AP: Senate GOP leader opposes Kagan

[spursncowboys]

Senate GOP leader opposes Kagan
By DAVID ESPO (AP) – 20 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan drew opposition Friday from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and two members of the GOP rank and file, raising the prospect of a confirmation largely along party lines.


Kagan served as an aide in Bill Clinton's White House and is currently solicitor general in President Barack Obama's Justice Department. She testified this week she would be able to put her political views aside if confirmed to the high court, and make rulings based on the Constitution.
In a written statement, McConnell quoted Kagan as telling the Senate Judiciary Committee this week it is "difficult to take off the advocate's hat and put on the judge's hat."

The statement added, "That difficulty is particularly acute for someone like Ms. Kagan, who has spent so much of her adult life practicing the art of political advocacy rather than practicing law."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfm-ZgbV3pWFVmRFbJgpA4THs5kQD9GN5SI00


I had a problem with Bush picking one of his buddies. Same goes for Barry. It should be an experienced judge where their experience can be examined. Barry has a right to appoint whomever he wants, but the Senate also has the right to fillabuster. Did the Dems ever stop their filibuster of Bush's appointments? Repubs need to stop being wimps!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:34uHKJLjxpwN3M:http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Syc1gq1%252BL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Lebowski Brickowski]

she would be able to put her political views aside if confirmed to the high court, and make rulings based on the Constitution.

why would her political views not be based on the consitution?

[boutons_deux]

1) Old 2) white 3) southern 4) Senator to vote against a

1) fat (not Southern Belle pretty)

2) Jewish

3) New Yorker

4) woman

Dammit, these GOPpers never fail to surprise. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, someone in the GOP opposes Kagan?

That's amazing.


Did the Dems ever stop their filibuster of Bush's appointments? Have the Republicans stopped theirs?

No.

They were blocking 120 of them last I checked. Including DoD and DHS appointments.

Why do Republicans hate national security?

[boutons_deux]

My bet is that not one GOP Senator from southern or western states will confirm.

[DMX7]

Obama should let them filibuster. It's going to make the GOP just look dumber.

[spursncowboys]

Dems set the precedent.

[ChumpDumper]

Dems set the precedent.Link to the first instance.

Thanks in advance.

[spursncowboys]

No link. It's common knowledge.

EDIT: Why are you avoiding the sector question in the Pelosi unemployment check topic?

[boutons_deux]

Also, give us the score of filibuster in the last 20 years Repug vs Dem, leaving out the Repugs' constant threat of filibuster w/o actually filibustering.

[ChumpDumper]

No link. It's common knowledge.If it's common knowledge you can tell us the first instance.

We're waiting.

[ChumpDumper]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (2 members and 1 guests)
ChumpDumper, spursncowboys



Still looking?

Not so common after all.

[spursncowboys]

A filibuster means 60 senators must vote to end debate before the Senate can vote on a nomination, even though a majority would then approve the nomination.
The "extremist" targets of the filibuster include Miguel Estrada and Pricilla Owen. Both nominees have outstanding credentials. Estrada, for example, received a unanimous "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association and is backed by a series of Democratic Justice Department officials for whom he has worked. Owen was re-elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 2000 with near-record voter approval and with the endorsement of every major newspaper in Texas.
Senate opponents have cited procedural reasons to justify their opposition, including the false charge that Estrada did not answer all of their questions. In truth, they seem to oppose these nominees because they do not espouse the liberal activist positions some Senate Democrats believe women and minority judges should hold. Such motivations have a name: Bigotry.
Until now, the only successful filibuster over any judicial nomination was in 1968, when the Senate stopped President Lyndon B. Johnson's effort to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice of the Supreme Court. That was a bipartisan filibuster. Senate records show no cases where an appellate nominee was filibustered to death.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2003/05/Its-Time-To-Solve-the-Judicial-Confirmation-Crisis


You Obama yes men really need to go revisit how the Dems treated Bush's appointees. Can you guys remember what bush did after he won in 00?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/04/65264623/1

[spursncowboys]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (2 members and 1 guests)
ChumpDumper, spursncowboys



Still looking?

Not so common after all.

:lol
Yeah it is. If you didn't know that the dems set precedent by no giving a large amount of bush's nominations an up or down vote then you are as ignorant as your posts suggest.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol
Yeah it is. If you didn't know that the dems set precedent by no giving a large amount of bush's nominations an up or down vote then you are as ignorant as your posts suggest.Are you saying the blocking of presidential nominations for political reasons never happened before GW Bush?

