• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elena Kagan news: Sen. Jeff Sessions calls Kagan a 'dangerous' nominee

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan picked up more GOP backing Wednesday in her drive toward near-certain confirmation next week, even as a top Republican lashed out at her as "dangerous."

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, warned senators in unusually dire terms against voting for President Barack Obama's choice, saying, "Be careful about it, because I'm afraid that we have a dangerous, progressive, political-type nominee."

Sessions' words of caution - he said they were primarily directed toward Democrats - came just hours after Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine became the fourth Republican to say she would break with her party to vote for Kagan, who's in line to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

Democrats already have more than enough votes to confirm her.

In a statement, Snowe said Kagan had met her standard for a justice, "with the strong intellect, respect for the rule of law, and understanding of the important but limited role of the Supreme Court that I believe is required." She said endorsements from leading lawyers, including prominent conservatives, had persuaded her that Kagan had the judicial temperament for the job.

Sessions, however, quoted Obama allies describing Kagan as someone who shares his political views, and argued she would be a liberal rubber stamp for Obama's policies.

"I don't think the American people are going to hold harmless those who vote to impose a legal progressive, activist legislator from the bench upon them," Sessions said.

Elena Kagan news: Sen. Jeff Sessions calls Kagan a 'dangerous' nominee

YouTube - Sessions to Dem Senators: Don't Rubberstamp Kagan Nomination for Obama


So, Is Sessions right? Is Kagen really nothing more than a mirror of Obama's ideological, and purely political appointment? She will serve for decades, will her vote be constitutionally based, or will she vote strictly along "Progressive" lines? And doesn't the sitting President have the right to appoint anyone he wants?


j-mac
 
Last edited:

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
YouTube - Sessions to Dem Senators: Don't Rubberstamp Kagan Nomination for Obama


So, Is Sessions right? Is Kagen really nothing more than a mirror of Obama's ideological, and purely political appointment? She will serve for decades, will her vote be constitutionally based, or will she vote strictly along "Progressive" lines? And doesn't the sitting President have the right to appoint anyone he wants?


j-mac

The last question you raise interests me. Should Congress vote no on purely ideological bases or should they have some real practical reason to vote no (such as the person proves to have a criminal record or otherwise have ethics problems)?

I go back and forth on that question, honestly. On one hand, you kind of expect a President to appoint people who agree with him politically. I mean, duh. Bush certainly appointed only conservatives, so why is it a surprise that Obama will appoint only liberals?

On the other hand, is the Constitution meant to be a situation where the Senate is supposed to work with the President to choose someone, or is it just a "checks and balance" to make sure the appointments aren't ridiculous (like when Nixon wanted to appoint a southern racist)?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,342
Reaction score
52,457
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So, Is Sessions right?

No, I don't think he is, any more than any of Bush's appointments where dangerous rubber stamps for Bush. Asking for a nonpolitical judge is probably unrealistic.

Is Kagen really nothing more than a mirror of Obama's ideological, and purely political appointment?

All SCOTUS nominees are to an extent political. She is no moreso than any other. As best I can tell, she is a liberal, so will be similar to Obama in her political beliefs, but I think you would be hard pressed to find any two liberals who 100 % mirror each others beliefs.

She will serve for decades, will her vote be constitutionally based, or will she vote strictly along "Progressive" lines?

We do not know this about any candidate until they get the job. She looks no more likely to rule poorly than any other nominee.

And doesn't the sitting President have the right to appoint anyone he wants?


j-mac

He does, yes. And others can complain about who he nominates.
 

The Dane

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
253
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The nominee said herself that these confirmations and the rhetoric that surrounds them were a joke. She's going to get appointed, just as Bush's choices were appointed, while the opposite side of the isle in both cases gets some rhetoric in.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kagan is about as far left as they get but since she is replacing another far out lefty it won't effect the balance of the court.......
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kagan is about as far left as they get but since she is replacing another far out lefty it won't effect the balance of the court.......

You are hilarious Navy....Kagan isn't even close to being far left...why do you think the left-wing wasn't very happy with her selection?

Obama wimped out on both choices....picking left-leaning moderates....but then....Obama is a moderate anyway....so it ws not unexpected.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
it won't effect the balance of the court.......

