SCOTUS Round II: Let's get ready to rumble

[OakRidgeStars]

No wise Latinas on the nominee list this time around. Just a judge that's not really a judge with no judicial experience. Sounds perfect for this administration.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/09/sc ... ing-elena/

[VBshooter]

IMHO... an election year move to appease women and gays,,,, Grasping at any straw he can get to rally the base of his blind faith unseeing followers and supporters of worthless causes. THe confirmation circus should be fun on this one too as anyone who opposes will be deemed a sexist woman hating ,homosexuall discriminating against nazi or worse by buttholes like Chuckie (snif snif ) Schumer and the other social parasites that will fall all over themselves in a feeding frenzy to confirm this woman ASAP to satiate the Mighty Obama so that he might show favor on their meager souls so they can serve irresponsibly in stupid inane bliss evermore.,....

[OakRidgeStars]

Trivia question: Who remembers Harriet Miers?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... iers/full/

[zephyp]

IMHO... an election year move to appease women and gays,,,,

I dont think so...this is a powerful woman...she supposedly has a craft for bringing opposing sides together and she is very liberal...plus she is quite young and will most likely sit on the bench for the next 30-40 years...obama aint no dummy and for him he picked a good one...

[KaosDad]

DK - yes. But, again, we have a "President" with no governing experience nominating a person to SCOTUS with no judicial experience. Look, I have NO political experience, I can has a position???

Other than BOHICA?

[Diomed]

Rumble? The GOP will roll over for her just like they did on Sotomayor. In the main there isn't a whole lot of harm in it, since she's replacing one of the hard left wingers, and is probably not as intelligent or as eloquent as Stevens is (or, really, used to be, before he went senile).

I have no problem with someone who is not a judge being nominated, and I wouldn't have a problem with someone who isn't a lawyer being nominated either - as far as those two "qualifications" are concerned, anyway. Nothing in the Constitution about who can sit on the SC, other than being nominated by the President and consented to by the Senate. Plenty of justices haven't even been lawyers.

[zephyp]

DK - yes. But, again, we have a "President" with no governing experience nominating a person to SCOTUS with no judicial experience. Look, I have NO political experience, I can has a position???

Other than BOHICA?

Yeah but now this is gonna go on for a long long time...

[VBshooter]

I still think she's not qualified and that Obama is making a political move by additionally promoting another one of his damn Harvard cronies. It's not a judges job to bring sides together, Promote popular political causes , or any other liberal crappola...Its their job to interprete the law and apply it correctly. I don;t think she makes the grade. Period!

[Chasbo00]

Her way of supporting the troops is to look like the Marine Corps mascot.

[OakRidgeStars]

If she's as liberal as she is ugly, we're all in big trouble

[Chasbo00]

Vets Blast Kagan Nomination:

"As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan banned ROTC recruiters from using the school’s Office of Career Services, saying the Pentagon's "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy of restricting open gays from serving in the military “is profoundly wrong -- both unwise and unjust.”

Kagan challenged the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that allows the secretary of Defense the right to deny federal funds to colleges that prevent military recruiters or the ROTC on campus.

Kagan and 40 other Harvard Law School professors signed an amicus brief saying the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed with the professors, ruling 8-0 to uphold the law.

Pete Hegseth an Iraq war veteran and executive director of Vets For Freedom told HUMAN EVENTS that he believes that Kagan views the military as not fitting in with the “elite culture” at Harvard.

Kagan comes from a perspective that “having the military at the law school would be below them,” Hegseth said."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36938

[zephyp]

@Spence - for the current administration she is highly qualified and will serve them well...

@Jay - all liberal women are as ugly as mug fences on a rainy day...kagan looks like a younger version or nepalatino and janet reno...they all kinda look alike...ugly that is...

[VBshooter]

@DK ..yup will serve THEM well... I know it is far to much to expect the current group of misguided liberal toilet cleaners to actually do it right and consider the true purpose of the appointment. Once again we can watch the dog and pony show while they fall all over themselves in praise of this woman...Hell maybe CHuckie Schumer can even snivvle a bit and make his voice crack (how moving).....and BS .. like he did with the other homely broad Onumbnuts picked..

