Elana Kagan for Supreme Court

[lawtonfogle]

Judicial activism is when judges make up rulings which are not supported by laws or the Constitution. Some people have a problem with that.

What happens when there is not precedence in law and the Constitution does not cover it at all (no portion can ever be abstracted to cover it), and when a ruling is required (you have to go one way or the other on the issue)?

It probably rest a great deal on if you view the government is to do everything the Constitution tells them to do or if the government is to not do everything the Constitution tells them not to do (these result if vastly different governments), or how much you sit between.

 

[Greatcloud]

The fact that she's clearly a lesbian. This clouds her judgement on many issues. I think she should recuse herself, but she won't.

 

[Maren]

The fact that she's clearly a lesbian. This clouds her judgement on many issues. I think she should recuse herself, but she won't.

As I asked someone else, where do you get the information that she is a lesbian? Looking at all the information, I can't see any evidence to support that claim.

Secondly, even if she were lesbian, why does that mean she should recuse herself and how does it cloud her judgment?

 

[Crusader05]

The fact that she's clearly a lesbian. This clouds her judgement on many issues. I think she should recuse herself, but she won't.

What evidence do you have that she is a lesbian? Sure, she might look like one, but that doesn't prove anything.

Also, how would she being a lesbian "cloud her judgement" any more than someone's heterosexuality clouds there's?

Personally, I don't think she is a lesbian and even if she was, who cares?

 

[Texan40]

Sorry, Prop. 22 was not a constitutional amendment, instead it added Section 308.5 of the Family Code. Since it was not a Constitutional amendment, it did not matter how many people voted for it, it could be struck down. Further, the California Constitution, like the Massachusetts Constitution, provides strong equal protection language. It was not judicial activism despite your disagreement with the decision. It is also worth noting that Prop. 8, which was an amendment to the California Constitution, was upheld by the same Supreme Court.

And it was not "usurping the political process". If 99% of a state's citizens voted in a referendum to pass a law to reintroduce slavery, the law would also be struck down as unconstitutional. Much of the role of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority voting their rights away.

Slavery is a state imposed by others. You skin color can likewise be used against you. Homosexuality is a state imposed by self. Big difference there. The base of homosexuality is sexual preference in partner, which is an active choice. The attempt has been to remove this fact and replace it so that homosexual lifestyle can be blanketed with existing civil rights laws and sentiment. That is activism, not law interpretation.

 

[Corey]

Slavery is a state imposed by others. You skin color can likewise be used against you. Homosexuality is a state imposed by self. Big difference there. The base of homosexuality is sexual preference in partner, which is an active choice. The attempt has been to remove this fact and replace it so that homosexual lifestyle can be blanketed with existing civil rights laws and sentiment. That is activism, not law interpretation.

I invite you to Ethics and Morality so that you can be disabused of your erroneous ideas regarding the origins of human sexuality.

 

[Maren]

Slavery is a state imposed by others. You skin color can likewise be used against you. Homosexuality is a state imposed by self. Big difference there.

Actually, while you may believe this there is no evidence. Ultimately, legally, it doesn't matter.

The base of homosexuality is sexual preference in partner, which is an active choice.

Sorry, there is no evidence this is true -- in fact all the evidence points to the fact that sexual preference is not a choice. What debate exists is about the cause of sexual orientation, not whether it is a choice.

The attempt has been to remove this fact and replace it so that homosexual lifestyle can be blanketed with existing civil rights laws and sentiment. That is activism, not law interpretation.

Nope, sorry. What has been done is sections of law that are aimed solely at homosexuals have been found unconstitutional because of the 13th Amendment which guarantees "equal protection of the laws". And as pointed out some states, such as Iowa, Massachusetts, and California, have even equal rights protections for citizens.

The reason legislatures and city commissions have voted to add homosexuals to civil rights laws is because the history of discrimination homosexuals have faced in terms of housing and employment. But I suppose you are ok with a person who is attracted to someone of the same gender (whether they actually act on that attraction or not) being denied housing or employment just because of that attraction?

