Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan

Really, I think the President saying something about a Supreme Court ruling is not really different than a Congressman saying something about the President's agenda or the President saying something about a Congressman's bill.

And, I do not believe the ruling gave corporations the ability to dump money into campaign coffers of politicians. I think it said they can buy advertisements, etc for or against a candidate. While I detest that corporations are allowed to exist and do not like the ruling, I think it is defensible as a free speech issue in our current f'd up, 'corporations as people' system.

In other words, I do not think the ruling is the problem. I think the fact that corporations have the same rights as people is the problem and what led to the ruling.

 

Your interpretation and obvious spin of the Obama's words are highly biased and tainted with partisan nonsense. You don't have an objective bone in your body when it comes to Obama so I have absolutely no faith in your opinion. It just comes off as sour grapes from the losing side. Get over it, you lost and try to move on. YOU are unfit to judge someone like Obama. You have the right, just not any ability. If you want someone more aligned with your abilities, there is always Sarah Palin. She's a bright one.

 

So, Dr, how did you interpret the comments "the Obama" made toward the Supreme Court justices? Do you really believe he used the appropriate forum to air his displeasure with a ruling?
While we're at it, you do realize that you are guilty of the partisanship, close mindedness, (insert whatever hyperbole you & tomc invent), etc that you accuse me and every other conservative of, right? Every time another of BO's lies or shortcomings is exposed, rather than admit he goofed or even attempt to justify his stupidity, you go right to Bush, Palin, whoever. I admit I do not think BO is fit for the position and I believe virtually every decision he has made, every action he has taken was been detrimental to our nation so you'll have to forgive me for not giving him the benefit of the doubt. What is the old saying..."fool me once....."? Now, Dr, are you willing to admit the obvious? That you worship every step BO takes & in your view he can do no wrong?

 

I have no idea why it was an inappropriate forum. Perhaps you can elaborate why you think it was. Which protocols were violated? Which precedents were not adhered to? Let us look at Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution for guidance:

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

Well, that seems to give him a lot of latitude to say whatever the heck he wants to say. The only reason you are feigning outrage is because a right wing talking point told you to feel that way without the benefit of actually consulting the very document your ilk uses to beat people over the head with, without any actual knowledge of its content or intent.

If you want to try and learn me something good, learn the Constitution first.

 

I guess I'll begin by saying the last thing I need is an attempt from a BO loveblind hypocrite to explain his intrepretation of what the Constitution "means", I care more about what the Consitution actually says. And for future reference, simply underlining something, doesn't prove your point...in this case, the underlined portion refers specifically to recommendations he may want to make to Congress, it doesn't suggest, permit or encourage the prez to apply public pressure on the SC justices just because he happens to disagree with their ruling. In fact I would sumbit that BO's actions crossed the boundary of seperation of powers and that would be unconstitutional, wouldn't it. Your lame attempts to justify BO's inadequacies may be good enough for freshmen at orientation but you don't impress me- I know who & what you are- a hyopcritical self-importnant blowhard. Good Day, Dr

 

Again, I present the words of the Constitution as support for my argument, you provide your opinion and more name calling. Some things never change eh? As I've told you in the past, I have nothing to do with freshmen, but it seems that learning isn't your forte. You have a wonderful day my friend!

 

Hmmm...I always understood the Federal Government only had the powers that were specifically granted in the Constitution. Since I haven't read the piece which granted BO ("the Obama" as you refer to him) the power to, or mandated he, second guess & call out the SC for a ruling he disagreed with I just figured he was going too far. Silly me.

 

Fortunately, the rest of us don't have your "understanding" of the Constitution. What you are alluding to is the relationship between the Federal Government and the State Governments. What that has to do the three co-equal branches of the Federal Government, I really don't see. Do you think that Congress never talks to the Administrative branch? Do you think that the Administrative branch never talks to the Congress? Just a clue, they talk to each other all the time but for some reason you think that they can’t comment on the SC. Whatever!

State’s Rights is just the right wing talking point when they don't control the administrative branch. Bush and his administration had no problem interfering in state laws on assisted suicide, or states legalizing marijuana, or any other number of laws states passed. However, when the Republicans are out of office, all they can do is scream State’s Rights. I know you don't like to hearing about Bush but it was recent history and many of us are still in shock from the damage caused by his inept governance.

