• 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!

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show Kagan's Liberal Opinion on Social Issues

I'm not shocked.

I'm not shocked that a liberal Barack Obama would nominate a staunch liberal justice.

I'm not shocked that the Obama Administration would once again go for hardlined ideology rather than be "post partisan" nor that he'd just go with the trend of always picking someone strongly on your ideological side when he promised "Change from POLITICS AS USUAL" nor surprised that his administration would try to paint her and depict her as moderate when he's promised a transparent government.

I'm not shocked when Barack Obama does what Barack Obama has done throughout his presidency, and politicians have done throughout their existance.

I'm not shocked that you ignore that she's still to the right of the justice she's replacing.

You people will get your panties in a bunch over anything.

She's not as far left as either Roberts or Alito are far to the right.

And Roberts actually changed the balance of the Court. Kagen won't. If she does, she moves it slightly right because she's replacing the most liberal justice on the Court.

But don't let me interrupt your little whiny sessions. I'll let y'all get back to it.
 
I'm not shocked that you ignore that she's still to the right of the justice she's replacing.

You people will get your panties in a bunch over anything.

She's not as far left as either Roberts or Alito are far to the right.

And Roberts actually changed the balance of the Court. Kagen won't. If she does, she moves it slightly right because she's replacing the most liberal justice on the Court.

But don't let me interrupt your little whiny sessions. I'll let y'all get back to it.
FDR changed the balance of the court. It's been downhill since then.
Lowest moments in the nomination process had to be Bork and Thomas. Dead Kennedy was an absolute ass.
Correction: The Gang of 14 was the lowest of the low. Spineless twit parade.

And yes, we do get our gonch in a wad over this. These people have become a legislative body on their own, and I for one would like to see the activists removed and replaced by people that actually do uphold the Constitution, and when it is not in their purview, leave the matters for the States to work through or Congress.

We do not need agenda driven activists on the Supreme Court. We need the finest legal minds using The Constitution as the floor, the basis to make decisions. If it ain't in there... then the legislators craft the law.

.
 
Last edited:
Unalianable rights:
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Declaration of independence, not the Constitution... but life is a right and life begins at conception.

Was there something you missed with dissent of JFK's justice? Seems so.

.

Absolutism can make it hard to understand the world.

What is "life?" Is the egg alone alive? How about the sperm? At the moment of conception, there's not really much biological distinction between the cluster of cells in a pregnancy and some bacteria. Is it a human? What makes us human anyway? That little cell cluster doesn't even have a nervous system yet, let alone anything you could consider a brain. It takes a while for the fetus to surpass a cat's ability to think. (heck, I'm not sure that even happens before birth) Does the cat have a right to life?

What about a fetus that is severely damaged or defective? Usually, nature takes care of this via a miscarriage, but sometimes a fetus develops that has no chance of survival. Take that poor woman who gave birth to a baby with anencephaly. The baby was born without a brain, it was incapable of thought. Is that baby even alive? Sometimes the mother's life is at risk. What then? What if giving birth gives the mother a 50% chance of death. 90%? 10%?

My point is, the situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
 
Absolutism can make it hard to understand the world.

What is "life?" Is the egg alone alive? How about the sperm? At the moment of conception, there's not really much biological distinction between the cluster of cells in a pregnancy and some bacteria. Is it a human? What makes us human anyway? That little cell cluster doesn't even have a nervous system yet, let alone anything you could consider a brain. It takes a while for the fetus to surpass a cat's ability to think. (heck, I'm not sure that even happens before birth) Does the cat have a right to life?
Alone an egg cannot create human life. Alone sperm cannot. If it were so, Monica Lewinsky's blue dress would have produced a whole lot of little Hillbillies and Billyetes.

Doesn't matter the speed of development either. Once those DNA packs unite, Boom Goes the Dynamite... human life is conceived.
Not too difficult a concept to grasp if you use the slightest modicum of critical thinking.

What about a fetus that is severely damaged or defective? Usually, nature takes care of this via a miscarriage, but sometimes a fetus develops that has no chance of survival. Take that poor woman who gave birth to a baby with anencephaly. The baby was born without a brain, it was incapable of thought. Is that baby even alive? Sometimes the mother's life is at risk. What then? What if giving birth gives the mother a 50% chance of death. 90%? 10%?
I didn't rule out all abortion, only those used as a form of birth control... which is about a million per year.

