Kagan's Top Ten

John L writes:

Thank heaven I'm an old man, but maybe not old enough. It's sad enough that these bugwits are saying that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says, but that it says what it doesn't say; what's really sad is that the slackjawed, drooling, fecalheaded rank and file liberals that elected the terrorist sympathizer who nominated Kagen in the first place are content to let her get confirmed.

Someone should ask her if she thinks forcing American Citizens to pay for goods or services they may not want is Constitutional?

hmm

No one asks about her view of Eminent Domain? What's wrong with these people!

No one asks if she thinks the Bible - and preachers who quote it - are guilty of "hate speech." And she should be asked if their right to speak freely on such subjects should be "permitted speech. " Why don't they ask these things?

"Loosey-goosey style of inpretation in which anything goes"!!!!!! THAT'S AWFUL!!!!! She's supposed to be a JUDGE and as a judge that means judging and deciding. How can you make fair and just decisions if you believe that? Who's to say if the man who murdered his wife didn't do so because he was tired of her nagging and his "interpretation" of the Constitution guaranteed him freedom of her? "Anything goes"! Whatever happened to justice?

Dear Sirs,
There is an old saying, 'do as I say, not as I do."
Robert Bork, once a Solicitor general and later an Attorney General, fired "independent" prosecutor Archibald Cox.
Remember the Saturday Night Massacre?
This is your idea of a judge?
The only convicted Attorney General, in our history, was John Mitchell!
Remember Spiro Agnew?
So much for law and order!
Clifford Spencer

Believing that Kagan would not be confirmed, is like watching the movie "Titanic" and hoping for a differnet ending.

i too would like to know from kagan where she see's the constitution restricting central government's authority over the states and the citizens.

it is obvious from her history and her hearing that kagan does not see any reason to restrict the powers of the central government. it is equally obvious that she will use whatever persuasive abilities she possesses to further the central government's encroachment of the rights of the states and the citizens. rights that in kagan's world are non-existent.

filibuster kagan. let your elected senator know that a vote by him or her to confirm kagan will result in a vote by you to his opponent in his next run for public office.

one thing the election of obama did was to show the true colors of our political class members.

if they support obama, they are leftists or commies or progressives or liberals. they all want the government to have more power over the actions of its citizens.

that is what kagan believes. that is what kagan wants. that is why kagan is unfit to sit on the SCOTUS.

O'KADDLE---
I forgot that Minn.was still a state like out here in Zombieland(Ca.)!!
But what is going on in S.Carolina isn't exactly impressive either!
Starting to look like a bunch of loonies on the right !
Toons- I added a few. should be in the mail by today You will love the one of Allison! I had to add Kagan and about 3 more of guy...OBARFA. And Gore.
elvis

"Nothing could show how low the quality of people have become in Government any better than this airhead woman"

Don't forget the ones who idolize Chairman Mao. . .the greatest mass-murderer in HUMAN HISTORY!

BM051, Is obviously one of Gearge Soros nephews. Don't even bother replying to this idiot, he knows not what he speaks of!!!!!

Comparisons of George Washington our 1st President to Barack Obama our 44th President.

George Washington our 1st President never told a lie.

Barack Obama our 44th President has never told the truth.

George Washington our 1st President was willing to sacrifice his life and fortune to Create a Constitutional Republic.

Barack Obama our 44th President is willing to sacrifice everyone's life and fortune but his, to create a Marxist Socialist Government.

George Washington our 1st President wanted the same Rights and Freedoms for the American Citizenry.

Barack Obama our 44th President wants 'Special Rights and Freedoms' for Selected Collectives.

George Washington our 1st President was a Soldier Statesman.

Barack Obama our 44th...

Please if you're going to deride the opposition, please please please have your facts straight. Don't give them ANYTHING! Twilight is not a TV series, it's a series of films. All of them captivating teenage girls for the most part.
Garbage in other words. I saw an interview of the 'leading lady'. The epitome of the phrase 'The lights are on, but no one is home!'

So what else would we expect from an aggressive questioning Democrat. (I capitalize that word with some regret.)

JMO51 "opines":
"No maybe you always believed that was the intent of the 2nd amendment and you would not be alone in that view. But the fact is that was NOT the prevailing legal view of the meaning of the constutition (sic) and clearly the people of Chicago had their own notions of that."
-----

If you believe that, JMO51, then it is clear you have either never read or don't understand the Federalist Papers.