Yes or no.

[spursncowboys]

Are you saying the blocking of presidential nominations for political reasons never happened before GW Bush?

Yes or no.

:lmao

[spursncowboys]

No link. It's common knowledge.

EDIT: Why are you avoiding the sector question in the Pelosi unemployment check topic?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmaoIs that a yes or a no?

[ChumpDumper]

EDIT: Why are you avoiding the sector question in the Pelosi unemployment check topic?I wasn't in that thread, genius.

Why are you avoiding this question now?

[ducks]

chump is the king to want links

[ChumpDumper]

chump is the king to want linksIf people can't back up the shit they make up, they shouldn't make it up in the first place.

[ploto]

rDXnsZWy_es

[spursncowboys]

If people can't back up the shit they make up, they shouldn't make it up in the first place.

explaining everything to you through articles, like you can't google, isn't my job or curse.

[spursncowboys]

http://www.dailydemotivators.com/pics/dumbass.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

explaining everything to you through articles, like you can't google, isn't my job or curse.It's common knowledge that multiple presidential appointments were blocked before GW Bush was president.

By Republicans.

Would you like a link showing how wrong you are?

Yes or no.

[DMX7]

explaining everything to you through articles, like you can't google, isn't my job or curse.

If it were so easy, you would have done it. Clearly you've got nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

If it were so easy, you would have done it. Clearly you've got nothing.It is easy if you are not making shit up.

Here, I'll show SnC how to do it.


Traditionally, the filibuster has not been the only weapon in an opposition party's arsenal. There are other, less visible ways whereby the Senate's rules and traditions empower individual senators to block judicial and other nominations. Between 1996 and 2000, Republicans in control of the Senate developed these techniques to a high art.

Prior to 1996, when the Senate majority and the president were from opposing parties, senators usually deferred to the president with respect to lower-court judicial nominations. With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations, and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions.

All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.

Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml

So not only is SnC completely full of shit -- the entire reason for his opposition to Kagan is based on the fact that Republicans obstructed her nomination to the DC Circuit eleven years ago.

Which was before GW Bush was in office.

(In case SnC can't count.)

It's all common knowledge.

[spursncowboys]

DMX: It is very simple. Are you guys saying that the dems voted up or down on all of Bush's judicial appointees? That they did it as quickly for bush as they did with Barry?

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/1023_courts_wheeler.aspx

[ChumpDumper]

SnC: It is very simple. Are you guys saying that the Republicans voted up or down on all of Clinton's judicial appointees? That they did it as quickly for Clinton as they did with GHW Bush?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml

[LnGrrrR]

Until now, the only successful filibuster over any judicial nomination was in 1968, when the Senate stopped President Lyndon B. Johnson's effort to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice of the Supreme Court. That was a bipartisan filibuster. Senate records show no cases where an appellate nominee was filibustered to death.

[spursncowboys]

Until now, the only successful filibuster over any judicial nomination was in 1968, when the Senate stopped President Lyndon B. Johnson's effort to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice of the Supreme Court. That was a bipartisan filibuster. Senate records show no cases where an appellate nominee was filibustered to death.

[fraga]

Can't we all...just get along...

[ChumpDumper]

Until nowDid all of Clinton's nominees get an up or down vote in the Senate?

Yes or no.

[Stringer_Bell]

The whole partial-birth abortion dodging and attempts to stop military recruiting make me question this woman's ability to reason. THAT, and I saw her face on TV today and she's still ugly.

I vote: nay!

[Wild Cobra]

The whole partial-birth abortion dodging and attempts to stop military recruiting make me question this woman's ability to reason. THAT, and I saw her face on TV today and she's still ugly.

I vote: nay!
Shes a very poor choice for a Supreme Court justice. However, so was the man she's replacing. She's no worse, and if we conservatives complain too much, we might get even worse rammed in.

What's the point of complaining. Demonrats control both houses and the presidency. Unless there is real disqualifying dirt on this woman, she is going to be a Supreme Court justice.

[ChumpDumper]

Shes a very poor choice for a Supreme Court justice.Why?

[spursncowboys]

The whole partial-birth abortion dodging and attempts to stop military recruiting make me question this woman's ability to reason. THAT, and I saw her face on TV today and she's still ugly.

