AP: Senate GOP leader opposes Kagan

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Quote:

---

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_..._controversies

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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 ....

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Quote:

---

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_1...82-503544.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...82-503544.html

---

Who 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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

---

Please state fully your opinion about Rehnquist.

And Warren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Goldsmith

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/07-0...0Testimony.pdf

via Volokh

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b_d

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.