Kagan ?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...n.html?showall

Idiot

[Danzig]

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??

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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??

lol..Author..never Steve

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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!!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

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

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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

in what way?

[Danzig]

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?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

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/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

in what way?

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.

[Danzig]

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.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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!!!!

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.