 

[Texan40]

I invite you to Ethics and Morality so that you can be disabused of your erroneous ideas regarding the origins of human sexuality.

Sorry, there is no evidence this is true -- in fact all the evidence points to the fact that sexual preference is not a choice. What debate exists is about the cause of sexual orientation, not whether it is a choice.

There are no definitive studies of sexual preference being uncontrolled. Nice try though. They have studies that say sexual preference can be effected by enviornment. If "being gay" was a genetic absolute no such studies would exist. I will agree that the debate is not complete on the subject so in effect neither of our views have been proved conclusively. I stand by my remark that homosexuality is actively (legally speaking) being pushed into the same sphere as race or gender (both of which are not in any way controlled by the self) without definitive proof or absence of choice.

 

[salida]

***If she gets on the supreme court, we will have national healthcare no matter how much we don't want it -which is 70% of the american people. Obama knows there will be many lawsuits against this law that was forced on us. And she will be perfect in promoting his useless ideas that nobody wants. But his buddy(they are good friends) Kagan will say, oh its constitutional; she is obamas marxist puppet. Also, she will promote cap and trade and everything else that will mess this country up.

Solution: if you don't want your country going into the abyss
visit JCN online - (Judicial Crisis Network)-what u can do about this disaster.
This nomination should be fought off until Nov 2010.

More on marxist Kagan:

Supreme Court Nominee Draws Criticism
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000012622.cfm
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/11/obama-nominates-himself

Senate Should Probe Elena Kagan’s Judicial Philosophy for Supreme Court Position
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=936

 

[Polycarp1]

There are no definitive studies of sexual preference being uncontrolled. Nice try though. They have studies that say sexual preference can be effected by enviornment. If "being gay" was a genetic absolute no such studies would exist. I will agree that the debate is not complete on the subject so in effect neither of our views have been proved conclusively. I stand by my remark that homosexuality is actively (legally speaking) being pushed into the same sphere as race or gender (both of which are not in any way controlled by the self) without definitive proof or absence of choice.

Nicely stated. I submit that the evidence is quite strong that no one exclusively or predominantly attracted homosexually has ever been permanently enabled to change that attraction by either his own or a 'converion therapy "ex-gay' ministry's efforts. Bisexuals, yes; people who were the beneficiaries of direct divine intervention, yes; people who claimed to have been 'cured' for a period, maybe -- they may legitimately have had the equivalent of a remission as opposed to a cure, or they may have deluded themselves, and the evidence is not clear.

Now, as to acting on their desires, that's a different question. But unless you are one of those who refuses to admit that homosexuality as an orientation exists (and there are a few around, but I don't see you as one of them), the above summary reasonably closely reflects the state of the evidence at present.

 

[BotanicalBob]

Another good article on Kagan.

Why Elena Kagan makes both sides nervous. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

She could be Obama's Harriet Meyers.

The biggest problem is that we really don't know her true stances. One of the few things we do know is that she supports detaining terror suspects indefinetly.

Personally, that scares me. If Bush nominated someone who believed that, it would have been political WW3 for the confirmation. The Obama admin has already established that in terms of executive power and leeway in dealing with terror suspects, they're just as, if not more hawkish than the Bush admin.

And I'ld like to know her stance on gun rights. That's always a good litmus test.

 

[BotanicalBob]

The fact that she's clearly a lesbian. This clouds her judgement on many issues. I think she should recuse herself, but she won't.

While I have reservations about her, watch Scalia's head explode upon her confirmation would almost be worth an bad rulings she would make.

***If she gets on the supreme court, we will have national healthcare no matter how much we don't want it -which is 70% of the american people. Obama knows there will be many lawsuits against this law that was forced on us. And she will be perfect in promoting his useless ideas that nobody wants. But his buddy(they are good friends) Kagan will say, oh its constitutional; she is obamas marxist puppet. Also, she will promote cap and trade and everything else that will mess this country up.

She'll vote the same way as the guy she's replacing.

You'ld have to stick a gun to Obama's head to get a judge that would rule against his healthcare bill.

