[$tinkle]

from what i can tell, elena kagan is about as qualified as harriet miers.

anybody else think there's a more qualified candidate for nomination? is this a head fake like how bush did w/ miers?

 

[sanjuro]

You need to read more about Harriet Miers then.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I vote for Judge Holden.

Or maybe Judge Rheinhold.

No, Mike Judge.

 

[$tinkle]

You need to read more about Harriet Miers then.

the most important aspects of a nominee stand out: neither sat on the bench, but did advise the president (i.e., cronyism). i don't have a beef w/ obama nominating whom he chooses, just so long as they have a background which can be scrutinized to determine their fitness. kagan's got nothing of the sort, but unfortunately, this partisan event can't stop her from being confirmed.

Or maybe Judge Rheinhold.

"doesn't anybody knock anymore?"

 

[dante]

the most important aspects of a nominee stand out: neither sat on the bench, but did advise the president (i.e., cronyism). i don't have a beef w/ obama nominating whom he chooses, just so long as they have a background which can be scrutinized to determine their fitness. kagan's got nothing of the sort, but unfortunately, this partisan event can't stop her from being confirmed.
"doesn't anybody knock anymore?"

Whoa. Add in that they both have a snatch and they're looking like identical twins...

 

[MMike]

I vote for Judge Holden.

Or maybe Judge Rheinhold.

No, Mike Judge.

FTW

 

[rockofullr]

I vote for Judge Holden.

Or maybe Judge Rheinhold.

No, Mike Judge.

Judge Dredd?

 

[$tinkle]

Whoa. Add in that they both have a snatch and they're looking like identical twins...

or that they don't comport well with the conservative base

do you have any original & relevant thoughts on this thread?

 

[sanjuro]

the most important aspects of a nominee stand out: neither sat on the bench, but did advise the president (i.e., cronyism). i don't have a beef w/ obama nominating whom he chooses, just so long as they have a background which can be scrutinized to determine their fitness. kagan's got nothing of the sort, but unfortunately, this partisan event can't stop her from being confirmed.
"doesn't anybody knock anymore?"

Miers couldn't even fill out the Senate Judicial Committee questionnaire correctly. I think she lost Republican support right then.

 

[Pesqueeb]

the most important aspects of a nominee stand out: neither sat on the bench, but did advise the president (i.e., cronyism). i don't have a beef w/ obama nominating whom he chooses, just so long as they have a background which can be scrutinized to determine their fitness. kagan's got nothing of the sort, but unfortunately, this partisan event can't stop her from being confirmed.
"doesn't anybody knock anymore?"

Since when have you had to be a "judge" to sit on the supreme court?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html

 

[$tinkle]

can't believe i'm about to do this, but i feel the need to defend al franken: Franken sketches during Kagan hearing

What does doodling do?

Abstract
Doodling is a way of passing the time when bored by a lecture or telephone call. Does it improve or hinder attention to the primary task? To answer this question, 40 participants monitored a monotonous mock telephone message for the names of people coming to a party. Half of the group was randomly assigned to a doodling condition where they shaded printed shapes while listening to the telephone call. The doodling group performed better on the monitoring task and recalled 29% more information on a surprise memory test. Unlike many dual task situations, doodling while working can be beneficial. Future research could test whether doodling aids cognitive performance by reducing daydreaming.

 

[stevew]

can't believe i'm about to do this, but i feel the need to defend al franken: Franken sketches during Kagan hearing

i bet stashed away there is a doodle of obama with buck teeth and dumbo ears...

 

[dante]

or that they don't comport well with the conservative base

do you have any original & relevant thoughts on this thread?

So both never served as a judge before this and both advised a president. Yeah, we've never had someone of such dubious qualities serve on the US Supreme Court before...William Rehnquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:William_Rehnquist.jpg" class="image" title="William Rehnquist"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/William_Rehnquist.jpg/250px-William_Rehnquist.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/31/William_Rehnquist.jpg/250px-William_Rehnquist.jpg



edit: STUPID AUTO CORRECTING LINKS!!!!

 

[$tinkle]

i know she was hard on the eyes, but i don't think that's a pic of harriet miers, to whom i compared elena kagan.

keep up.

