• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
[...]

It is, in fact, because people like Kagen don't actually believe in anything other than furthering their own lot in life.

[...]
However, in the case of Supreme Court Justices, this really shouldn't be a factor. There are few, if any, jobs that are more clearly the "top of the tower" than a justice on the SCOTUS. They are appointed for life, or until they get tired of it. They are accountable to no-one, so there is no need to act in the interests of anyone else.

The only place left for her to go after a successful confirmation would be a move up to Chief Justice. I suppose at her young age, that could be a legitimate career goal, but I don't see much difference there myself.

I suspect this is why we see occasional ideological swings among these justices, after a few years, they do finally figure out that they can make these decisions based on what they actually think is right, rather than what someone else wants them to do, which has probably driven them for most of their professional careers.

TFred
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
They are appointed for life, or until they get tired of it.
This is one of the places where "tradition" has stripped our Constitution of its meaning and power. Article III Section 1 clearly states that: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,...". Unfortunately, Congress has failed their responsibility to hold the judges to their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase, has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

In 1957, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for "The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices" believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for "...[usurping] the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."
 

japaneezy

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

paul-blart-justice.jpg
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

Solicitor general confirmation hearing, 2009

:cool:

This quote tells me all I need to know about her. She says we have the right to carry in case of confrontation meaning if there is no probablility of confrontation then you don't need to carry. This is very much like those that claim they are pro-2A because thye hunt and are a member of the NRA. What is her definition of "in case of confrontation"? This is about one of the weakest statements in support of 2A I have heard.I suppose it could have been worse but sounds more like eyewash than anything else.

Her refusal to allow the military on the Harvard campus is definitely a black mark as far as I am concerned. These are just some of the minor problems I have with her appointment but I doubt that there is anything that can be done now.
 

Rush Creek

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
48
Location
Arlington, Texas, USA
imported post

rpyne wrote:
Her own words show that Elana Kagen is NOT qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Anyone who refers to our Constitutional Representative Republic as a Constitutional Democracy does not have the historical background or knowledge necessary to sit on the nations highest court.

http://www.fox13now.com/videobeta/5afdf91b-7f02-486d-b453-2d49d523130f/News/Kagan-honored-and-humbled-by-nomination
Precisely ! As I watched her nomination acceptance while standing next to our Kenyan- born El Presidente -is she ignorant that the USA is a constitutional republic or does she wish it wasn't ? That statement alone registers a failing grade for confirmation.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

Here is a clear reason Kagan should NOT be allowed on the Supreme Court:

She served as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute in 2008, and was paid $10,000 for her services...

Anyone who is connected with Goldman Sachs is, in my book, IMMEDIATELY suspect, and should be shunned for positions of Public Service.

Putting someone from Goldman Sachs on the bench of the Highest Court of the Land would be like hiring Al Capone to be Director of the FBI, or putting Pablo Rayo Montano at the head of the DEA.

The foxes are moving into the hen-house, folks...

The only thing worse would be to put a Goldman Sachs exec at the head of the Treasury, or president of the Federal Reserve.

Oh, wait, they already do that--for EVERY administration for the last 20 years...


"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
imported post

So what if she is a leftist? This is not a blog for Republicans but 2a. Her stance on 2a is the important issue at hand. I am a leftist, and serve my country and in a country of free will can make up my own damn mind. That is still okay is it not?
 

thnycav

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
305
Location
Windsor VA, ,
imported post

I have not made up my mind on her I do want to listen to the hearings. I do want a justice that goes by the law and does not make up their mind till all the facts are in the case. Justice Roberts is very good. If when they do question her and she already knows how she will rule even if I do agree with her it would be wrong. Now in worse case if she does make it the balance of the court will not be changed. It would be trading a lib for a lib. It would be different if a consecutive was retiring. We do also have to think about how long she could be on the court she is only 50 and the one that is retiring is 90 so go from there. I'm very independent. I do not like either party two wings on the same bird. When party comes before country I do not support them, We do have two fine senators in VA and a very good Governor. I vote for the person not the party.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

TFred wrote:
The simple fact is that this woman has virtually no record on guns. Hot air provided in a confirmation hearing is worse than useless, it reveals nothing of the true bias of the candidate but it gives those who would support her on ideological or partisan lines something flashy to point at.

