Kagan's Heroes

[BenJohnson]

Marek, it is the current ploy of liberals (leftists) to claim conservatives are guilty of "judicial activism" because occasionally their decisions strike down...judicial activism.

If my endorsement for nominee were important, I would make one, but as it is, Kagan is the nominee Obama has given us. Were I to suggest justices he should nominate, you would accuse me of delusions of grandeur. Sadly, the discussion of alternatives is in Obama's hands, not mine, so citizens are restricted to discussing his choice -- and Kagan is whom he's put forth. Again, you're free to start a thread discussing better conservative alternatives to someone who is "not sympathetic" to Second Amendment rights and believes in banning books, and you'd undoubtedly get many responses.

But so far you've done a masterful job of avoiding any commentary whatsoever on the actual content of the article, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[DaisyDay]

The clear implication of Marek's statement would be that liberals would nominate only liberals (in this context, judicial activists). I believe the assessment is correct but decline to approve of anyone with those views being given a blank check to redefine the Constitution for the rest of his/her natural life.

I didn't see that implied at all by "not conservative" - most liberals don't consider Obama to be a liberal, but a main stream moderate. Perhaps you can't see past your own bias?

 

[BenJohnson]

1. This is not the thread to discuss a better nominee; it's about the content of my article. Haven't heard anything out of you about it. Feel free to read it and comment. On its contents.

2. "most liberals don't consider Obama to be a liberal, but a main stream moderate." Aside from being ridiculous, this is also off-topic. But thanks for the laugh.

 

[kermit]

Marek, it is the current ploy of liberals (leftists) to claim conservatives are guilty of "judicial activism" because occasionally their decisions strike down...judicial activism.

Are you trying to claim that conservatives never commit judicial activism?

 

[Charlie V]

That Souter is seen by some as a "flaming liberal" is just a sign how far, how radically far, toward the right the country has moved. Souter is a conservative. The problem is that the rest of the Supreme Court was so radically conservative, it made Souter look liberal in contrast.

On the other hand, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are most certainly flaming conservatives.

I personally think Kagan is a flaming moderate, which is why a number of liberal groups have opposed her.

(Why must they all flame? What is the action of "flaming"? What does one do when one "flames"? As in, "Look! Souter is over there flaming!" I don't know. Are they saying that Souter is a liberal who writes negative posts on posting boards? Or that he lights fires? I have no idea what the flaming is all about.)

"most liberals don't consider Obama to be a liberal, but a main stream moderate." Aside from being ridiculous, this is also off-topic. But thanks for the laugh.

The fact that the truth is ridiculous to you is ridiculous. Thanks for the counter-laugh.

it's about the content of my article.

To be honest, I went to article part one, read some silly nonsense about her sexual orientation and stopped reading.

For the record, I could not care less about any candidate's sexual orientation.

To me, it's about as significant as, in a John McCain campaign, someone (either trying to promote or trying to smear John McCain) spreading rumors that he is a heterosexual. Why should I care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? I care about issues, not sexual orientation. When you made that the focus of your first paragraph, you lost my interest as a reader.

If I learned that any candidate, whether Elena Kagan, John McCain, Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, was a heterosexual, a homosexual, a bisexual, a transsexual, asexual, trisexual, or anti-sexual, it would have exactly zero impact on my vote.
To me, its importance is somewhere between whether the candidate sleeps on his/her back, stomach or side, and what brand of toothpaste the candidate uses.

If my endorsement for nominee were important, I would make one.

Your endorsement is more important to me than any candidates sexual orientation.

If you made a convincing argument, I might just support the candidate you support. That makes your endorsement more important.

Charlie

 

[DaisyDay]

1. This is not the thread to discuss a better nominee; it's about the content of my article. Haven't heard anything out of you about it. Feel free to read it and comment. On its contents.

2. "most liberals don't consider Obama to be a liberal, but a main stream moderate." Aside from being ridiculous, this is also off-topic. But thanks for the laugh.

It isn't ridiculous at all; on the contrary your assertion that "not conservative" necessarily means "liberal progressive leftist" is the epitome of absurdity.

If you're going to cop such a snitty attitude whenever someone asks a question you don't want to answer, I'm not sure it's worth while to discuss anything with you .

 

[ModCon]

Kagan doesn't believe, nor do I, that judicial experience is necessary to evidence one's qualifications to be an supreme court justice. We could go back and forth regarding whether or not her experience is better than some other potential nominee's experience. This is actually what I was hoping would happen. Unfortunately, conservatives here are unwilling to even provide examples of other individuals that might have more/better experience than Kagan. This is the conversation I wanted to have.

Personally, I do not believe that just because someone has a law degree they are qualified to sit on the highest court. I believe the supreme court should be the best of the best of Judges. But the requirements in the constitution do not require it. So Obama can nominate anyone he wishes.
Only extremist views should be reasons to block the nominee.

I didn't see that implied at all by "not conservative" - most liberals don't consider Obama to be a liberal, but a main stream moderate. Perhaps you can't see past your own bias?

I hope there is only a few that believe this. Obama is a radical, thats why I believe this is not as bad a nominee as he could have went with.

 

[Charlie V]

I hope there is only a few that believe this. Obama is a radical, thats why I believe this is not as bad a nominee as he could have went with.

What has he done or proposed that's so radical?

Nothing radical about him that I can see...

 

[blueapplepaste]

Marek, it is the current ploy of liberals (leftists) to claim conservatives are guilty of "judicial activism" because occasionally their decisions strike down...judicial activism.

Actually Scalia and Thomas have voted the most to over turn legislative laws. If over turning laws that have been legally passed by elected representatives isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is.

Funny thing with conservatives is its only ever judicial activism when they disagree with the ruling.

 

[trunks2k]

I believe the supreme court should be the best of the best of Judges. But the requirements in the constitution do not require it. So Obama can nominate anyone he wishes.

Not only is it not constitutionally required, historically Supreme Court judges generally didn't have any/significant judicial experience. While my gut feeling is that it Supreme Court judges should have vast amounts of judicial experience, one could likely make the argument that it's better if that's the exception rather than the rule (i.e. to keep the judicial branch from being too insulated). So the gut feeling could very well be wrong.

So Kagan's lack of judicial experience really doesn't bother me. Personally, I worry that she's going to end up making the court more conservative - bringing the overall lean of the court strongly conservative rather than neutral. Of course what I would consider neutral is probable "flaming" liberal to some conservatives.

 

[trunks2k]

Funny thing with conservatives is its only ever judicial activism when they disagree with the ruling.

I'd say that it's true for both sides, although the left generally hasn't co-opted the exact term. It comes down to really annoying rhetoric. I hate terms like "flaming", "fascist", "socialist", "activist", "radical", etc. Because they rarely apply to whoever it's being applied to, even more annoying when the terms have purely subjective definitions.