 

[dante]

Nice dodge!!!

 

[$tinkle]

yes. yes, that is a nice dodge

so in reading this, i have to think there's a more qualified nominee

WASHINGTON &#8212; Elena Kagan deflected questions about her own views on gun rights and abortion during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday, instead describing Supreme Court precedents. She declined to say whether terrorism suspects must be warned of the right to remain silent, saying the issue was &#8220;quite likely to get to the courts.&#8221;

Former students of Elena Kagan listened Tuesday as she was questioned in her second day of Senate confirmation hearings.

And Ms. Kagan, the solicitor general and former dean of Harvard Law School, refused to say whether the Supreme Court was correct to take on the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, telling senators that the issue of when the court should intervene in disputed elections is &#8220;an important and difficult question&#8221; but one that could come before her should she be confirmed.

Ms. Kagan&#8217;s responses, during a long and sometimes tense day of parrying with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were similar to those of Supreme Court nominees past. But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might &#8220;provide some kind of hints&#8221; about her views on matters of legal controversy.

&#8220;I think that that was wrong,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I think that &#8212; in particular, that it wouldn&#8217;t be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases &#8212; you know, to grade cases &#8212; because those cases themselves might again come before the court.&#8221;

got that?

it's not about her being too liberal. i have no idea what her opinions are b/c she deflects, and has no useful papertrail reflecting her own legal thoughts. can you imagine any other job interview being conducted w/ such evasiveness? they wouldn't even validate your parking.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Are you suddenly upset at the unending partisan bickering? Everyone's just trying to play "gotcha" and it's the interviewee's job not to get got. I recall reading that SC nominees have traditionally not had to undergo these types of interogations, and that confirmation used to be done almost automatically out of respect for the pres. Obviously there is no respect anymore for that position, from either side. So this is all about making life difficult and grandstanding... not "finding the best justice" or whatever.

 

[$tinkle]

Are you suddenly upset at the unending partisan bickering? Everyone's just trying to play "gotcha" and it's the interviewee's job not to get got. I recall reading that SC nominees have traditionally not had to undergo these types of interogations, and that confirmation used to be done almost automatically out of respect for the pres. Obviously there is no respect anymore for that position, from either side. So this is all about making life difficult and grandstanding... not "finding the best justice" or whatever.

yep, it's become tragically hip

 

[dante]

yes. yes, that is a nice dodge

so in reading this, i have to think there's a more qualified nomineegot that?

it's not about her being too liberal. i have no idea what her opinions are b/c she deflects, and has no useful papertrail reflecting her own legal thoughts. can you imagine any other job interview being conducted w/ such evasiveness? they wouldn't even validate your parking.

So the only thing that's different about her from past nominees is that a) she doesn't have a discernible paper trail and b) that she wrote an essay 15 years ago about how nominees should be more forth coming. Still doesn't change the fact that she's giving the exact same bullsh!t answers that every other nominee has given (like Roberts claiming to respect precedence and then overturning previous rulings like on campaign finance reform), or the fact that your original issues with her (and Miers) consisted only of the fact that they'd never sat on the bench and had advised the president, which were the exact same qualifications Rehnquist had.

You're just pissed because she hasn't given you anything to be pissed about.

 

[$tinkle]

You're just pissed because she hasn't given you anything to be pissed about.

and so you're glad there's nothing to be glad about?

do you believe there exists no more qualified nominee to the high court, or do you just 'trust' she's the head of the class?

it's one of the spoils of victory that obama nominate who he wishes. this shouldn't undermine scrutiny by a publicly elected congress, however.

 

[BurlyShirley]

and so you're glad there's nothing to be glad about?

do you believe there exists no more qualified nominee to the high court, or do you just 'trust' she's the head of the class?

it's one of the spoils of victory that obama nominate who he wishes. this shouldn't undermine scrutiny by a publicly elected congress, however.

It's all a charade though.
Everyone knows she's a jewish liberal lesbian elitist (Harvard). She's being put up to add another liberal voice to the SC. It's no secret. All the theatrics are just a waste of time.

