Kagan confirmed

[Robert Snow]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/05/kagan.supreme.court/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

"The 63-37 vote was more than enough to blunt any possibility of a last-minute GOP delay or filibuster. Five Republican senators backed Kagan; one Democrat -- Nebraska's Ben Nelson -- opposed her."

 

[preachinjesus]

This is not a confirmation process I've been happy with over the past several months. I mean, how many of us can say we have an informed position on who Kagan is and how she might rule? This whole thing has been swept under the rug of media obscurity.

I read over the transcripts of the confirmation proceedings and she just ducked and dodged too many questions to be comfortable with her. As well, her record (I scholars get records too) at Harvard is not a good one.

While she has a formidable legal mind (her academic credentials shouldn't be underscored) there is more than a bit of room for concern. Imho, the best judges/justices are the ones familiar with practice of the law and not just legal theory. Her placement on the Court is akin to taking a DPhil theologian from Oxford and putting them at the head of a mega-church.

It seems this is a last ditch effort by an enfeebled administration to get one last big one through before the midterms change everything.

 

[billwald]

>I mean, how many of us can say we have an informed position on who Kagan is and how she might rule?

Asking that question demonstrates the goofiness of the American system.

 

[Martin]

This is not a confirmation process I've been happy with over the past several months. I mean, how many of us can say we have an informed position on who Kagan is and how she might rule? This whole thing has been swept under the rug of media obscurity.

According to the United States Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 2) it is the President of the United States, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate", who appoints "Judges of the Supreme Court". There is no mention of the public's opinion of the person. We are a Republic, we elect representatives to represent us, they are the ones who make the laws and select judges (mainly, the President).

I read over the transcripts of the confirmation proceedings and she just ducked and dodged too many questions to be comfortable with her. As well, her record (I scholars get records too) at Harvard is not a good one.

She is certainly not the first, and probably will not be the last, Supreme Court nominee to duck and dodge questions he/she does not wish to answer. It happens all the time.

While she has a formidable legal mind (her academic credentials shouldn't be underscored) there is more than a bit of room for concern. Imho, the best judges/justices are the ones familiar with practice of the law and not just legal theory. Her placement on the Court is akin to taking a DPhil theologian from Oxford and putting them at the head of a mega-church.

While I would not support her for the Court we must learn that elections have consequences. Obama was elected President and thus he will nominate candidates to the Supreme Court.

It seems this is a last ditch effort by an enfeebled administration to get one last big one through before the midterms change everything.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. The Republicans are wonderful at putting both feet in their mouths and then wondering why they can't walk. If you want my opinion, the nation would be better if we walked away from this corrupt two party system. Basically we flip between two corrupt political parties that care nothing about doing what is right. We need a viable third party or independent candidates. Until people wake up and stop voting the same politicians into office, this cycle will continue.

 

[just-want-peace]

One more nail in the coffin of the US as we've known it!!

 

[Crabtownboy]

How much do we ever know about a person who is confirmed to the Supreme Court. Remember Eisenhower admitted, in so many words, that he was sorry he selected Warren to be the Chief Justice. Surely Eisenhower thought he knew Warren well, else he would not have nominated him.

I watched the last three or four nominees and all said, under oath, in their hearings they felt precedence was and is very important and they would take it into consideration for all cases. And yet, the current court has been the most activist court in the history of our country in ignoring precedence.

We never really know what we are getting when a new person sits on the court.

 

[just-want-peace]

How much do we ever know about a person who is confirmed to the Supreme Court. Remember Eisenhower admitted, in so many words, that he was sorry he selected Warren to be the Chief Justice. Surely Eisenhower thought he knew Warren well, else he would not have nominated him.

I watched the last three or four nominees and all said, under oath, in their hearings they felt precedence was and is very important and they would take it into consideration for all cases. And yet, the current court has been the most activist court in the history of our country in ignoring precedence.

We never really know what we are getting when a new person sits on the court.

This is not a case of "not knowing"!:tear:

This is a case of ignoring the welfare of the nation for political gain.:tear:

(And yes Crabby, it cuts across the aisle, so don't employ that retort!)

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is not a case of "not knowing"!:tear:

This is a case of ignoring the welfare of the nation for political gain.:tear:

I beg to differ. We will not know what we have until she has a voting record.

No one could have guess that the current court with the current chief justice would trample precedence. Certainly that was not indicated in his testimony under oath. He is heading the most activist court in our history. Again, that was not even a consideration during his testimony. Giving weight to precedence is to avoid activism.

(And yes Crabby, it cuts across the aisle, so don't employ that retort!)

I agree. But the most activist chief justices we have had, Warren and Roberts were both nominated by Republican presidents. Just a thought.

 

[carpro]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/05/kagan.supreme.court/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

"The 63-37 vote was more than enough to blunt any possibility of a last-minute GOP delay or filibuster. Five Republican senators backed Kagan; one Democrat -- Nebraska's Ben Nelson -- opposed her."

Pity.

Another liberal ideologue with no regard for the Constitution now sits on SCOTUS.

The good part is that the balance is not affected since she's replacing another liberal ideologue.

 

[Alcott]

I thoroughly distrust this Maria McSolomon court. If the California Prop 8 case makes it all the way there, how do you think they will rule? Can states define marriage as one man/one woman or can they not? If precedence is important, they should consider that Utah was not allowed to become a state until they defined marriage that way.