My point is, the situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
Your point makes no sense frankly. It's a nice attempt, but is made moot by the fact conception is the start of human life... or cat life, or dog life... and we have unalianable rights.

What I find interesting is the libs seek to protect everything... even the sickest criminal elements from execution, but when it comes to a baby in the womb... those most vulnerable, those without a voice... ah ****... they claim it's an nonviable mass of cells that we can rip out for convenience. It's cold, harsh, cheapens life and is damn near Mengele-like in its sickness. There is no compassion. Human life is treated like a Bic disposable lighter.

That said, if States voted for it, then ok, but to have the Supreme Court create law from their bench because it is their personal agenda... No, no, no... that is not how things are supposed to be done in these United States of America.

I used to support your point of view long ago, know it well, and obviously reject it today.

.
 
Last edited:
I think we should all be able to agree that more information is a good thing.

She's not as far left as either Roberts or Alito are far to the right.

Got anything to back this up, or are you just labeling everything conservative as extreme and everything liberal as moderate?
 
Obama is President and with that position comes certain benefits, such as nominating people to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. So no, I'm not surprised about that and i expect she will be confirmed.

What I do find interesting is that this "transparent" administration failed to disclose her true political leanings, and it took a news organization to ferret out the information. Why not just be upfront about it when she was nominated?

Why not just be upfront about it when she was nominated?

Because that would be CHANGE from the way that Washington is run.
 
I think we should all be able to agree that more information is a good thing.



Got anything to back this up, or are you just labeling everything conservative as extreme and everything liberal as moderate?

Would you agree that Alito is to the right of O'Connor? - As EVERYONE who knows anything about Constitutional Law does?

The Roberts court is to the right. Stevens is unanimously considered the most liberal of the Justices. Kagen's writings suggest a pragmatist with slightly left-of-center views.

There is currently only one member of the Court who even has the potential to surprise with his vote and that's Kennedy. If Kagen were replacing Kennedy or Thomas or Scalia, then you could argue about the Court moving to the left. She's not. She's replacing the justice who's already the furthest to the left. Thus, the court will shift slightly to the right of where it presently is: which is already pretty right. I'm not basing that on my political philosophy - I'm basing that on what most Constitutional Scholars believe to be the case.

The non-partisan First Amendment Center likes her. firstamendmentcenter.org: analysis
She was invited by a soldier who attended Harvard Law when she was Dean to pin him at the ceremony inducting him as head of the Massachusetts National Guard. Indeed, even though she abhorred Don't Ask, Don't Tell - she remained compliant with Solomon. Potential Court Pick Faced Dilemma at Harvard - NYTimes.com

She's not a radical lefty at all. She's a pragmatist.

You guys are like Shatner looking out the plane window and seeing the gremlin. You see "radicals" everywhere. It's just become ridiculous. Wolf has been cried too many times for me to really care anymore.
 
Is anyone shocked Vicchio didn't read an article before posting it? Nothing in the article, quotes etc., show her to be hard-left. In fact, most of the quotes are her supporting the decision of her boss. Big deal.

Just more partisan super- spin from a far-rightie.


Are you suggesting that Kagan isn't a Liberal?
 
Are you suggesting that Kagan isn't a Liberal?

Liberal is a spectrum, you can be anywhere from slightly liberal to full on communist. Kagan appears just past slightly liberal as a somewhat moderate liberal. She certainly does not appear to be hard left.
 
Liberal is a spectrum, you can be anywhere from slightly liberal to full on communist. Kagan appears just past slightly liberal as a somewhat moderate liberal. She certainly does not appear to be hard left.

You have to understand that absolutist thinking is pretty fundamental to the consevative mind. Sometimes I swear they literally do not see a difference between "Hey, a public option would be a good addition to the health care industry" and "I WANT TO BE JUST LIKE COMMUNIST RUSSIA."
 
Are you suggesting that Kagan isn't a Liberal?

Did you imagine Obama would nominate conservative-leaning justices?
Did Bush nominate liberals? Was anyone surprised by Bush's choices?
 
Are you suggesting that Kagan isn't a Liberal?

She's not as liberal as the Justice she's replacing, yes. Therefore, the court goes slightly more to the right. And don't be so ridiculous. Bush nominated conservatives. Clinton nominated liberals. Obama nominates liberals.

It's the way the game works.

Alito was further to the right from O'Connor and clearly shifted the court. Kagan isn't going to shift the court to the left; it's going to move slightly right as she is NOT as liberal as her predecessor. Thus, you're bitching about a court moving slightly more in your direction.
 
