E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
7:14 ET: That's all for tonight, everyone. We'll be back at it tomorrow morning, so come back to First Read for more analysis and live updates then. Thanks for reading!
7:05 ET: The gavel is down. The hearing is recessed until 9am ET tomorrow. Senators who will get their first chance so far for questions tomorrow: Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Franken. Then the second round starts: Each lawmaker will have 20 minutes to question the nominee.
7:05 ET: "I know it's been a long and tiring day," said Leahy, offering to wrap up today's session, "unless you want to override that."
"No, that's good," Kagan replied.
An almost audible sigh of relief goes up from staff, journalists, and audience members alike.
7:03 ET: Kagan and Cardin are now discussing the high average number of hours of pro bono work (legal services offered for free "for the public good") done by Harvard Law School students during Kagan's deanship. One criticism of Kagan, though, is that she herself has not done as much pro bono work as previous Supreme Court nominees.
6:57 ET: There were fewer reporters at today's proceedings than were present yesterday, but most of those who were here today are sticking it out until the end despite the late hour. There are a total of about 150 seats available for reporters at six long press tables. About a third of the seats are still full now.
6:50 ET: Cardin just referenced allegations of voter suppression during his Senate race in 2006. "There were direct efforts made to diminish minority voting." He defeated now-RNC Chairman Michael Steele by 10 points in that race.
6:44 ET: Cardin discussing minority voting rights and access to the legal system. Cardin was the chairman of the Maryland Legal Services Corporation - which helps give low-income people access to legal aide - for seven years. "The idea of equality under law is a fundamental American ideal, a fundamental American value," Kagan told him.
6:41 ET: Kagan: "The Constitution is a kind of genius document."
6:38 ET: Next up is Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. Chairman Leahy indicated that Cardin may not be the final questioner tonight after all. Kagan has now been on the hot seat for almost 10 hours.
6:33 ET: Several senators, mostly Republicans, have asked Kagan about her interpretation of the Commerce Clause. It's an area of great dispute in the legal community. Here's a briefer from Cornell University Law School.
6:28 ET: Coburn asked about the constitutionality of a hypothetical law mandating that all American citizens eat a certain number of fruits and vegetables each day. "Sounds like a dumb law," Kagan responded.
6:23 ET: Senators on both sides of the aisle today have accused current justices of breaking promises they made during their confirmation hearing once they were permanently installed on the bench. "Once you're there, you're there," Coburn underscored.
6:17 ET: Kagan said she is channeling Chief Justice John Roberts' philosophy as articulated in his confirmation hearing. "One should approach the question of Constitutional interpretation pragmatically, without a single overarching strategy," she said.
6:08 ET: Small but noticeable sign that Kagan is getting a little tired -- now nine hours into questioning: She accidentally addressed Sen. Coburn as "Justice Coburn."
"Don't worry, I will never get there," Coburn responded.
6:07 ET: Making sure to call Kagan a 'liberal' numerous times, Coburn (who is one of the Senate's most conservative Republicans) said that Kagan should not be abashed about her views: "I don't want you to run away from that ... it's who you are."
6:05 ET: Coburn said Kagan has been avoiding answering questions straightforwardly: "Maybe you should be on Dancing with the Stars."
6:04 ET: Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is up next. He may be the last member to question Kagan today. "We'll see how it goes," Chairman Leahy said.
5:58 ET: Who's left? There are currently seven of the 19 committee members on the dais. The two most junior Democrats on the panel, Sen. Al Franken and his Minnesota delegation colleague Amy Klobuchar, have been two of the lawmakers most consistently in the room throughout the day. Neither of them will get a chance to speak until tomorrow.
5:53 ET: It's worth remembering that Kagan has already been asked many of the same questions she is answering today before -- by the same panel of lawmakers. Her views on gun rights, detainee rights, and transparency in confirmation hearings were probed during her Solicitor General confirmation hearing on February 20, 2009. (She shared the spotlight that day with a nominee to become an Associate Attorney General.) The transcript of that hearing is here.
