the court over the years, but if your position is simply that those people shouldn't have been put on the court either....fine. For me, that's a perfectly reasonable position for you - or anyone - to take. That doesn't mean that some of the reaction to Kagan - as with Palin - is sexist.

since we operate under the premise that all are created equal, i think i stand on firm ground when i say that DADT is immoral and unconstitutional, since it's blatant discrimination. that's supposed to be something the land of the free doesn't engage in.
as for az, since you're talking about lawbreakers, i don't think it applies.

what do you mean by that?

Idiot

from what little i've read so far about kagan, she seems to be a good choice. they had an article in the paper yesterday, along with a sidebar on some of her comments and thoughts from her appointment process as solicitor general.


and bob, is it dell, the blog author, or both?? :D

lol..Author..never Steve

Kagan herself argued for a more stringent questioning of Supreme Court nominees in 1995, words she can expect to hear thrown back at her by senators.

"Senators today do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of justice they would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues," Kagan wrote in a University of Chicago Law Review article reviewing "The Confirmation Mess," a book by Stephen L. Carter. "Senators have not done so since the hearings on the nomination of Judge Bork. They instead engage in a peculiar ritual dance, in which they propound their own views on constitutional law, but neither hope nor expect the nominee to respond in like manner."

Hopefully she is a woman of her words!!!!

Kagan has an interesting take on the principal of "free-speech". Her idea makes sense in theory but I think it could be very dangerous in practice.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

how does she prove that? by getting elected to the senate and insisting judicial nominee's disclose their views? i'm not sure you understood what you read if you think it placed any blame for the situation on the judicial candidate.

in what way?

i read the article and agree with kagan's thoughts. but i'm with god, what makes you think this could be dangerous in practice-especially rupert if you say it makes sense in theory?

I can't believe you guys are even asking this question. You think it's ok to base law on guessing what someone's intent is? You're going to base the law on reading someone's mind? That would be very dangerous. I don't trust anyone to make decisions based on reading someone's mind.

i think there's a big difference between deciding the govt's intent on suppressing speech and reading a mind.

for instance, what was the govts intent on banning child porn? protecting kids.

what would be the intent on banning kkk rallies? suppressing disagreeable speech that the govt (and many citizens) doesn't agree with. admirable? perhaps. reasonable? to most. a slippery slope? absolutely. so, the law is recognizable. the intent is the point. she's exactly correct in this regard.

Did you hear about this story last week? I guess Judge Kagan could take out her tarrot cards and figure out what the intent of the high-school principal was. Would the principal have behaved in the same manner if it was Latino students? I don't know the answer but I'm sure the expert mindreader Judge Kagan could figure it out.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06...gs-cinco-mayo/

it's also entirely non-controversial and in the judicial mainstream.

interpreting law without interpreting intent would be a fairly radical departure. we could bring back poll taxes to disenfranchise the poor if intent weren't a fit subject for judicial review.

i did hear about the story. when dipshit principals start writing this country's laws, you let me know.

you guys are so good at changing the subject when you're called out.

throw some poo at the wall and when it doesn't stick, just throw some more.

you're incapable of defending your position. that's my takeaway from this pathetic intellectually dishonest distraction.

You are incapable of defending your position. That is why you have no answer to the real-life case that I posted the story to. Were the free-speech rights of these students violated?

Does it come down to the principals intent? How do we know what the principal's intent was?

I will give you my opinion. I think the principal's intent is irrelevant.