 

[$tinkle]

It's all a charade though.
Everyone knows she's a jewish liberal lesbian elitist (Harvard). She's being put up to add another liberal voice to the SC. It's no secret. All the theatrics are just a waste of time.

yes, theatrics *are* a waste of time. so instead, they should find out:

- can she correctly interpret law?
- does she have extra-judicial propensities?
- does she think like a woman?

 

[Pesqueeb]

do you believe there exists no more qualified nominee to the high court, or do you just 'trust' she's the head of the class?

I think your focused on the wrong aspects of this. Shes not competing against any one. Its not about determining if shes the most qualified for the job, its about determining if she is qualified.

 

[$tinkle]

I think your focused on the wrong aspects of this. Shes not competing against any one. Its not about determining if shes the most qualified for the job, its about determining if she is qualified.

it's this kind of attitude that gave us obama today, & will give us palin in 2012

what's to worry? it's only our gov't

 

[Pesqueeb]

it's this kind of attitude that gave us obama today, & will give us palin in 2012

what's to worry? it's only our gov't

I've had a brain injury, so maybe I'm wrong, but I do seem to recall that there were some other people interested in the job when Obama became President.

 

[$tinkle]

you can't apply for teh scotus, you're tapped

yeah, there's an image i could do w/o

 

[Pesqueeb]

you can't apply for teh scotus, you're tapped

yeah, there's an image i could do w/o

yea, that thought alone is kind of like combining the funny republican thread and the screamer thread. *shudder* thanks a lot.

 

[$tinkle]

an interesting exchange from yesterday's hearing:

Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day," and I got it through Congress, and it's now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the commerce clause?

Kagan: It sounds like a dumb law.

Coburn: Yes, I got one that's real similar to it I think is equally dumb. I'm not going to mention which--which it is.

Kagan: But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional. And--and--and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that--that they think are--are senseless just because they're senseless.

Coburn: Well, I guess the question I'm asking you is, do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day?

Kagan: Sen. Coburn--

Coburn: I mean, what is the extent of the commerce clause? We have this wide embrace of the commerce clause, which these guys who wrote this [holds up a volume of the Federalist Papers] never, ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause this way.


in predictable fashion, republicans have posted this exchange w/ the video title "Kagan Declines to Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What to Eat."

this has local relevance: CO reverend claims pot part of religion

PUEBLO, COLO. -- A Colorado reverend was in court Monday, fighting a ticket for illegally possessing marijuana.

His argument to the judge -- cannabis is part of his religion.

Jason Wimler of Greeley is an ordained member of the THC Ministry.

One of the group's practices includes worshipping marijuana.

Last December, Wimler was pulled over by a state trooper while driving to Pueblo.

During a search of his car the trooper found around a quarter of pot.

Wimler was issued a ticket, but refused to pay saying his religious beliefs were violated.

as you know, smoking is another form of dietary introduction. alternatively, he could be religiously oppressed if he made brownies & rethuglicans had their way

 

[X3pilot]

^^^^^

 

[ohio]

- does she have extra-judicial propensities?

define this.

 

[$tinkle]

== judicial activism.

so, after listening to the reduced list of gotcha exchanges, and other "concerns", it seems to me while quite liberal, she appears to be well qualified to the post.

yes, i'm laying back & thinking about the queen.

 

[$tinkle]

a ringing endorsement (aka, "shoutout" in urban parlance):
2 Live Crew?s Luther Campbell, aka Uncle Luke, endorses Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court

me? not so horny.

 

[sanjuro]

Throughout the day's more than seven hours of questioning, Democratic senators regularly accused Alito of giving incomplete, inconsistent answers. Republicans accused Democrats of being unfair. At one point, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) complained after Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) read aloud magazine excerpts published in the 1980s by Concerned Alumni of Princeton and espousing views Kyl branded as "very scurrilous."

The drama of the hearings' third day nearly overshadowed the significance of the position Alito staked out on the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade . Senators also branched into new territory: Alito's record from 15 years on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on cases involving religion, immigrants seeking to prevent deportation, and criminals' rights.

Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as "settled law" that "can't be reexamined." In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.

Yesterday, Alito said that Roe must be treated with respect because it has been reaffirmed by the high court several times in the past three decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101120.html?nav=rss_email/components