5:51 ET: Kagan emphasizes that the positions that she has taken as Solicitor General have not always necessarily reflected her personal views.
5:45 ET:Kagan: "The constitutionality of the death penalty is established law and entitled to precedential weight."
5:38 ET: Durbin's first question deals with the issue of how those convicted of cocaine possession are sentenced. The wide disparity for sentencing between possessors of crack and powder cocaine is regarded by many as one that is unfair to minorities.
5:34 ET: On to the next questioner: Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
5:28 ET: Cornyn calling out Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her dissenting opinion in yesterday's Monday's Chicago gun ban decision, which he says is at odds with Sotomayor's testimony during her confirmation hearing.
5:26 ET: More questioning on gun rights from Cornyn. He has an A rating from the National Rifle Association.
5:18 ET: Cornyn asking about whether the individual mandate in the newly passed health care law, which requires most Americans to purchase insurance or face a fine, is constitutional.
Kagan responds: "The current state of the law is to grant broad deference to Congress in this area," (meaning issues that affect interstate commerce). But she notes that there are some limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
5:15 ET: Cornyn brought up concerns about what he believes to be the increasing intrusion of the government in Americans' lives. Recently, "the Court has suggested that there are some limits on the scope of the federal government," Kagan countered.
5:11 ET: Justices "are always constrained by the law. It's law all the way down," Kagan says of her dedication to the Constitution and legal precedent.
5:08 ET: Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee charged with electing GOP senators, hints at the issue that his party is most enthusiastic about bringing up. He wants to return to the issue of military recruiting at Harvard, which prompted the Sessions-Kagan scuffle earlier today.
5:03 ET: We're back. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked if Kagan ever spoke to Miguel Estrada during the time that he was being filibustered by Senate Democrats. She responded that she did not, but that if she did not make a public comment in support of his nomination at the time, it was only because "he never asked me to."
4:58 ET: As Nasty As They Wanna Be is NOT, in fact, the title of a Democratic email blast deriding Republicans for their harsh questioning of Elena Kagan. It's the name of a 2 Live Crew album that Kagan is more familiar with than you'd think. Here's why.
4:55 ET: Fatigued reporters and staff members relieved to hear that the committee won'ttry to fit in questioning from every member of the committee today. We've been advised that either four or five more members of the committee will get their first chance tonight, including the two remaining Republicans - Coburn and Cornyn - on the panel. They'll wrap up the remaining three or four first round questioners tomorrow.
4:35 ET: Another 10 minute break. Leahy said that he's "enjoying some of the ethnic humor" in the hearing, a reference to Kagan's joke about eating in a Chinese restaurant on Christmas Day.
4:29 ET: More from Kagan on foreign law:"Judges should learn from a variety of sources that are not binding, that do not have precedential force."
4:28 ET: Kagan noted that she has "the greatest admiration" for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, considered by some Democrats to be a judicial bomb-thrower. "Thank you for that," Schumer replied after a pause.
4:25 ET: We're close to a 10 minute break, which will begin after Schumer's time is up.
4:20 ET: Kagan: "The First Amendment has not been thought to be absolute," requires interpretation by the courts.
4:13 ET:Kagan, on judicial 'activism': "I think activism does not have a party."
4:10 ET:Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is the next questioner. He asked Kagan to define what she means by "modesty" on the court.
4:08 ET: Graham just asked Kagan about a 2005 letter that she wrote - along with several other deans - criticizing his proposed amendment to strip the courts of their ability to review detention practices and judgments of guilt for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Here's an excerpt from that letter (via the gold standard SCOTUSblog)
"Were the Graham amendment to become law, a person suspected of being a member of al-Qaeda could be arrested, transferred to Guantanamo, detained indefinitely ... subjected to inhumane treatment, tried before a military commission and sentenced to death without any express authorization from Congress and without review by any independent federal court. The American form of government was established precisely to prevent this kind of unreviewable exercise of power over the lives of individuals. "
More: When dictatorships have passed laws stripping their courts of power to review executive detention or punishment of prisoners, our government has rightly challenged such acts as funuamentally lawless."