I vote: nay!

But she's funny.

[spursncowboys]

I can't wait to read *her opinion. I am hoping for a Jon Stewart style.

[spursncowboys]

Why?

She went to college-career college student. She was a professor, then she went into politics. then she got appointed to the court of appeals by her boss at the time, and then went back to being a professor. Now she is to be appointed to the SCOTUS by her present boss. Do any of the Dems go to ethics class with all their years and years of college? She is a political hack, like Bush's first pick. She hasn't even been a judge. Can anyone say cronyism?
But since she has been to all the right schools-Princton, Oxford, Harvard Law, she'll get it. So the guy who never had executive experience is nominating someone to the SCOTUS who has no legislative experience. Sotomayor, even tho she got advanced thru the years by liberal affirmative action, atleast was a judge.

[spursncowboys]

Raised on the upper west side. She was a career college student with a degree in History and Philosophy and finally a law degree. She has never married and has no kids.

[ChumpDumper]

She went to college-career college student. She was a professor, then she went into politics. then she got appointed to the court of appeals by her boss at the time, and then went back to being a professor. Now she is to be appointed to the SCOTUS by her present boss. Do any of the Dems go to ethics class with all their years and years of college? She is a political hack, like Bush's first pick. She hasn't even been a judge. Can anyone say cronyism?
But since she has been to all the right schools-Princton, Oxford, Harvard Law, she'll get it. So the guy who never had executive experience is nominating someone to the SCOTUS who has no legislative experience. Sotomayor, even tho she got advanced thru the years by liberal affirmative action, atleast was a judge.So you were against Rehnquist all along, right?

You demanded he be removed, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Raised on the upper west side. She was a career college student with a degree in History and Philosophy and finally a law degree.Rehnquist had four degrees from Stanford and Harvard.

You must have hated that guy so bad -- you had to have openly protested him constantly.

[spursncowboys]

chump: take barry's piece out of your mouth for a second. Should someone be nominated to the SCOTUS if they have no judicial experience? SHould appointments only be given to people who work with barry? Or only people who are from barry's cocktail parties?

WHat about all the people who deserve a chance to an appointment from their experience.

cronyism


Main Entry: cro·ny·ism
Pronunciation: \-nē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1840
: partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications

[ChumpDumper]

chump: take barry's piece out of your mouth for a second.Why do you always go homo? Project much?


Should someone be nominated to the SCOTUS if they have no judicial experience?It has been pretty thoroughly proved that it is not a prerequisite since fully 36% of justices have had no experience. Your complete refusal to say anything bad about Chief Justice Rehnquist or his record on the court tells me you don't have a problem with it either as long as you agree with that justice's rulings.


SHould appointments only be given to people who work with barry? Or only people who are from barry's cocktail parties? This is not true of Sotomayor, so you are just making shit up again.


WHat about all the people who deserve a chance to an appointment from their experience.There are different kinds of experience.


cronyism


Main Entry: cro·ny·ism
Pronunciation: \-nē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1840
: partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualificationsAgain, she's as qualified as Rehnquist was. And her employment in the administration mirrors that of Rehnquist as well.

She was qualified to be an appellate judge when the Republicans obstructed her appointment by Clinton. Remember when you were saying that Republicans never did anything like that before Obama? You were so wrong about that, I don't blame you for trying to avoid dealing with that debacle.

You are a hypocrite.

[ChumpDumper]

spursncowboys thinks that John Marshall should never have been on the Supreme Court.

True story.

[spursncowboys]

You are a hypocrite.

how

[ChumpDumper]

howDid you read the rest of my posts?

It's quite clear.

[ChumpDumper]

http://greatestofalltime.homestead.com/files/earl_warren_court.jpg
spursncowboys argues the monumental decisions of this court should never have happened as the Republican-appointed chief justice was obviously unqualified and never should have been nominated.

True story.

[Winehole23]

It made sense to start out with Rehnquist. But your point is a good one.

[Winehole23]

(In 1946 Earl Warren won the nomination of the Democratic, Republican and Progressive parties for governor of California. I can't think of any analogous political figure who can say anything like that.)