 

Ahh! The convenient morals of the Grand Old Party. I like how the Republicans always talk about what "most Americans" believe when in reality, they have no idea what "most Americans" believe.

SPIN METER: GOP senators' shifting standards

WASHINGTON — So, Senator, how much does judicial experience matter when considering a Supreme Court nominee?
It depends on when you're asking.
Republicans now criticizing President Barack Obama's nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for her lack of judicial experience welcomed that same lack of credentials a few years ago, when a president of their own party nominated a non-judge for the high court.
In 2005, when then-President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, plenty of Republicans said they found it refreshing that Miers' experience amounted primarily to her time as a corporate lawyer and Bush aide.
That included Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who noted then that "40 percent of the men and women who have served as Supreme Court justices" had no judicial experience.
"One reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers' qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court," Cornyn said in 2005. "Because right now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives or academicians."
Now, with a Democrat in the White House, what Cornyn once considered refreshing in a high court nominee is in Kagan's case "surprising."
"Ms. Kagan is ... a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience," Cornyn said Monday. "Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice."

Cont'ed...

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100512/US.Kagan.When.Experience.Counts/

 

Please, please show where in the Constitution it says "the Obama" is empowered to brow beat & second guess a SC decision before the world...and don't recycle your earlier post referring to convening Congress.
What I don't think is that it is okay for "the Obama" to dress down the SC justices for rendering a decision he doesn't agree with. Spin it however you wish but what "the Obama" attempted to do was intimidate the justices & embarrass them. He overstepped traditional boundaries and his authority...there's no excuse for conducting himself in that manner other than to make it clear that he intended to influence or control future court decisions.

About Bush, if everything about Bush was so wrong why is he always used to justify what "the Obama" says or does? Just askin'.

 

So, what side are you on....are you claiming the lack of judicial experience is enough to disqualify Kagan as it was in the case of Harriet Meiers? It would be sorta hypocritical to oppose Meiers for her lack of experience while supporting Kagan, wouldn't it?

 

Does your Constitution actualy say that a sitting President (Who is still a Citizen of the United States of America) does not have the same rights to freedom of speech as any other American? also soes it forbid him from critizising a suprem court ruling or Justice, are they actualy above reproch?
While what he did was to say the least unusual and quite possibly in breach of tradion I dont think he broke any written laws did he?

 

Thomas Jefferson was quite vocal during his state of the unions about anything he disagreed with. Some presidents are not so vocal. This "tradition" David keeps referring to is just nonsense. There is a long history in this country of presidents using the bully pulpit to chastise any number of issues but for some reason, I'm guessing it is lack of any knowledge of history, David feels this is somehow novel and brand new because Obama did it.

 

Well, here is the funny part about your memory or should I say lack of memory. I nor the Democrats argued that Harriet Miers should be disqualified for lack of experience. Think back now....It was members of the conserative party that found Miers nomination unacceptable. Apparently, she wasn't enough of an ideologue for them so they forced Bush to withdraw her name. The Democrats had nothing to with her withdrawal. So as you can see, the hypocrisy is clearly with the GOP once again. Ain't being a student of history so much more fun than being a zombie of right wing talking points?

 

I happen to believe tradition is an important part of who we are as a country. There's an old saying that goes something like.."Conservatives believe we need to preserve America's greatness, while liberals believe they know what changes need to be made to make America great".
And as far as your comparison of "the Obama" to Thomas Jefferson? I don't think so. "the Obama" certainly is no Thomas Jefferson, heck he isn't even a Jimmy Carter!

 

So what point is it you are trying to make, Dr? It seems you are trying to argue a point that no one here is disputing and why keep bringing up Miers? What does she have to do with the nomination of Kagan anyway?

 

YOU brought up miers not me. I posted an article with her name mentioned. YOU made her the focus. Have you ever admitted to being wrong? Try it sometime. It could open whole new learning possibilities for you.

 

Her name was more than mentioned...don't run from this one too.

 

and then there was the Terry Shivo republican powerplay...

 

Strange. I see it as BO pointing out who did what. I wish all prez's acted with that same objectivity.