Graham acknowledged that he did not take her criticism personally. But, he added, "You did say 'that's what dictatorships do.' I thought that was a little over the top."
4:00 ET:Kagan, after Graham asked her to think about the treatment of terror suspects as if she were just an everyday American: "I'm reluctant to say how how I would think about the question as an average everyday citizen, because I might have to think about the question as a judge."
3:57 ET: Returning to seriousness: Graham noted that the Obama administration has been "pretty good to work with" on issues of Miranda rights and terror suspects.
3:54 ET: Comedy continues. After a windup, Graham asked "Where are you at on Christmas Day...?"
Kagan began by trying to clarify Graham's question, asking if he was speaking about the issue of Miranda rights being read to domestic terrorists like the man arrested in the course of attempting to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day 2009.
Graham deadpanned - cutting her off - "No, I'm just asking where you were on Christmas."
Prolonged guffaw from Kagan, who finally responded: "You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant."
3:45 ET:Graham now speaking about Kagan's role in cases regarding detainees. "Let's talk about the war," he said affably when introducing the tough topic.
3:44 ET: Graham mentioned Miguel Estrada's letter of support for Kagan. Estrada, a conservative appellate judge nominee whose nomination was nixed by Senate Democrats in 2003, urged her confirmation, writing that "Elena possesses a formidable intellect, an exemplary temperament and a rare ability to disagree with others without being disagreeable."
Asked by Graham if Estrada is qualified to serve as an appellate judge, Kagan answered that he is.
"Well, your stock really went up with me," said Graham in response.
3:39 ET: Graham acknowledged that "elections have consequences," meaning that the president, once elected, has the right to nominate judges of his or her own ideological stripes. Kagan agreed.
3:36 ET: Ninety seconds into his questioning, the often folksy Sen. Lindsey Graham has already made the room burst into giggles more than once. Citing Kagan's 1995 complaint about the lack of transparency in confirmation hearings, he asked if she believed the current panel has improved on the hearing model: "So, it's all those other guys that sucked, not us," he deadpanned in response.
3:34 ET: Very tough questioning from a very curt Sen. Specter. He was visibly frustrated that Kagan wouldn't answer a question about whether or not she would have elected to hear a case about terrorist surveillance.
3:32 ET: Sen. Graham has taken his seat on the dais, just in time. (Specter has about 2 minutes of questioning left.)
3:28 ET: Specter liked what he heard from Kagan about putting cameras in the Supreme Court. (She said earlier today that it would be "a terrific thing" if the court's arguments were televised.)
Specter said that "we may be getting closer" to legislation that would require the court's proceedings to be available to media outlets' cameras.
"From all perspectives, televising would be a good idea," Kagan agreed.
"It means I'd have to get my hair done more often," she added.
"You have shown a really admirable sense of humor," said Specter in reply after a long, laughter-filled pause. The joke made him crack a smile for the first time today.
3:18 ET: Kagan, in response to yet another question about Citizens United:"It's a little bit difficult to take off the advocate's hat and put on the judge's hat."
3:17 ET: Specter, frustrated: "I don't think I'm making too much progress."
3:11 ET: Specter appears impatient with Kagan's reluctance to answer many of his questions directly. He's a notoriously tough questioner who has served on the Judiciary Committee for 30 years. His interrogation of Kagan might have been more tempered if he was still in the midst of a hard-fought primary in his home state, but he lost the Democratic nomination after being defeated by Rep. Joe Sestak on May 18.
3:09 ET: Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., is up. He used to be the Republican chairman of this committee, before he lost his seniority when he switched parties last year. He's now ninth in the hierarchy.
3:04 ET: Mood a little lighter after this: Kagan notes that her kind words about Barak were spoken when the Israeli judge was at her school to accept an award. "If you had come to Harvard Law School, I would have given you a great introduction too," Kagan told senators with a little smile.
"Now Sen. Grassley has something to look forward to!" exclaimed Leahy.
3:03 ET: Leahy and Sessions scuffling a little bit about Leahy rebutting each GOP witness after questioning. (He'd just jumped in to note that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has also spoken highly of Barak). Low whistles of surprise from the press corps...