[boutons_deux]

Here's a long list of lies, slander, myths, and pure bullshit from the old white southern/border/western Senators vomited during the Kagan confirmation:

Myths and falsehoods about Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination

Myth: Kagan banned military recruiters from Harvard

Myth: Kagan is "anti-military"

Myth: Kagan is "radical"

Myth: Kagan's praise for an Israeli Supreme Court justice shows she's a radical (NEW)

Myth: Kagan's thesis shows she's a socialist

Myth: Conservatives can credibly argue that Kagan's personal and political views are relevant to confirmation process

Myth: "Kagan Standard" means Kagan must answer questions about issues that will come before the Supreme Court

Myth: Kagan's Goldman Sachs role taints her nomination

Myth: Conservative opposition is based on the substance of Kagan's nomination

Myth: Obama used "empathy" standard rather than fealty to law in choosing Kagan

Myth: Kagan is unqualified because she hasn't been a judge (UPDATED)

Myth: Kagan has said judicial experience is an "apparent necessity"

Myth: Republicans would be justified in opposing Kagan because she lacks a judicial paper trail

Myth: Kagan is "Obama's Harriet Miers"

Myth: Kagan's record shows that she will rubber-stamp war-on-terror policies

Myth: Kagan's 23-year-old statements about the Establishment Clause suggest she's hostile to religion

Myth: Kagan's recusal obligations would be "extraordinary"

Myth: Kagan "can become" too "emotionally involved on issues she deeply cares about"

Myth: Kagan not "fair-minded, impartial" and doesn't have "proper temperament to be a judge"

Myth: Kagan is anti-free speech

Myth: Kagan supports banning books

Myth: Kagan wanted to "ban pamphlets" by individuals (NEW)

Myth: Kagan is anti-Second Amendment

Myth: Kagan compared the NRA to the Klan (NEW)

Myth: Kagan banned ROTC from campus

Myth: Kagan "cover[ed] up" plagiarism at Harvard Law

Myth: Kagan's citation of Marshall's statement that the original Constitution was "defective" is controversial

Myth: Kagan's memos to Justice Thurgood Marshall prove she's outside mainstream (NEW)

Myth: Kagan's campaign donations are unusual

Myth: Kagan supported Saudi sponsors of terrorism

Myth: Kagan accepted a gift by Saudi prince that brought Shariah at Harvard (NEW)

Myth: Kagan acted improperly in Warner Creek case

Myth: As SG, Kagan indulged her own views rather than defending the law

Myth: Kagan is avoiding "traditional interviews" with the press

Myth: Kagan supports holding terror suspects "without due process" (NEW)

Myth: Kagan believes that foreign law trumps constitutional law (NEW)

Myth: Kagan wants to protect sex offenders in the Catholic Church (NEW)

Myth: Kagan supports cloning human beings (NEW)


http://mediamatters.org/research/201006270002

[George Gervin's Afro]

spursncowboys keeps referring to her lack of experience. what does the constituion say in regards to qualifications? I'm sure SNC knows and will be willing to show me how dumb I am...

[spursncowboys]

spursncowboys keeps referring to her lack of experience. what does the constituion say in regards to qualifications? I'm sure SNC knows and will be willing to show me how dumb I am...

i am not saying Barry's appointment is unconstitutional. It is def unethical. But who here who is ok with barry's pick and was honestly ok with bush picking his political buddy?

chump: You ass*u*me my opinion about rehnquist. Dummas.

[MannyIsGod]

You keep saying its unethical but you also just completely ignored how you got smashed by chump a few posts above. You should acknowledge how something with such a long line of precedent is unethical.

[George Gervin's Afro]

i am not saying Barry's appointment is unconstitutional. It is def unethical. But who here who is ok with barry's pick and was honestly ok with bush picking his political buddy?

chump: You ass*u*me my opinion about rehnquist. Dummas.

he won the election and he can nominate anyone he wants to. bush packed the court with activist right wingers and obama is ding the same. i am hopeful we lose a conservative in the next couple of yrs...

[spursncowboys]

You keep saying its unethical but you also just completely ignored how you got smashed by chump a few posts above. You should acknowledge how something with such a long line of precedent is unethical.

:lol
I got smashed by chump. That sentence could never correctly be used by anyone. I do play that "one side did it, nonsense." i don't have a team in it. I also have many time acknowledged that I was against bush trying to do. Chump is an idiot and tries to move the goal post just to be argumentative.

[spursncowboys]

he won the election and he can nominate anyone he wants to. bush packed the court with activist right wingers and obama is ding the same. i am hopeful we lose a conservative in the next couple of yrs...