 

[BotanicalBob]

What are Elena Kagan's views on Second Amendment?

Her soundbites on the topic come across as pretty mainstream and gun friendly. I hope they are an accurate representation of her true feelings. I'ld also like to know where she stands on applying Heller to the states.

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan documents - The Washington Post

This is her questionaire for SG.

 

[Maren]

There are no definitive studies of sexual preference being uncontrolled. Nice try though. They have studies that say sexual preference can be effected by enviornment. If "being gay" was a genetic absolute no such studies would exist. I will agree that the debate is not complete on the subject so in effect neither of our views have been proved conclusively. I stand by my remark that homosexuality is actively (legally speaking) being pushed into the same sphere as race or gender (both of which are not in any way controlled by the self) without definitive proof or absence of choice.

You need to actually read what I wrote. I never claimed there were any definitive studies, rather I claimed the evidence (various studies) tends to show homosexuality is not a choice. Now, I chose not to use the terms biology and environmental, rather simply stating that "What debate exists is about the cause". Yet I think you can agree that the whole debate that exists about the cause of homosexuality is if it is biological, environmental, or some combination of the two. The fact remains, however, that homosexuality is not "chosen", nor can it be "unchosen". In some ways it is similar to left-handedness (something else we have no solid evidence as to what causes it), so I assume since left-handedness is "chosen" and something "controlled by self" you would feel the Constitution is fine with denying them civil rights?

Which all is beside the point. I challenge you to find me anything in the Constitution about "controlled by self". You are the one trying to add something into the Constitution that is not there.

 

[Texan40]

You need to actually read what I wrote. I never claimed there were any definitive studies, rather I claimed the evidence (various studies) tends to show homosexuality is not a choice. Now, I chose not to use the terms biology and environmental, rather simply stating that "What debate exists is about the cause". Yet I think you can agree that the whole debate that exists about the cause of homosexuality is if it is biological, environmental, or some combination of the two. The fact remains, however, that homosexuality is not "chosen", nor can it be "unchosen". In some ways it is similar to left-handedness (something else we have no solid evidence as to what causes it), so I assume since left-handedness is "chosen" and something "controlled by self" you would feel the Constitution is fine with denying them civil rights?

Which all is beside the point. I challenge you to find me anything in the Constitution about "controlled by self". You are the one trying to add something into the Constitution that is not there.

that the government gives benefits for marriage at all is unconstitutional. That we should be expanding those benefits to homosexual "marriage" is just another step in the wrong direction (which is expanding the government).

 

[Maren]

that the government gives benefits for marriage at all is unconstitutional. That we should be expanding those benefits to homosexual "marriage" is just another step in the wrong direction (which is expanding the government).

I'd be interested to know why you feel it is unconstitutional for the government to recognize marriage.

 

[Texan40]

I'd be interested to know why you feel it is unconstitutional for the government to recognize marriage.

Recognition isn't what I find unconstitutional. Benefits or special treatment for being married (or for being in any special interest group) are not in the constitution.

 

[Corey]

There are no definitive studies of sexual preference being uncontrolled. Nice try though. They have studies that say sexual preference can be effected by enviornment. If "being gay" was a genetic absolute no such studies would exist. I will agree that the debate is not complete on the subject so in effect neither of our views have been proved conclusively. I stand by my remark that homosexuality is actively (legally speaking) being pushed into the same sphere as race or gender (both of which are not in any way controlled by the self) without definitive proof or absence of choice.

In other words, you don't want to debate me. Thanks for confirming that you aren't confident in your beliefs.

 

[Texan40]

In other words, you don't want to debate me. Thanks for confirming that you aren't confident in your beliefs.

Debating opinion is fine. You have presented "popular opinion" as fact by route of its popularity. Not much of an argument there either.

 

[Corey]

Debating opinion is fine. You have presented "popular opinion" as fact by route of its popularity. Not much of an argument there either.

Nope. It's called science-the empirical study of reality with structured research protocols.

And you can find a useful summary here of the evidence for a non-volitional source for sexual preference: Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia