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.
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.
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?
don't they already?
I disagree with the fact that not having children makes someone less responsible.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
do you follow appellate jurisprudence?> I do and Kagan isn't exactly in the same league as Paul Clement
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?