That's true Navy...but the really good thing that comes out of this....it prevent the right-wing from being able to advance their right-wing agenda. Obama saved the Supreme Court from falling into the hands of extremists....I thank GOD every day for that. The one chance that the right-wing had to take over the court within the next couple of decades was in the last election. Now...when Ginsburg retires Obama will further cement it with another young justice....most likely another moderate, but at least it will push the right-wing further back from getting their activist right-wing court.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
18,185
Reaction score
11,145
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
YouTube - Sessions to Dem Senators: Don't Rubberstamp Kagan Nomination for Obama


So, Is Sessions right? Is Kagen really nothing more than a mirror of Obama's ideological, and purely political appointment? She will serve for decades, will her vote be constitutionally based, or will she vote strictly along "Progressive" lines? And doesn't the sitting President have the right to appoint anyone he wants?


j-mac

Supreme Court - Stevens + Kagan = shift to right (under Democratic president). The Conservs should declare victory and move on.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The 2nd Amendment barely survived a 5 to 4 vote. I would say that Kagan is a very dangerous nominee.

There's something very wrong with one of our most basic rights is that close to no longer being one of our most basic rights.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,138
Reaction score
82,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's true Navy...but the really good thing that comes out of this....it prevent the right-wing from being able to advance their right-wing agenda. Obama saved the Supreme Court from falling into the hands of extremists....I thank GOD every day for that. The one chance that the right-wing had to take over the court within the next couple of decades was in the last election. Now...when Ginsburg retires Obama will further cement it with another young justice....most likely another moderate, but at least it will push the right-wing further back from getting their activist right-wing court.

anyone who calls Alito or roberts extremists is extremely ignorant about the court and the state of jurisprudence.

Kagan is a moderate to someone like you.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,342
Reaction score
52,457
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
anyone who calls Alito or roberts extremists is extremely ignorant about the court and the state of jurisprudence.

Kagan is a moderate to someone like you.

And by that argument, Alito and Roberts are only not extreme to some one like you.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,138
Reaction score
82,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And by that argument, Alito and Roberts are only not extreme to some one like you.

actually few honest legal scholars would call them extreme.

the most extreme stuff comes from breyer--did you read his idiotic dissents in Heller and McDonald?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,342
Reaction score
52,457
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
actually few honest legal scholars would call them extreme.

the most extreme stuff comes from breyer--did you read his idiotic dissents in Heller and McDonald?

I am not a lawyer. I have read a few court decisions, when I really had to for debates, but I find them a cure for insomnia.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hold on, we need to leave the petty bickering aside on this one if we can please. I really want to know. I mean to some of the liberals, what makes Kagan a "moderate" and why do some consider her appointment a move to the right? And what makes Roberts, or Alito extreme right wing? Is it because they vote conservative on issues? Is it because they try to stick to the intent of the constitution instead of spouting nonsense like the living, breathing document stuff, and looking to other countries case law to decide?

Radical eh? So stay on point, what is Sessions worried about if it won't change the balance? And don't have to say to ourselves as conservatives that we argued for Bush to be able to appoint his ideological picks? If Kagan is dangerous as a progressive, then it only goes to prove how Obama is trying to portray himself as a moderate, while governing, and appointing from the extreme fringe.


j-mac
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
anyone who calls Alito or roberts extremists is extremely ignorant about the court and the state of jurisprudence.

Kagan is a moderate to someone like you.

Oh pul-lease......I would bet that most conservatives themselves would label Alito and Roberts as very conservative and to the fr right. That's why they like them.
At least TRY to be honest.
As for Kagan....have you been following the confirmation or looked at her record? There is a reason why people on the left are not happy with her selection....but that would require that you actually look at and study some of the facts.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hold on, we need to leave the petty bickering aside on this one if we can please. I really want to know. I mean to some of the liberals, what makes Kagan a "moderate" and why do some consider her appointment a move to the right? And what makes Roberts, or Alito extreme right wing? Is it because they vote conservative on issues? Is it because they try to stick to the intent of the constitution instead of spouting nonsense like the living, breathing document stuff, and looking to other countries case law to decide?

Radical eh? So stay on point, what is Sessions worried about if it won't change the balance? And don't have to say to ourselves as conservatives that we argued for Bush to be able to appoint his ideological picks? If Kagan is dangerous as a progressive, then it only goes to prove how Obama is trying to portray himself as a moderate, while governing, and appointing from the extreme fringe.


j-mac


"Sticking to the intent of the Constitution?" Now that's funny. Alito and Roberts ALWAYS vote in favor of the corporation when the issue is the individual v. the corporation. They ALWAYS vote in favor of the governmet when the issue is an individual v. the Government.