2:58 ET:Responding to criticism of her admiration for Israeli Supreme Court judge Aharon Barak, Kagan said that she admires his leadership in the Israeli government but added that she in no way believes that "his ideas ... should be transplanted to the United States."
"I am Jewish. The state of Israel has meant a lot to me and my family." she noted.
2:53 ET: Grassley's line of questioning about international law is one that's come under fierce debate among legal scholars. Steven Duffield, a former chief counsel for Sen. Jon Kyl and Judicary Committee analyst for the Senate Republican Policy Committee, told me last week that "the question of foreign law has become a proxy battle for the elites versus the people, as far as many Republicans and conservatives are concerned."
2:48 ET: Grassley asked Kagan how much weight she thinks the laws of other countries should have in judicial decisions. Kagan responded that international law should not be given "independent precedential weight." She advised that lawyers should look "where ever you can find ... good ideas” but that other nations' laws should be evaluated separately from the all-important American Constitution.
2:34 ET: In a question about gun rights, Grassley zeroed in on a statement Kagan wrote in 1987, when she was clerking for Thurgood Marshall. She wrote in a memo that she was “not sympathetic” to an appeals request from a man who said that his rights had been violated after he was convicted for unlawful possession of a pistol. The man's argument was similar to the complaint that prompted the landmark Heller case that overturned the D.C. handgun ban.
Kagan said that her view of the 1987 appeal would be dramatically different now that the Heller case is settled law.
"I do think that Heller is the law going forward," she said. "I accept the court's analysis and will apply it going forward."
2:29 ET: The nominee is back in the room. She smiled and answered in the affirmative to Leahy's question: "Did you get a chance to get some lunch?"
2:26 ET: Chairman Leahy's back on the dais. We're almost ready to start up again.
2:14 ET: After the break, we'll hear questions from Sens. Grassley, Specter, Graham, and Schumer. The one to watch is Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, who yesterday blunted some of his own party's attacks on Kagan's past as a political aide but did not indicate how he plans to vote on her confirmation. He was the only GOP member of the committee who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.
1:59 ET: The cameras. The crowds of Wifi-demanding, information-gobbling reporters. The security and logistics. Ever wonder how much a confirmation hearing costs?
As the National Law Journal reported last month, the committee has set aside an additional $300,000 to cover the costs of the Kagan hearing.
1:50 ET: Your live-blogger is back from a quick break, and the full hearing will be resuming in about 30 minutes.
The most contentious exchange of the day so far has been the back-and-forth between nominee Kagan and Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the panel. He questioned her on her role in banning military recruiters from using an on-campus placement center at Harvard Law School. The ban was a reaction to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which school officials said violated non-discrimination policy. Kagan said that the recruiters had "full and good" access to students during her deanship. Sessions countered that Kagan treated the recruiters in "a second-class way."
Watch the whole exchange below:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
1:03 ET: The hearing has stopped for a lunch break. Chairman Leahy estimated that we'll resume around 2:20pm ET.
12:58 ET: Wondering where the Supreme Court justices are from? Of the eight current members, three were born in New York (Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Roberts), two in Trenton, NJ (Scalia, Alito) and two in California (Breyer, Kennedy). Only one, Justice Clarence Thomas, is from a rural community; he hails from Pin Point, Ga.
12:51 ET:Feingold recalled that he joked with now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing, delivering a dig that Sotomayor's New York Yankee fandom rendered her too distant from the lives of everyday, small-town Americans whose hometown baseball teams lose year after year. "I understand you're a Mets fan. At least that's more of an underdog," he told Kagan.
He went on to note that his constituents question why so many of their Supreme Court justices are from the East Coast. (Yesterday, in his opening remarks, Feingold said that he hopes to see more geographic diversity on the court in the future.)
"I hope I have always been a person who's been able to see beyond my own background," Kagan said in response.
12:45 ET: Kagan, discussing the interplay of the three branches of government: "When it comes to policy, it ought to be Congress and the president that do the policy-making." Courts, she added, must respect the other branches' areas of jurisdiction.