The only information that matters, previous actions of record where those actions really count for something, is non-existent here.

TFred
+1
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
Here is a clear reason Kagan should NOT be allowed on the Supreme Court:

She served as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute in 2008, and was paid $10,000 for her services...

Anyone who is connected with Goldman Sachs is, in my book, IMMEDIATELY suspect, and should be shunned for positions of Public Service.

Putting someone from Goldman Sachs on the bench of the Highest Court of the Land would be like hiring Al Capone to be Director of the FBI, or putting Pablo Rayo Montano at the head of the DEA.

The foxes are moving into the hen-house, folks...

The only thing worse would be to put a Goldman Sachs exec at the head of the Treasury, or president of the Federal Reserve.

Oh, wait, they already do that--for EVERY administration for the last 20 years...


"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
What does the 'research advisory council' do/did? How is that relevant? Guilt by association? Maybe its like hiring a caterer Al Capone used once.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:
What does the 'research advisory council' do/did? How is that relevant? Guilt by association? Maybe its like hiring a caterer Al Capone used once.

The "Research Advisory Council" of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute conducts research, and publishes position and policy papers to advise public policy, primarily for the use of International Central Banking bodies and Governmental agencies that deal with finance, investment, and commerce. Essentially, they write the "playbooks" for groups like the Federal Reserve and Dept. of the Treasury in the US, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, and the UN's IMF and World Bank.

Other large international investment banks also look to Goldman Sachs research as a sort of "indicator" for where policy will go in the immediate future. Their research is based on th eshort-term infliences of market fundamentals and investment trends, and the long-term goals and policies of think-tanks like CFR and the RIIA.

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/global-markets-institute/past-research-and-conferences/index.html

So she sat on this board in 2008. The very tie when Goldman Sachs was engineering their coup-de-grace to the morgage markets here in the US through engineered-to-fail derivatives, and was starting the same sort of program in their British offices, leveraging European real estate, currency, government paper, and precious metals markets with CDS instruments, which they had also intentionally designed to fail. It's all rather brilliant--if you consider defrauding millions of investors, bankrupting scores of governments, and enslaving the next three generations of British, American, Spanish, Greek, and Icelandic taxpayers under what is now a debt-load that some estimate is around $105 QUADRILLION, and growing...

(for those of you that are math-challenged, a quadrillion is ONE THOUSAND TRILLION. In other words, the current world debt load to these banks is larger than the TOTAL VALUE of every single thing on the entire planet, including all the currently-known unharvested reserves of natural resources such as gold and oil....)

Goldman Sachs, through it's manipulation of the world financial markets, and infiltration of the Treasury Department of nearly EVERY industrialized nation, has succeeded in burdening the productive citizens of this planet with a debt that is 1000 times the total global Gross Annual Product. There is NO way this debt can EVER be paid back. And with compounding interest, it is guaranteed to not only concentrate ALL the wealth that remains in the hands of the world's "middle class" into the hands of about 2500 families, but it also guarantees that we can NEVER get out from under it. In fact, the more we pay these banks, the deeper our debt will become, because they will continue to siphon off the payments into other faulty derivatives, which cause more debt, which we're expected to bail them out for.... Brilliant...

Yeah, that's the kind of "great mind" we want sitting on the SCOTUS--someone who perhaps had a hand in the largest engineered bank robbery in the history of the planet...


"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
imported post

You know the whole derivatives thing was so complex that Warren Buffet stayed away from it. Just saying that very few people were even able to anticipate or interpret this. The money gets moved and chopped so many times by MIT math wizzes and this is not unintentional. I am being honest and non biased here. Just playing devil's advocate.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

I've been crowing about how CDSs were going to take down the world financial system (because it is obvious by their operational theory that's what they were DESIGNED to do) since 2004. And I'm a freaking graphic designer. If I could see it coming, there is no excuse why the SEC, Treasury and the FedReserve couldn't see it.

Unless, of course, this was their PLANNED outcome...

There are really only TWO possible explanations. Either the people who are in charge of our financial system are so utterly clueless that a 44-year old Graphic Designer like me can out-predict them, OR they did it on purpose.

Honestly, I'm much more frightened by the first possibility, because you can't fix "stupid".

But I think it's a much higher probability that the second is true. And as scary as an engineered collapse is, we CAN fix "corrupt"...