On the liberal woman being ugly ... yeah and scary too..just look how the liberal geldings and unicks step to when told to..

[zephyp]

Spence, sad but true -- the true purpose of this appointment is to contribute further to the demise of our precious republic...

[Chasbo00]

Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument

"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.”"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... I35t8uR6Gs

[OakRidgeStars]

You can file this one under "I'm not surprised"

--

http://biggovernment.com/kenandken/2010 ... un-rights/


Kagan opposes Second Amendment gun rights
By Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski
May 14, 2010

A third instance of Elena Kagan opposing Americans' Second Amendment right to own a gun became public Thursday, ensuring gun rights will be a major issue in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. It also confirms that President Obama's gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will "reinterpret" the Second Amendment until that amendment means nothing at all.

This year, no case on the Supreme Court docket is more important than McDonald v. Chicago, where the Court is deciding whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only a right you have against the federal government, or instead if the Second Amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights) also secures a right you can assert against state and local governments. At issue is whether Chicago's law banning guns-even in your own home-is constitutional.

When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, then-Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, and then requested and received time to argue the federal government's position on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2, current Solicitor General Kagan argued... Nothing. Not only did she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn't even file a brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important constitutional cases-and the McDonald case is tremendously important).

If someone asserts that the solicitor general shouldn't file a brief because it's a state issue as to whether the Second Amendment is "incorporated" to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (which is the issue in McDonald) the record speaks to the contrary. The last time the Supreme Court "incorporated" a right from the Bill of Rights to the states, in the 1969 case Benton v. Maryland, the solicitor general filed a brief, and then (just like Heller in 2008) was given time in oral argument time to express the government's views in front of the Court.

Why wouldn't Kagan file a brief expressing the view of over 75% of Americans that the Second Amendment is an individual right, one that every American citizen has against both the the federal government and state/local government?

Aside from her shocking decision not to file a brief in McDonald, we've learned that Elena Kagan was part of the Clinton White House's gun-control efforts, where a Clinton staffer said, "We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns."

Then on Thursday it became public that when the Supreme Court was asked in 1987 to decide if the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional (the same law that the Court eventually struck down in Heller) when Kagan was clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan's analysis to Marshall was that she was "not sympathetic" toward the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't allow D.C. to completely ban all guns.

Three anti-gun decisions. And her nomination isn't even a week old.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama supports the Chicago gun ban, a position he publicly repeated as recently as June 26, 2008 (the day the Heller decision was released). President Obama believes that there's nothing unconstitutional about your city-or even your whole state-completely banning you from having any firearms for hunting or self-defense, even in your own home.

As we discuss in our new bestselling book, The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, President Obama's gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will repeatedly rule that whatever gun-control laws come before it are okay. No matter how severe the anti-gun measure is, the Court will say, "No constitutional problems with this law."

President Obama-the most anti-gun president is American history-has nominated for our highest court a close personal friend of his. And now we see that Obama has every reason to believe that his close personal friend shares his radical view on the Second Amendment, one that will work against the constitutional rights of 90 million American gun owners.

All this, as the National Rifle Association goes to Charlotte, North Carolina this weekend for the NRA Annual Meeting. You don't have to wonder what we'll be talking about in Charlotte.

Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings this summer could get very interesting. America's gun owners have a way of making their voices heard.

[zephyp]

So, were you actually surprised to find this out...

[VBshooter]

Quote"Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings this summer could get very interesting. America's gun owners have a way of making their voices heard."

Yup and we screamed like hell the last time only to have both of our sheep in the Senate sell us out as they have with most of Onumbnuts appointments, But we can't let that stop us from raising hell again to get our message across,, Our turn will come eventually.

[OakRidgeStars]

Heard a funny yesterday about the future addition to the SCOTUS. Now that NASA has launched it's last space shuttle (at least for a while), they can turn their expertise to a new goal....

Successfully landing a man on Elena Kagan

[zephyp]

Heard a funny yesterday about the future addition to the SCOTUS. Now that NASA has launched it's last space shuttle (at least for a while), they can turn their expertise to a new goal....

Successfully landing a man on Elena Kagan