12:40 ET: On yesterday's court decision that struck down the Chicago gun ban, Kagan said that she hasn't read the opinions from the court yet.
12:31 ET: Kagan stuttered a little bit in her effort to respond to a question broached by Sen. Feingold about how the Citizens United case was treated by the Supreme Court. (Before the landmark decision, the court asked that attorneys on both sides of the debate return to argue the case a second time with a broader focus about the fundamental underpinnings of campaign finance laws.) After starting and stopping her response a few times, she carefully replied: "As the case came to the court, it did not address the issue that the Court ended up deciding."
12:30 ET: Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., is up next. He'll likely question the nominee at length about Citizens Unitedas well; his name was on the legislation (McCain-Feingold) that the court essentially gutted in its ruling on that case.
12:18 ET: Asked about a hand-written noteshe wrote while serving in the Clinton White House, Kagan said that a scribble that compared the NRA to the KKK was simply a note quoting another speaker on a telephone call, not her own view. "It was just telephone notes ... That would be a ludicrous comparison," she said.
12:15 ET: Asked if she would characterize the current court as too "activist" when it comes to decisions that favor big business, Kagan responded "I don't want to characterize the court because someday I hope to join it."
"And they said you're not political," a smiling Kyl responded as laughter erupted in the room.
12:07 ET: Questioning again turns to Kagan's admiration of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. TPM's Christina Bellantoni did the count yesterday and found that Marshall's name was uttered 35 times in yesterday's opening statements.
"If you confirm me to this position, you'll get Justice Kagan. You won't get Justice Marshall," Kagan said today.
12:05 ET: Kyl cited a quote by Chief Justice John Roberts, who said during his confirmation hearing:
"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Asked if she agreed with Roberts on that point, Kagan responded, "Yes, senator, I do."
12:02 ET: Kyl asked Kagan about the Obama administration's often-used talking point about protecting "the little guy" against big corporations. "Courts have to be level playing fields," she responded. "Everybody has to have an opportunity to go before the court ... and get the opportunity to make his best case and get a fair shake."
11:58 ET: Kagan, Leahy, and - of course - the press had to come back for an hour before lunch, but not every member of the committee returned. There are only seven of the 19 committee members seated on the dais now. "You can see how important my colleagues think my questions are," Kyl joked.
11:57 ET: And, we're back. We're told it'll be about an hour until lunchtime. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is next up.
11:46 ET: We're in a 10 minute break now, which means it's time for History Facts! Check out our post on how confirmation hearings have changed over the past 100 years.
11:37 ET:Sen. Sessions took a break from sitting on the dais to do an interview on CNN. Msnbc.com Political Editor Vaughn Ververs was watching and reports:
Sen. Sessions questioned Kagan’s “intellectual honesty” in regard to her response to questions about her role in the military recruiting ban at Harvard. Sessions called her version of events “an attempt to alter the reality of the situation” and said he was “disappointed” she was not more “forthcoming” on the issue. “I don’t think she helped herself with that testimony today,” he said. Pressed several times on whether the issue would be enough to consider a filibuster, Sessions would not commit but added, “I’m more troubled by her nomination today than I was when we started.”
11:31 ET: There's been a lot of talk in this hearing room today about campaign finance and the Citizens United decision. But even as the rules of political campaign funding were being chewed over by committee members in this room, there was news breaking in the outside world on the legal campaign finance beat.
From the AP:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed a ban on unlimited contributions to political parties, rejecting a Republican Party appeal to undo a major aspect of campaign finance law.
Five months after the court ruled in favor of unlimited corporate and labor spending in federal elections, the justices on Tuesday turned down a request to consider ending the ban on the raising of soft money — unlimited donations from corporations, unions and others — by national party committees.
The soft money ban was a cornerstone of the 2002 congressional overhaul of federal campaign finance law.
11:22 ET: My colleague Domenico Montanaro points out: Feinstein is now pressing Kagan about presidential power, which was one of the issues that raised concerns among liberals when Obama picked Kagan for the court. Some liberals expressed concern after her nomination because she had said little to date about how much power the president has to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.