Where in the Constitution does it define a Corporation as a person? So much for that "strict constructionist" argument. I guess you could say that they strictly follow the intent of the Constitution when it fits their position (but you could say the same about the left as well).
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,597
Reaction score
4,166
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The 2nd Amendment barely survived a 5 to 4 vote. I would say that Kagan is a very dangerous nominee.

There's something very wrong with one of our most basic rights is that close to no longer being one of our most basic rights.

How can you bring yourself to make such an outlandish accusation? Where's the evidence? Your basic rights still exsist! You still have the freedom to say what you want, go where you want, do pretty much anything you want, dress how you like, eat wherever you prefer, obtain any kind of job without the need for a work permit (unless you're an illegal alien), obtain just about any kind of weapon that's legally permissable to purchase, own and carry under the law, worship as you please.

What basic right has been taken away from you, apdst? WHAT!?!

It's this kind of hyper-partisian BS that just drives me crazy!!! :censored Enough already!!! :stop:

:rantoff: To the thread topic...

Every once in a while even the Judiciary needs to have a balance of power within its ranks. The confirmation of Sotomeyer and Kagen helps to even out things within the Judicial Branch somewhat. It's been mostly Conservative for a very long time and until the recent SC ruling to overturn campaign financial contribution from corporations, I really didn't have a problem with the decisions made by that judicial body. I do believe the President has the right afforded him under the Constitution to appoint whomever he sees fit to sit on the SC. It's kind of like what happens with Congress from time to time in that every once in a while one side of the political spectrum holds the reigns until their time is done. Only problem with SC nominees is that once appointed they sit for life! So, a "replacement" isn't nominated unless and until one dies or retires (usually due to health reasons). And when that does happen nobody really knows for sure which side of the political spectrum the next President will be on.

The nation can only hope that when the time comes the next SC nominee will be someone who will render a decision moreso to uphold the law rather than merely imposse their moral stamp on it or rule from within their own political ideology. To that, I think both Sotomeyer and Kagan are very capable of rendering decisions within the spirit of the law.
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,138
Reaction score
82,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oh pul-lease......I would bet that most conservatives themselves would label Alito and Roberts as very conservative and to the fr right. That's why they like them.
At least TRY to be honest.
As for Kagan....have you been following the confirmation or looked at her record? There is a reason why people on the left are not happy with her selection....but that would require that you actually look at and study some of the facts.

far right would be

1) stating that the federal government has absolutely no power to regulate small arms or holding that the expansion of the commerce clause was unconstitutional--however in Heller and McDonald, the power to regulate small arms was assumed to some extent even by those who understood it is clearly an individual right to keep and bear arms

2) far right would be holding that the war on drugs-especially weed grown in California and consumed in california-is unconstitutional because the commerce clause did not grant the federal government that power/ Yet the USSC upheld such bans

3) Far right would be holding that most of the new deal legislation should be treated the same way ND legislation was treated in Schechner Poultry

4) Far right would be holding that the federal government does not have the power to tell private businesses who they have to serve or that they have to treat women or blacks or people over 40 the same as other employees. Yet the Court in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe RR v White expanded employee rights under Title VII

the Roberts Court is moderately statist Hardly "far right"
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,138
Reaction score
82,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How can you bring yourself to make such an outlandish accusation? Where's the evidence? Your basic rights still exsist! You still have the freedom to say what you want, go where you want, do pretty much anything you want, dress how you like, eat wherever you prefer, obtain any kind of job without the need for a work permit (unless you're an illegal alien), obtain just about any kind of weapon that's legally permissable to purchase, own and carry under the law, worship as you please.

What basic right has been taken away from you, apdst? WHAT!?!

It's this kind of hyper-partisian BS that just drives me crazy!!! :censored Enough already!!! :stop:

:rantoff: To the thread topic...