So you are ok with Bush doing it with Myers? I am talking about SCOTUS.

[spursncowboys]

During President George W. Bush's two term tenure in office, he nominated thirty-nine people for twenty-seven different federal appellate judgeships that were blocked by the Senate Democrats either directly in the Senate Judiciary Committee or on the full Senate floor using a filibuster.[1] Republicans labeled it an unwarranted obstruction of professionally qualified judicial nominees[2].Three of the nominees who were not processed (Paul S. Diamond, Loretta A. Preska and Philip P. Simon) were nominated after July 1, 2008, the traditional start date of the unofficial Thurmond Rule during a presidential election year. The Republicans claim that Senate Democrats of the 110th Congress on purpose tried to keep open particular judgeships as a political maneuver to allow a future Democratic president to fill them. Of the twenty-seven seats in question, nine were filled with the original Bush nominee, seven were eventually filled with different Bush nominees, seven have been filled with Democratic nominees by President Barack Obama and four are still open.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

[spursncowboys]

The Republicans claim that Senate Democrats of the 110th Congress on purpose tried to keep open particular judgeships as a political maneuver to allow a future Democratic president to fill them. Of the twenty-seven seats in question, nine were filled with the original Bush nominee, seven were eventually filled with different Bush nominees, seven have been filled with Democratic nominees by President Barack Obama and four are still open.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So you are ok with Bush doing it with Myers? I am talking about SCOTUS.

yes spursncowboys.. The President can nominate anyone he wants to.

On a side note, I actually would have preferred myers over scalito ....

[spursncowboys]

Maybe chump should explain the precedent set with the appointment of Bork.

[spursncowboys]

yes spursncowboys.. The President can nominate anyone he wants to.

On a side note, I actually would have preferred myers over scalito ....

So we both are agreeing on the same thing. He can nominate anyone he wants.

[spursncowboys]

Kagan, if confirmed, would be the first justice in almost 40 years to join the high court without prior judicial experience.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004582-503544.html

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe chump should explain the precedent set with the appointment of Bork.I'm sure you don't know Bork received an up or down vote.

If you did, you are trying to move the goalposts.

Hypocrite.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004582-503544.htmlWho was the last appointment without judicial experience?

Why didn't Kagan receive an up or down vote when she was first appointed to the judiciary?

[ChumpDumper]

chump: You ass*u*me my opinion about rehnquist. Dummas.Please state fully your opinion about Rehnquist.

And Warren.

[Winehole23]

The President of the United States is entitled to choose a judicial nominee whom he believes reflects his judicial philosophy; and his decision to nominate a highly qualified individual who swims in the broad mainstream of American legal life – a description that Kagan easily satisfies – warrants deference from the Senate. Some Democratic members of this Committee implicitly or expressly embrace this principle today but did not do so during the hearings for Justices Roberts and Alito. Some Republican members of this Committee implicitly or expressly embraced this principle during the hearings for Justices Roberts and Alito, but not today. The Democrats are right now and the Republicans were right then. But the opportunistic embrace of the principle, and the often-extremely-uncharitable characterization of the records of nominees of presidents of the opposite party, can only mean that neither side really believes in it. Such opportunism under the guise of principle is, with respect, worse than just regrettable; it damages the very judicial system the Committee is charged with nurturing and overseeing.


Miguel Estrada, a distinguished conservative lawyer who in my view was treated very unfairly by this Committee when he was nominated to serve on the federal bench, wrote to this Committee of Kagan: “If such a person, who has demonstrated great intellect, high accomplishments and an upright life, is not easily confirmable, I fear we have reached a point where no capable person will readily accept a nomination for judicial service.” I completely agree. Elena Kagan is immensely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. She should be easily confirmed.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/07-01-10%20Goldsmith%20Testimony.pdf

via Volokh (http://volokh.com/)

[boutons_deux]

"it damages the very judicial system"

wrapping their sorry, pitiful selves in the Constitution, Bible, the flag, lies, slander, distortions, these Repug Senators are insults to the country and intelligence.

Except for the fucking "force people to eat vegetables" question, Kagan owned their ridiculous asses.

[Winehole23]

wrapping their sorry, pitiful selves in the Constitution, Bible, the flag, lies, slander, distortions, these Repug Senators are insults to the country and intelligence.Prof. Goldsmith seems to agree with you, but he also includes the Dems in his conclusion.