11:14 ET: Feinstein's first line of questioning is about gun law, an issue that she says she has sadly been "too close to.""seen too much." She noted that she became the mayor of San Francisco after the current mayor and a city supervisor were assassinated in 1978. (That city supervisor was Harvey Milk, the openly gay politican whose life was the subject of an Oscar winning film.)
Feinstein asked about two recent gun rights cases, including the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the city's gun ban.
"Once the court has decided the case, it is binding precedent," Kagan responded. She noted that precedents can be overturned for a variety of legal reasons, but that the law of precedent is "enormously important."
11:11 ET: Another lighthearted moment: Feinstein told Kagan, "I want to have a little heart-to-heart with you."
"No one else listen," a grinning Leahy instructed the rest of us.
11:09 ET:Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., will be the last to quiz Kagan before a 10 minute break.
11:08 ET: Hatch: "I get a little tired of people misstating what Citizens United was all about." Yesterday, Sessions said that Democrats were "distorting" the meaning of the case.
10:59 ET: Speaking of primary races: Hatch himself may have one when he's up for re-election in 2012. GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz has hinted that he may launch a challenge against the incumbent senator -- a prospect that may seem more alarming to Hatch after watching his Utah colleague Sen. Bob Bennett ousted by his own party mere weeks ago.
Hatch was one of seven Republicans who voted for Kagan as Solicitor General last year. But his looming re-election may make him more reluctant to support Kagan this time around.
10:54 ET: Speaking about how special interests influence political campaigns, Hatch brings up Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln's Democratic primary challenge. Her opponent, Lt Gov. Bill Halter, benefited from the support of labor unions who contributed about $10 million towards the effort to unseat her. (Lincoln won the runoff election against Halter on June 8.)
10:48 ET: Big laugh in the hearing room: After a brief scuffle about questioning with his colleague Sen. Leahy, Hatch quipped: "We have to have a little back and forth every once in a while, or else this place would be boring as hell."
Kagan smiled broadly and responded that she doesn't mind anything that takes the spotlight off of her for a few minutes.
10:43 ET: Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is next up for questioning. Hatch's questions so far have centered on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the recent Supreme Court decision that vastly expanded how corporations can use their general treasury funds to advocate for political campaigns. Kagan was one of the attorneys who argued that case - unsuccessfully - as Solicitor General before the Supreme Court.
10:35 ET: Some West Wing pushback: Shortly after she faced fierce questioning about her attitude towards the military, the White House posted on its blogan essay from a Harvard Law School student who served in the Army for five years before enrolling at the school in 2007. He writes: "Elena Kagan has recently comeunder attack as someone who is anti-military. To place such a label on Ms. Kagan is unfair and ill-informed."
10:32 ET: Kohl asked how Kagan feels about putting television cameras in the Supreme Court. (Currently, the proceedings are closed to cameras; reporters can't even bring voice recorders or Blackberries into the room for oral arguments.)
Kagan responded that she would have to talk to the other justices about their feelings on the issue. But, she added, "I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom ... when you see what happens there, it's an inspiring sight."
10:25 ET: Kohl asked which direction Kagan believes she would move the court, but she declined to answer. (Yesterday, Kohl noted that Kagan's judicial philosophy is "almost invisible to us.")
10:19 ET: Kagan earned a knowing chuckle from those in the committee room who have been hearing a lot about that 1995 book review in which she was critical of the judicial confirmation process. (You can read the whole paper here.)
Kohl prefaced a question on the subject with: "I think it's a good time to ask about" that paper now.
"Yes, it's been a half an hour!" Kagan responded.
10:14 ET: Three members of the Senate Judiciary Committe are going to have particularly busy days, because they also serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee - the panel that will hear from Gen. David Petraeus today in his confirmation to replace the recently-resigned Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The three members are Sens. Sessions, Kaufman, and Graham. None of them are in the committee room now.
10:09 ET: Kagan gets a respite from Sessions' relentless questioning. It's now time for inquiry from Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc.