Every once in a while even the Judiciary needs to have a balance of power within its ranks. The confirmation of Sotomeyer and Kagen helps to even out things within the Judicial Branch somewhat. It's been mostly Conservative for a very long time and until the recent SC ruling to overturn campaign financial contribution from corporations, I really didn't have a problem with the decisions made by that judicial body. I do believe the President has the right afforded him under the Constitution to appoint whomever he sees fit to sit on the SC. It's kind of like what happens with Congress from time to time in that every once in a while one side of the political spectrum holds the reigns until their time is done. Only problem with SC nominees is that once appointed they sit for life! So, a "replacement" isn't nominated unless and until one dies or retires (usually due to health reasons). And when that does happen nobody really knows for sure which side of the political spectrum the next President will be on.

The nation can only hope that when the time comes the next SC nominee will be someone who will render a decision moreso to uphold the law rather than merely imposse their moral stamp on it or rule from within their own political ideology. To that, I think both Sotomeyer and Kagan are very capable of rendering decisions within the spirit of the law.

you don't read very well. He said that basic right came close to being destroyed. Quotomayor and the three other haters of American values claimed that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. That is disgusting. Just because these 4 couldn't eliminate that right doesn't mean we should stop watching what those four do
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"Sticking to the intent of the Constitution?" Now that's funny. Alito and Roberts ALWAYS vote in favor of the corporation when the issue is the individual v. the corporation. They ALWAYS vote in favor of the governmet when the issue is an individual v. the Government.

In every single case? Hmm.

Can you show cases where the law supported the individual and they ruled against the individual in contradiction to the law? Cite them. Explain how they got wrong. Do it in detail. You're a lawyer; this should be no problem.

(Not that the Heller and DC Handgun cases aren't enough to prove you wrong conclusively, anyway.)
 
Last edited:

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,342
Reaction score
52,457
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
far right would be

1) stating that the federal government has absolutely no power to regulate small arms or holding that the expansion of the commerce clause was unconstitutional--however in Heller and McDonald, the power to regulate small arms was assumed to some extent even by those who understood it is clearly an individual right to keep and bear arms

2) far right would be holding that the war on drugs-especially weed grown in California and consumed in california-is unconstitutional because the commerce clause did not grant the federal government that power/ Yet the USSC upheld such bans

3) Far right would be holding that most of the new deal legislation should be treated the same way ND legislation was treated in Schechner Poultry

4) Far right would be holding that the federal government does not have the power to tell private businesses who they have to serve or that they have to treat women or blacks or people over 40 the same as other employees. Yet the Court in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe RR v White expanded employee rights under Title VII

the Roberts Court is moderately statist Hardly "far right"

You are not a good person to judge where the far right is, just as I am not a good person to judge where the far left is. We both lack the proper perspective.
 

Helvidius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's true Navy...but the really good thing that comes out of this....it prevent the right-wing from being able to advance their right-wing agenda. Obama saved the Supreme Court from falling into the hands of extremists....I thank GOD every day for that. The one chance that the right-wing had to take over the court within the next couple of decades was in the last election. Now...when Ginsburg retires Obama will further cement it with another young justice....most likely another moderate, but at least it will push the right-wing further back from getting their activist right-wing court.

In today's political world, I wouldn't expect a liberal Supreme Court Justice to retire under a conservative President. Similarly, no conservative Supreme Court Justice would retire under a liberal President. Justices, just like politicians, want to keep the balance of power in favor of their agenda/opinions. Nothing about Kagan says she is a Constitutionalist, but from what I have seen she is simply a replacement of Stevens. I do not expect the Supreme Court to lean any further left with her replacing Stevens. That being said, I do not wish to see her a Supreme Court Justice.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,138
Reaction score
82,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You are not a good person to judge where the far right is, just as I am not a good person to judge where the far left is. We both lack the proper perspective.

really? I have spent a rather large amount of the past 29 years of my life reading legal decisions. I constantly read commentaries on decisions. I have argued dozens of appellate cases. I suggest I have a rather well grounded opinion on what constitutes extreme left and extreme right in American jurisprudence
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,342
Reaction score
52,457
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
really? I have spent a rather large amount of the past 29 years of my life reading legal decisions. I constantly read commentaries on decisions. I have argued dozens of appellate cases. I suggest I have a rather well grounded opinion on what constitutes extreme left and extreme right in American jurisprudence

Jurisprudence yes, you have a strong grounding. What is the far left and far right, not so much.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,138
Reaction score
82,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Jurisprudence yes, you have a strong grounding. What is the far left and far right, not so much.

how would you know-you have admitted bias and a lack of knowledge on the topic
 
Top Bottom