Obama picks Elena Kagan as Supreme Court nominee

B_OtterJoq

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
163
Location
Minneapolis
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The WSJ editorial staff has come out firmly (surprise) against her which means she is the right choice :wink:
Elena Obama

Another reliable liberal who could transform the Supreme Court.

In selecting Elena Kagan to be the country's next Supreme Court Justice, President Obama has tapped the legal world's version of himself: a skillful politician whose cautious public persona belies a desire to transform the court and shape a new Constitutional liberalism

Absolutely.

Don't we have some Bible-bangers here at LPSG? Tell me...are YOU cool with what the American Fascist...Oops...FAMILY Association is demanding?
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Oh and another thing, Obama has clearly made this moderate pick to try and win favor with Republicans, thereby claiming a 'bipartisan' victory that he can point to this fall (as if anyone cares about bipartisanship these days?).

The problem is, I suspect that Senate Republicans won't hardly vote in favor of her, if at all, because they know full well that the Dem caucus itself will vote her in (only 51 votes are needed, and I seriously doubt Obama has lost 9 Dems/Inds with this nomination)... So once again, the Republicans will bludgeon Obama with his own self-created weakness. They get a moderate, possibly conservative USSC Justice without having to sacrifice a damn thing themselves, AND they get to make him look like a jackass for doing so.

This will especially be true, if Republicans can manipulate nomination discussions to be about her time spent at Harvard and how she hired and promoted a bunch of conservatives to foment ideological diversity (generally a good thing, unless you're a Dem who wasn't sure if you were going to bother voting this fall)... Plus they can curry favor with IND minorities by pointing out how Kagan hired 29 professors during her tenure as Harvard Law School dean, and 28 of them were white and one was part-Asian. She didn't hire a SINGLE black or Latino professor. Republican strategists are salivating as I write this.

Actually, she technically only needs 50, with a tie-breaking vote from Joe Biden. :wink:
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In nay case, I need to do more research before I decide whether I personally support this nomination. IMHO, however, lack of judicial experience is not a deal breaker, if there are mitigating factors like other legal experience.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
In nay case, I need to do more research before I decide whether I personally support this nomination. IMHO, however, lack of judicial experience is not a deal breaker, if there are mitigating factors like other legal experience.
Lacking judicial experience, it would be nice if she at least had significant experience as a litigator. But she has tried but a handful of cases, all in just the past year, and her record in those cases isn't exactly impressive. Her 'experience' is primarily as a pencil pusher for an academic institution, and as a benefactor of political appointments from friends.

This is like the county/city you live in going back to your high school, and hiring the person who was your assistant principal to become the school district's superintendent. Could the person do the job? Maybe, but there would clearly be a serious learning curve. Is it possible that such a person would be the best, most qualified candidate for the job? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
 
Last edited:

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Oh, and just in case you thought that Obama wasn't perpetuating the elitist "good 'ole boy network" by nominating two women to the USSC, take note of this...

The USSC will now have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. It won't have a single Protestant, even though a majority of the US identifies as Protestant.

Why is it that just 25% of the population is granted 100% of our court's representation? (Catholics are less than 24% of the population, Jews are less than 2%)

Check it out for yourself...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Religions_of_the_United_States.png
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Absolutely.

Don't we have some Bible-bangers here at LPSG? Tell me...are YOU cool with what the American Fascist...Oops...FAMILY Association is demanding?

I've found if you take the WSJ Editorial staff's position and do the exact opposite you have put the US, the world and the universe in a better place.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I've found if you take the WSJ Editorial staff's position and do the exact opposite you have put the US, the world and the universe in a better place.
That's generally true in recent years... They've come down on the wrong side of issue after issue after issue.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
That's generally true in recent years... They've come down on the wrong side of issue after issue after issue.

What amazes me is if I had a job and I was so consistently wrong I would get fired but they exist and indeed thrive.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Last edited:

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
What amazes me is if I had a job and I was so consistently wrong I would get fired but they exist and indeed thrive.

Very true. What's amazing about the Journal is their consistency in getting it wrong, and the level of vitriol spewed by some of the more right wing columnists, ie. McGurn and Rove. Still the news reporting is good.

Very good finds TPGY on the religious make up of the court. Can't say I am surprised though considering that Catholics tend to be more conservative, especially on abortion.

Lastly I can't see what Kagan's sexual orientation has to do with her nomination. Her lack of judicial experience is. Still she's an interesting choice, since without a judicial record she will be harder to pin down, issue by issue, by the Repubs.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^Thanks...

The makeup of the USSC is increasingly bothersome to me... Remember, the USSC represents 1/3 of our nation's political power structure. Why is it that just 25% of the population is granted 100% of our highest court's power? Does anyone seriously believe that there are no qualified Protestant candidates? And what about atheists/agnostics, which are now the 3rd largest group?(I'm one myself)

I find this fact unconscionable. As I've been saying for several years (not here obviously, but in general) We NEED some serious political reform in this country, and it goes way the hell beyond mere campaign finance reform.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^Here's a thought I just came up with... How about the President still picks who goes to the USSC, but instead of the Senate confirming them in a dog and pony show, how about the President has to put up 2 candidates, and the whole Congress (all 535) picks between the two candidates.

There are almost infinite ways to pick that would be better than the antiquated BS we have now.


And I totally agree about needing term limits for all top govt leaders... I think the rule should be 12 years for everyone. HoR gets no more than 6 terms, Senate no more than 2 terms and Prez no more than 3 terms... USSC should get a 12yr appointment, not lifetime... This still leaves open the possibility that someone could plausibly be in government for 36 years by moving around, but it's still a far sight better than what we're dealing with now, which is a bunch of entrenched fatcats who have a complete disconnect from the people they are leading.

Oh, and I would cut the pay of all of these people by 25-50%, and cut their pensions/benefits after being in office by at least half, if not more.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
^Actually, the WJS isn't doing all that great... In fact, Murdoch has been losing his ass on it ever since he severely overpaid for it in 2007. ($5 billion! lol)

Check out the massive write down Murdoch had to take...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/media/06news.html?_r=1&ref=business

And the losses continue...
Wall Street Journal's Les Hinton Named Publisher of the Year -- for Losing $80 million - DailyFinance

I do hope Rupert chokes and dies on it. He's one nasty old fuck. He's the poster boy of all the worst mankind has to offer the planet.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^dang bro... I'm not sure I would go that far with my own assessment, but your zeal is understandable. Murdoch gives every indication of being an epic slime ball.