She's not as liberal as the Justice she's replacing, yes. Therefore, the court goes slightly more to the right.

And that's the talking point the DNC and the LEft want to get out. Kagan isn't that Liberal.

No no, she did kick the Military out of HARVARD... but that's not left, no she's really more of a centrist.. yeah.

Give it up, this lady isn't a legal scholar with interest in Constitutionality, she's an activist liberal of the worst kind and doesn't belong on the court.
 
:2funny::2funny:

Give it up, this lady isn't a legal scholar with interest in Constitutionality, she's an activist liberal of the worst kind and doesn't belong on the court.

:2funny::2funny:

I guess your masters at Fox News forgot to tell several SCOTUS Justices past and present have spoken out positively for Kagan. Justice Scalia considers her "a friend" and said:

“Currently, there is nobody on the Court who has not served as a judge --indeed, as a federal judge -- all nine of us,” he continued. “. . . I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge – and not a judge at all.
LINK

SCOTUS Justices are above the petty partisan tug-o-war that the fringe left and right too often engage in. They know that to get to the truth of complicated matters, you must challenge your own beliefs. That is accomplished by inviting a worthy intellectual to the table. The positive statements made about Kagan by current conservative Justices is unprecedented. They want her on their court. Get over it and move on.

Have you ever tried doing that, Vicchio? Challenging your own beliefs?
 
Would you agree that Alito is to the right of O'Connor? - As EVERYONE who knows anything about Constitutional Law does?

Of course, but that's not what you said. You said that Kagan is less liberal than Roberts or Alito are conservative. I'm asking you what you're basing that on.

The Roberts court is to the right. Stevens is unanimously considered the most liberal of the Justices. Kagen's writings suggest a pragmatist with slightly left-of-center views.

There is currently only one member of the Court who even has the potential to surprise with his vote and that's Kennedy. If Kagen were replacing Kennedy or Thomas or Scalia, then you could argue about the Court moving to the left. She's not. She's replacing the justice who's already the furthest to the left. Thus, the court will shift slightly to the right of where it presently is: which is already pretty right. I'm not basing that on my political philosophy - I'm basing that on what most Constitutional Scholars believe to be the case.

The non-partisan First Amendment Center likes her. firstamendmentcenter.org: analysis
She was invited by a soldier who attended Harvard Law when she was Dean to pin him at the ceremony inducting him as head of the Massachusetts National Guard. Indeed, even though she abhorred Don't Ask, Don't Tell - she remained compliant with Solomon. Potential Court Pick Faced Dilemma at Harvard - NYTimes.com

She's not a radical lefty at all. She's a pragmatist.

You guys are like Shatner looking out the plane window and seeing the gremlin. You see "radicals" everywhere. It's just become ridiculous. Wolf has been cried too many times for me to really care anymore.

Can you link me to where I've called her a "radical lefty"? Can you link me to anywhere where I've said that she shouldn't be confirmed?

I have no real problem with Kagan and think she'll be absolutely fine on the court. Even if I didn't like her, I would still think that the Senate should approve her in deference to Obama's desire. My objection to your post is simply to point out that I don't think there's anything to support the claim that I hear tossed about so much, which is that Alito and Roberts are "far-right" while the liberal wing of the court is "center-left."
 
And that's the talking point the DNC and the LEft want to get out. Kagan isn't that Liberal.

No no, she did kick the Military out of HARVARD... but that's not left, no she's really more of a centrist.. yeah.

Give it up, this lady isn't a legal scholar with interest in Constitutionality, she's an activist liberal of the worst kind and doesn't belong on the court.

From some Conservatives:
The conservative case for Kagan : The Rebel Yell

Additionally - the facts surrounding recruitment:

As dean, Ms. Kagan basically followed a strategy toward military recruiting that was already in place. Here, some background may be helpful: Since 1979, the law school has had a policy requiring all employers who wish to use the assistance of the School's Office of Career Services (OCS) to schedule interviews and recruit students to sign a statement that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on.

For years, the U.S. military, because of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, was not able to sign such a statement and so did not use OCS. It did, however, regularly recruit on campus because it was invited to do so by an official student organization, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association.

Robert C. Clark: Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened - WSJ.com

And I'll note that you use no evidence - just making the assertion that your opinion of her is enough to serve as fact. Typical.
 
The Roe vs. Wade litmus test has been performed. Have the supremes decided any cases since 1973?
 
Back
Top Bottom