The people of Chicago cannot usurp the U.S. Constitution - plain as simple.

The "militia" is NOT the National Guard - it is "we the people".

You are clearly brainwashed and have no understanding of the nation's checks & balances.

Further debate is fruitless... have a nice day.

NUMBER 11 ...

.....I want all school girls K1-K12 taught the art of muff diving so that they have an alternative to bigoted homophobes who want to force them to be heterosexual .....COLOSSUS

Bee

Baloney, Corporations are a creation of government. They are not people and the constitution does not provide to corporations the same inalienable rights provided by individuals simply because those corporations in the end are owned by citizens as shareholders. The fact that this law of congress was in place for seventy years suggested a level of social acceptance and legal precident that should not be taken lightly. To call this judicial review is non-sense. That is what courts always call it. Take the most in you opinion activist supreme court decision (of course in your view it will be a liberal decision) and guess what it was judical review. In the view of the court the law was unconsitutional or violated a basic right...

#3

Kagan revised the language so the final statement in 1997 said that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Kagan admitted that she did speak with ACOG to revise the statement but refused to take ownership over the memos advocating the less restrictive language.
Kagan also said ACOG couldn't identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.
"There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which...

Primus in citizens united the courts overruled the will of the people (congress). Plain and simple. And in the recent gun ruling (which I happen to agree with in term of the result) the courts threw out a thirty year old law made the people of Chicago.

In our entire nations history up to the Roberts Court no Supreme Court had ruled that the second amendment was an individual right. There have been many cases over the year challenging the right of states to make their own laws about who can and can't own a gun and under what circumstances. Then the Robert's Court on the thinnest of margins changes the playing field completely. No maybe you always believed that was the intent of the 2nd amendment and you would not be alone in that...

I love how this article doesn't actually capture the mood when these questions were asked. Point in case? #1. Graham asked her where she was on Christmas Day. She said something like "I assume that you mean on the Christmas Day bombing.." and he said, "No, I mean where were you on Christmas Day?" He was totally joking around. Kagan is going to be confirmed by an overwhelming majority. And the joking around by senators on both sides of the aisle go to prove that.

I thought the most interesting quote was her adamant insistence that there was no right in domestic law to hold a suspect indefinately, when the Supreme Court has just recently ruled they could. She actually is very knowledgeable about the law, but don't know how that escaped her.

@JMO51, Primus is correct. You have pretty much demonstrated you have zero understanding of the difference between "judicial activism" and "judicial review".

The PLAIN words of the Constitution say that the government cannot limit free speech. You are advocating 1.) that free speech be limited by the government if the speech is being spoken by so-called "powerful interests". There is only ONE powerful interest in this country and that is the federal government. Compared to the feds, not even a gigantic oil company, a car company, or a wall street firm are "powerful". Quite the contrary. 2.) You are stating (without evidence I might add) that Citizens United was activism when it was clearly a case of review.

The government has no...

JMO51:

Without getting bogged down in detail about specific decisions, when I have to educate someone that "the will of the people" is not the province of the Judicial Branch, I already know that further debate is fruitless as we clearly don't have a common frame of reference.

Historically, it has been the liberal ideology that relies on activist courts to "make law" on issues political unpopular and decidedly against the "will of the people" and have manufactured constitutional "rights" out of thin air.

One only needs to look at this week's decision on gun rights - which SHOULD have been a unanimous decision - to know who the Justices are that try to legislate from the bench .

You know it - and I know it.

Why don't Republicans ask this radical lib "HEY WISE WOMAN, IF GOVERNMENT CAN DO ANYTHING UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A CONSTITUTION"? It’s pretty obvious that Marxist Kagan agrees with our POTUS and wants to put an end to the non-sense we call the US Constitution.
That said.....WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A CONSTITUTION"? The Constitution was written to constrain government. Explicitly to tell, particularly the federal government, what it could NOT do, which is everything not explicitly mandated in the document itself. But somehow this is lost on these people.

Earth to Primus, by your own definition the Roberts court has been the most activist. Take the Ctizens United Case. The courts overturned long congressional law to create a new right for corporations and they rules on the case broadly just to do that rather than norrowly in a way that would have produced the same result for the plaintiff and yet preserved the intent of congress.

If that is not judicial activism, what is. That was legislating from the bench on a case that is likely to have a profound impact on our political process going forward. That is not the role of a modest court. The right has used the term judicial activism to decribe the Warren Court, rightly so. But now in power with a right wing majority the Roberts...