• 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!

Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

Should the Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

  • Total voters
    49
Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,250
Reaction score
59,140
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simple question, but please explain why.
 
Redress said:
Poll: Should the Seante Confirm Elena Kagan.
Click to expand...
I don't know... Does the "seante" have any power to deny her the seat?

:mrgreen:
 
The Mark said:
I don't know... Does the "seante" have any power to deny her the seat?

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I am still trying to figure out how to edit that....
 
Redress said:
I am still trying to figure out how to edit that....
Click to expand...

I guess you can do it the same way you fixed that poll for me last month.
 
HAH! Figured it out, now on to the question...
 
Redress said:
HAH! Figured it out, now on to the question...
Click to expand...

Confirm probably should not be capitalized. Also, it lacks a question mark.
 
I voted no but it makes no difference. She is going to be confirmed.
I said no for several reasons.
She sounded like she would use foreign law as a reason to make certain rulings though she didn't come right out and say so.
She wouldn't come out and say that a law requiring you to eat 3 vegetables and 3 fruits a day would be unconstitutional. I realize WHY she wouldn't (mandatory purchase of healthcare) that she will probably be ruling on in the future) but that really bothered me.
Also her replacement of words in a memo about partial birth abortion while in the Clinton administration.
I feel that she would make rulings on precedents more than on what the constitution says.
 
I voted no.

Because from what I've heard about her, we could do far better in choosing a member of the highest court in the country.

But perhaps I am wrong.
 
Yes, they should confirm her. She is qualified for the position and that's the only thing they should be making their judgment upon.
 
Yes she should. She is qualified, intelligent, and has no disqualifying characteristics which I am aware of. Generally I think the Senate should let the president appoint whoever he wants, as long as they meet those criteria and aren't too far outside the judicial mainstream. (Cue comparisons of Kagan to Chairman Mao...now. :mrgreen:)
 
I don't think she will use the Constitution as a base to make her decisions.

.
 
zimmer said:
I don't think she will use the Constitution as a base to make her decisions.

.
Click to expand...

Really?

“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Solicitor general confirmation hearing, 2009
Click to expand...

.........
 
Redress said:
Simple question, but please explain why.
Click to expand...

No. She supports more power to the executive branch of government. On an impersonal level, the Senate should not confirm her simply because she will take more power away from it and the House of Representatives and give it to the President. On a personal level, I think the President has far too much power already, and we should try to support checks and balances between branches, not tear it away. Realistically, I think the Senate will confirm her because if she does give the President more power as a Supreme Court Justice that will give fewer responsibilities to them, which means they can blame more things on the President when they run for office instead of accept responsibility themselves.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes she should. She is qualified, intelligent, and has no disqualifying characteristics which I am aware of. Generally I think the Senate should let the president appoint whoever he wants, as long as they meet those criteria and aren't too far outside the judicial mainstream. (Cue comparisons of Kagan to Chairman Mao...now. :mrgreen:)
Click to expand...

I normally would agree with you

but using Obama's standards concerning the far more qualified Roberts and Alito the answer is no
 
Should they? No.

Will they? Yes.


Why? Because Kagan will endorse and move forward the ideology of the Congressional majority and the current President. When the majority changes and when the President changes she will continue to endorse and move forward that ideology. She is not qualified in my opinion... but when ideology is at stake, the Constitution comes second or third. :shrug:
 
The US Senate and Elena Kagan have no working foundation of the US Constitution thus this will be a match made in hell.
 
TurtleDude said:
I normally would agree with you

but using Obama's standards concerning the far more qualified Roberts and Alito the answer is no
Click to expand...

I don't find myself agreeing with you very often on here TurtleDude, but I do in this case. It annoys me to no end when either party does this crap. One of the perks of being president is getting to choose judges that are in-line with your political beliefs. I didn't agree with Roberts's and Alito's views on a lot of things, but they were certainly well qualified for the job, and as far as I'm concerned that's the only thing the senate should be basing their judgment upon (I realize of course that this will never happen though).
 
Redress said:
Simple question, but please explain why.
Click to expand...

A member of the supreme court should have a reputation for impartial judgement. Though as dean of Harvard Law (I think it was) she obviously has a profound knowledge of the law, but with no track record as a judge it's impossible to gauge her impartiality.
 
I think someone with a background other than a judge would be refreshing. Justices from all sorts of backgrounds have gone on to be effective at their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom