Judiciary panel OKs Elena Kagan for Supreme Court

[Hatuey]

Judiciary panel OKs Elena Kagan for Supreme Court - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to approve Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

The 13-6 vote sends Kagan's nomination to the full Senate, where she's expected to be confirmed as early as next week to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Just one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, joined panel Democrats in supporting President Barack Obama's second Supreme Court nominee. A few more Republicans are likely to back her in the full Senate, where Democrats have more than enough votes to confirm her.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess she's as good as in.

 

[The Dane]

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I guess she's as good as in.

I don't know why people were so rattled by her, it's not like she's liberal.

 

[Cold Highway]

I don't know why people were so rattled by her, it's not like she's liberal.

1. No judicial experience

2. Not a fan of the 1st nor 2nd Amendment

Granted its replacing one liberal with another so Im not all that annoyed but those are my reasons.

 

[TurtleDude]

Using traditional standards she is certainly qualified.

Using the Bork standard she should be denied because she is not nearly as qualified as Bork

using the Roberts/Alito standard-she should be denied since Obama picked her and Obama and Biden both voted against these two much much much more qualified candidates than someone who has no experience as a judge and whose experience as an appellate advocate is limited to the obama administration.

 

[Helvidius]

She scares me.

YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

Her inability to answer this question right away is more than troublesome.

Of course she will be replacing Stevens so that is a plus.

 

[TurtleDude]

She scares me.

YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

Her inability to answer this question right away is more than troublesome.

Of course she will be replacing Stevens so that is a plus.

I worry about "idealists" who don't have children. Quotamayor and Kagan don't have children--that they may be lesbians isn't the issue-its that they have no investment in the future. Idealists with no children IMHO are more prone to engage in machinations that appeal to their intellect or bias without having to worry about what their decisions will do to the society their children or grand children will have to live in

I opposed Souter for the same reason.

 

[Cold Highway]

I worry about "idealists" who don't have children. Quotamayor and Kagan don't have children--that they may be lesbians isn't the issue-its that they have no investment in the future. Idealists with no children IMHO are more prone to engage in machinations that appeal to their intellect or bias without having to worry about what their decisions will do to the society their children or grand children will have to live in

I opposed Souter for the same reason.

I disagree with the fact that not having children makes someone less responsible.

 

[winston53660]

I worry about "idealists" who don't have children.

I worry about people that do have children. Are they going to tax us single people to pay for their kids education?

 

[Helvidius]

I worry about people that do have children. Are they going to tax us single people to pay for their kids education?

don't they already?

 

[winston53660]

don't they already?

Yep, and i really do not think it is such a bad deal. However when I read people bitching about other people not having children I want to make a point.

 

[TurtleDude]

I disagree with the fact that not having children makes someone less responsible.

My opinion

I just think having children makes one more hesitant to really F up the future

 

[TurtleDude]

Yep, and i really do not think it is such a bad deal. However when I read people bitching about other people not having children I want to make a point.

Lots of people should not have children. They shouldn't be on the supreme court either.

 

[winston53660]

Lots of people should not have children. They shouldn't be on the supreme court either.

Okay so I thought you trying to state or at least imply that Supreme Court justices should have children? Am I wrong in that?

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay so I thought you trying to state or at least imply that Supreme Court justices should have children? Am I wrong in that?

What I am suggesting is that I worry about people with lots of power who have no reason to worry about the future.

I also don't like irresponsible people unable to care for themselves breeding but that is not relevant to this topic.

I think having children is a brake on extreme idealogues.

 

[winston53660]

What I am suggesting is that I worry about people with lots of power who have no reason to worry about the future.

I also don't like irresponsible people unable to care for themselves breeding but that is not relevant to this topic.

I think having children is a brake on extreme idealogues.

I think a lot of times children make parents very short sighted. Like, "how am I going to pay for soccer camp this week", or "we need new school clothes." Not what is going to happen in the child's adult life but the here and now are the concern.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think a lot of times children make parents very short sighted. Like, "how am I going to pay for soccer camp this week", or "we need new school clothes." Not what is going to happen in the child's adult life but the here and now are the concern.

I won't disagree with you on that but when it comes to extremely powerful political positions, I prefer parents.

 

[Redress]

Conservatives lately have been cracking me up. Don't pay income tax, you shouldn't vote. Don't have children, can't hold office. It's just an excuse for "I need something to cry about".

 

[TurtleDude]

Conservatives lately have been cracking me up. Don't pay income tax, you shouldn't vote. Don't have children, can't hold office. It's just an excuse for "I need something to cry about".

That is a rather silly characterization of my point. It ignores the main thrust but then again, I sort of expected that.

Kagan is qualified under the original standard for the USSC. She is not qualified under the standards Obama and Biden imposed on Roberts or Alito. If Obama wanted a Jewish Leftwing Lesbian he should have picked Pamela Karlan who is far smarter than Kagan and has a far more impressive career-both in terms of advocacy and scholarship.

Kagan isn't even in the top 15 of available liberals. Akhil Reed Amar is the brightest academic on the left and if you want diversity, he's Indian. He's also rigorously intellectually honest which probably disqualifies him for being picked by Obama.

 

[winston53660]

I won't disagree with you on that but when it comes to extremely powerful political positions, I prefer parents.

It makes no difference to me if some one is heterosexual or homosexual or if they have child or not.

What makes a difference in this situation to me I'm not sure how to explain in this situation. The best I can say that we have a lot have lot of career minded people from Alito to Roberts to Kagan going for this position. I really do not mind Kagan compared to the other two

 

[TurtleDude]

It makes no difference to me if some one is heterosexual or homosexual or if they have child or not.

What makes a difference in this situation to me I'm not sure how to explain in this situation. The best I can say that we have a lot have lot of career minded people from Alito to Roberts to Kagan going for this position. I really do not mind Kagan compared to the other two

I don't think Kagan is anywhere near those two in terms of qualifications. Akhil Reed Amar certainly is as is Pam Karlan. Amar is the best constitutional scholar in the world right now. Karlan is considered one of the best appellate brief writers in the USA. Kagan has no reputation other than being a decent dean at Harvard. NOthing substantive in terms of scholarship or advocacy

 

[winston53660]

I don't think Kagan is anywhere near those two in terms of qualifications. Akhil Reed Amar certainly is as is Pam Karlan. Amar is the best constitutional scholar in the world right now. Karlan is considered one of the best appellate brief writers in the USA. Kagan has no reputation other than being a decent dean at Harvard. NOthing substantive in terms of scholarship or advocacy

I disagree, being dean at Harvard is no small potato nor is being solicitor general.

 

[TurtleDude]

I disagree, being dean at Harvard is no small potato nor is being solicitor general.

the first has no relevance to being a supreme court justice
the second depends on what she had done
do you follow appellate jurisprudence?> I do and Kagan isn't exactly in the same league as Paul Clement

 

[winston53660]

do you follow appellate jurisprudence?> I do and Kagan isn't exactly in the same league as Paul Clement

No I do not follow it what are you talking about and please link.