| Obama nominates Kagan | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 10 2010, 03:49 PM (669 Views) | |
| dumblonde | May 11 2010, 01:46 PM Post #11 |
|
I don't have a problem with her lack of judicial experience. Some of our finest justices weren't judges before they were seated. A broad range of experiences and viewpoints will give us our best outcomes. |
![]() |
|
| NoorAnisa | May 11 2010, 01:53 PM Post #12 |
|
again, she set the saudis free... hello? |
![]() |
|
| dumblonde | May 11 2010, 03:27 PM Post #13 |
|
Unfortunately as Solicitor General Ms. Kagan is obliged to argue in support of US law. Our laws grant immunity to the Saud's. If we want to change that, we must change the law. How she feels personally about that we don't know. If the same case came before her as a justice she may rule differently. She may not. Some of her writings in the past give me pause. Once again- a more progressive nominee would be desirable. I won't hold my breath. We'll get centrist nominees from this centrist president. |
![]() |
|
| Mtnman | May 11 2010, 03:30 PM Post #14 |
|
No one should have a position for Life in our form of "government". But alas we the people stand by and do nothing. |
![]() |
|
| NoorAnisa | May 11 2010, 04:16 PM Post #15 |
|
Our laws granted immunity to Saudi Princes and that gave the wink for them the bin ladin family to be the only people in the whole of usa air space to fly.. why? our laws? granting rights to prince, when we are a nation grown of leaving the authority of kings. that makes no sense for America. It sounds right for other nations,,, but not ours. What about the gibberish of H Bush... The law of the land not the law of the jungle? . only applies to the ignorant docile gullible masses I was kind of wondering what makes a person with NO experience as a judge such a great choice for supreme court judge. I think this is to her credit more than other of her achievements. |
![]() |
|
| NoorAnisa | May 11 2010, 04:23 PM Post #16 |
|
THe truth is. if it cannot be discussed as in never see the light of day in court, we have a clandestine government and we have no real answers to 911. Unless you count misery. |
![]() |
|
| dumblonde | May 12 2010, 10:10 AM Post #17 |
|
Lots of SCOTUS justices lacked judicial experience; Earl Warren, John Marshall, William Rehnquist are some names you might recognize. If judicial experience were all it took to decide these cases they'd never make it to the Supreme Court. You need more tools in the toolchest than a simple understanding of our laws, you need justices that understand our history, our culture and most importantly our Constitution to sit on these cases. Right now Corporations have far too many justices who view the law from their point of view. My biggest concern is that we don't add more. I don't want a justice that will expand their role or elevate any branch of government over the others. |
![]() |
|
| towermonkey | May 12 2010, 01:26 PM Post #18 |
|
Earl Warren was a three time governor of California after being the AG for California. John Marshall was a Congressman and Secratary of State. Of those three, Rehnquist most closely resembles Kagan's experience with the glaring difference that Rehnquist was very well published. I guess if you are well published these days, you won't make it past confirmation. Its a damn shame. |
![]() |
|
| NoorAnisa | May 12 2010, 02:57 PM Post #19 |
|
It should be interesting to catch some of her responses as they interview her. For me its her ties to the corporate world,, She also is tied with Sacks.. so she would likely rule in banks favor when us little guys appeals for some fairness. |
![]() |
|
| Manna Pro | May 13 2010, 08:37 AM Post #20 |
|
Manna Pro
|
Yeah but she played softball 20 years ago...How Un American! http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=wall+street+journal+softball+justice&rlz=1W1ADFA_en&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=192177e06146935a |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |





8:17 AM Jul 11