When Warren Buffett called CDSs "financial weapons of mass destruction" in that 2003 BBC interview, he was speaking a MUCH deeper truth than most people realize.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2817995.stm

They are as complex and difficult to set up as a physical WMD, and require the same amount of single-minded focus and planning toward a SPECIFIC PREDETERMINED end result.

WMD's don't just "happen" by accident or coincidence. They have to be ENGINEERED, and I think Buffett was sort of "talking out of class" when he "spilled the beans" on what was REALLY going on with CDSs. Unfortunately, the only people (like me) who LISTENED to him back then were branded as "conspiracy theorists" and "crackpots".

Truth will out... Bitches...



"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

So what was Harvards position on student carry while she was in charge?
Is there any doubt on the answer?

But I look at this as a gift from the almighty, not the WH commie one.
She will be under oath and we can finally find out why the government dropped
the panther voter intimidation case in PA. Only 2 people could order her to do so,
otherwise it was on her authority as over site of all the district courts.
Then we can find out about the illegal firing of the IG in kommifornia by his highness,
and why she stood by and did nothing. This is a great opportunity to get a light
shone into the cockroach infested white house goon squad.
Then move on to the breaking of the TARP laws. It could go on for a year getting all
the criminal activity they are involved in and as the chief prosecutor for the
government why she sat on her but like a Katrina chocolate city mayor.

Anyone know of a non castrated senator? My Session isn't worth a dam when it
comes to being a man. Pro wrestlers have more even after the steroids.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

Looks like Inhofe (R.-Ok) will be part of the opposition to question Kagan here... Between him and Coburn, I think Oklahoma is well represented on Capitol Hill.

I will also say that both are very responsive to emails and phone calls! Plus, Inhofe is on the Armed Services Committee and he is very hawkish on supporting our Military and Vets! You can bet that he will bring up the ROTC issue!

I am also going to send him some of the talking points that have been posted here so he will be aware of the questions the "American Public" has about Kagan's suitability to serve.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

I think this woman will be bad for the RKBA. In her heart I don't think she supports the right and seems to like the tactic of denying hearings to prevent cases from being heard if she thinks the decision might not go they way she likes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs

Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen
data
May 13 (Bloomberg) -- Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.
“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

Review Denied

The Heller decision left room for states to require registration of weapons. The majority also said the ruling didn’t cast doubt on laws barring handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, or restrictions on bringing guns into schools or government buildings.

The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The high court refused to hear the case, known as Sandidge v. United States. The memo to Marshall, found in his papers at the Library of Congress, includes a handwritten “D,” indicating that he was among those who voted to deny review.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the position taken in the memo to Marshall reflected the prevailing view of the law at the time.

Reflecting Marshall

During her confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, the federal government’s top Supreme Court advocate, Kagan said she was trying to reflect Marshall’s views when she evaluated so-called petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions. She called herself a “27-year-old pipsqueak” working for a “90- year-old giant in the law.”

“He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said. “And in that context, I think all of us were right to say, ‘Here are the cases which the court is likely to do good things with from your perspective, and here are the ones where they’re not.’”

Marshall was a civil rights icon before becoming the first black justice. He led the legal fight to dismantle the “separate but equal” regime in public education, arguing the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.

As a justice, he opposed the death penalty and backed abortion rights and affirmative action. Kagan, now 50, clerked for Marshall during the court’s 1987-88 term and has described him as one of her heroes.

Clues to Kagan

The memos provide clues to Kagan’s potential approach as a justice. Much like Marshall, Kagan might find herself playing defense, at least in her first few years, working strategically to thwart the agenda of a more conservative majority.
Kagan on numerous occasions urged the justice to vote for so-called defensive denials, rejecting appeals from criminal suspects and defendants to prevent his more conservative colleagues from giving more power to police and prosecutors.

She urged rejection of an appeal from an Illinois man whose burglary conviction hinged on evidence discovered when he was stopped, ordered to lie down and searched by police. The search took place even though police lacked the “probable cause” required to make an arrest, Kagan said.

Kagan said she thought the court, if it heard the case, would uphold the conviction. That “would be an awful and perhaps quite consequential holding,” she wrote.
In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts and four colleagues have joined forces in 5-4 decisions to strike down campaign finance regulations and limit shareholder lawsuits, as well as to protect gun owners’ rights.
 
Top