• 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!

Natural Reluctance

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution," Kagan said. In two days of testimony replete with the evasive maneuvers that she once complained had rendered Supreme Court confirmation hearings a "vapid and hollow charade," her silence on natural rights was one of the most disturbing things she didn't say.

In addition to eschewing statements that might "provide some kind of hints" about how she would vote on a case that could conceivably come before the Court, Kagan declined to offer opinions on subjects, such as natural rights, that she deemed irrelevant to the Court's work. In short, she was happy to answer any question, as long as it was neither related nor unrelated to the positions she would take as a justice.


Now I understand this really doest change the makeup of the court all that much. Replacing one liberal with another but this bitch doesnt seem to know a damm thing about rights or law. Hell at least Sotomayor had a ton of judicial experience.

Natural Reluctance - Reason Magazine
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Natural rights are a fallacy. Her statement indicates that she believes in upholding the Constitution.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,307
Reaction score
29,047
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
She is just doing what prospective SC justices has been doing since Souter. They give nonspecific answers to questions and try to be as much of a blank slate as possible. Politically, it seems to be a formula that works since it gives their opponents as little as possible to work with in order to drum up opposition.

Ultimately though, I would like to see more out of judges from both sides of the aisle on how they feel about subjects, but in today's political environment, I can understand why they do what they do as people will find the most minor of things and use that to fuel as much controversy as possible. Ultimately, I blame the 24hour news culture as the root cause of this behavior.
 
Top Bottom