- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?
Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
Article is here.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered a proposal to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Kagan cited as one reason the Saudi case should not be heard. Both senators said that US citizens should be able to sue foreign governments if they are found to be supporting terrorist activity.
The idea of private citizens being able to sue foreign governments is ludicrous on its face. In what jurisdiction, exactly, are these lawsuits supposed to be tried? Shall we open our courts to every foreigner who would like to sue our government for every act of war that we have ever committed or subsidized?
I would agree that the Saudi royal family should face consequences for financing acts of war against us-- but our courts are not suitable for this purpose.
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?
Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
Article is here.
In her role as a professor of law at Havard, Kagan signed onto an amicus brief (sometimes known as a "friend of the court" brief) filed by 40 Harvard professors that argued that the federal government should not be able to withhold funding if the schools applied the same policies to all recruiters. Harvard, for example, required all recruiters to sign forms indicating they would not discriminate against applicants based on sexual orientation. The withholding of funds interfered with the schools' freedom of expression to oppose what they felt were discriminatory policies.
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?
danarhea said:Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?
Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
Article is here.
So far we know the Harvard military recruiting ban is not what it seems...
The idea of private citizens being able to sue foreign governments is ludicrous on its face. In what jurisdiction, exactly, are these lawsuits supposed to be tried? Shall we open our courts to every foreigner who would like to sue our government for every act of war that we have ever committed or subsidized?
I would agree that the Saudi royal family should face consequences for financing acts of war against us-- but our courts are not suitable for this purpose.
I completely agree, however, its not like the Saudi Government is a US ally.
Oh, certainly. When I say that the courts are not the proper means to exact our revenge, it is because I believe a military response would have been more appropriate. Certainly more appropriate than invading Afghanistan and Iraq, though the former was at least strategically justified.
Of course, my idea of "proportionate response" is typically called "war crimes" by the UN.
no, i'm not interested in supporting her.To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?
Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
Article is here.
I don't know why we should blame her for the law. That's congress's job. If she was following the law then it's a plus in my book. She doesn't sway according to popular sentiment, she sticks to the law. I thought conservatives like this about people?
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you? …
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?
Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
Article is here.
Blaming Elana Kagan for effectively doing her job as Solicitor General in a matter of national significance would be an error. Your argument is with the law, not the attorney arguing the law.
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?
Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
Article is here.
How is this "not what it seems"? Like some other deans, Kagan decided not to permit the military to recruit at the law school. When Congress passed a law to eliminate funding for universities that did this, Kagan and those other deans argued that it should have been overturned. The court unanimously disagreed.
her views obviously lie to the left of the current supreme court justices.
Is she the one that sent the 767 around to pick up all of the Bin Laden relatives in the US, during a 'No Fly' order, to safely get them all out of the country?
No? That wasn't her? She just protected them from law suits? I don't think that that was even necessary. It's carved in international law.
Do I smell a swift boater?
I didn't know that snopes (a source I trust) had debunked the 'no fly' flights of the Bin Ladens and other Saudi nationals. I stand corrected.You criticize others for advancing disingenuous claims while simultaneously advancing discredited conspiracy theories?
snopes.com: Flights of Fancy
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?