His first question? Why do you want to be a Supreme Court justice? "I'm sure you're a woman of passions. Where are your passions?" he asked.
10:03 ET: "I am a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks," Sessions said as his time for questioning expired. "If you had any complaint it should have been made to the United States Congress," not to members of the military, he said.
10:02 ET: Kagan: "All I was trying to do was to make sure that Harvard Law School could also comply with its anti-discrimination policy" for the sake of gay and lesbian students while also following federal law. Recruiters had "full and good access" to students during her deanship, she said.
10:00 ET: More Sessions: "You were taking steps to treat [military recruiters] in a second-class way."
9:59 ET:"Senator Sessions, we did what DOD asked for," Kagan says.
"In fact, you [were] punishing the military," Sessions counters.
9:52 ET: From our preview piece yesterday, here's some background about the Solomon Amendment, which Sessions is pressing Kagan about now:
In 2003, when she was the dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan called the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy "a moral injustice of the first order."
At the time, the school had a ban against on-campus recruiting by organizations that practice hiring discrimination, but Harvard did not enforce the ban against the military because a federal statute — the Solomon Amendment — would have required the school to give up federal funding if it banned military recruiters.
When an appeals court ruled that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional, Kagan immediately required that military recruiters collaborate with a student group rather than use a campus placement center. The court decision was eventually nullified, but Kagan continued the modified ban until the Department of Defense threatened to pull funding for all of Harvard University. She also signed on to a brief challenging the military's policy; the argument that she backed was later resoundingly rejected by the Supreme Court.
9:49 ET: Kagan said that she personally opposes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy - which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving in the military - and called the policy "unwise and unjust."
"I believed it then and I believe it now," she said. (She called the policy "a moral injustice of the first order" during her tenure as the dean of Harvard Law School.)
9:48 ET:Msnbc.com Political Editor Vaughn Ververs points out about Chairman Leahy's opening questions: Taking advantage of being first, Sen. Leahy teed up someof the expected lines of Republican attack for Kagan: Her thoughts on what the framers thought about changes in the Constitution; the ban on military recruitment at Harvard; her article suggesting nominees should display more candor in these hearings and her past political work. It won’t stop Republicans from continuing to probe on these issues but one of the roles of the majority members in this hearing will be to help her formulate and advance her defense.
9:45 ET: Kagan and Sessions now going back and forth of the issue of military recruiting at Harvard Law School. Sen. Sessions has been cutting off several of her answers; Leahy pressed him to allow her to finish.
9:42 ET: Sessions just referred to Kagan as "a legal progressive." Kagan responded: "I honestly don't know what that label means."
9:38 ET: Sessions asked Kagan about her service as an aide to two Democratic presidents. Kagan's response: "I'm not quite sure how I would characterize my politics" but she went on to vehemently promise that her politics "would be, must be, have to be ... separate from my judging."
The exchange prompted lots of furious typing over here at the press tables.
9:37 ET: Sen. Jeff Sessions, the leading Republican on the committee, is now questioning the nominee. He was highly critical of her lack of judicial experience and her tenure as a political aide during his opening statement yesterday.
9:33 ET:Kagan says "I've cried only one time throughout this process." She said she teared up when she read this supportive op-ed by Robert Merrill, who was the only active-duty service member to have received a JD from Harvard while Kagan was the dean.
9:29 ET: Kagan: "I am confident that the military had access to our students, and the students had access to the military throughout my entire deanship" of Harvard Law School.9:26 ET: First mention of gun rights and Second Amendment issues of the day comes in response to a question from Leahy. She called a recent landmark gun rights case "binding precedent."
9:25 ET: Kagan, who has served as the federal government's lawyer (the Solicitor General) for the last year, spoke about situations in which she might have to recuse herself from ruling on a Supreme Court cases that she substantially participated in as a government official. She said that she would recuse herself from cases that she was involved in or publicly approved.
9:17 ET: Kagan discussed a 1995 book review (frequently cited by senators yesterday) in which she called confirmation hearings "a vapid and hollow charade." She said that she stands by some of that criticism and pledged to be transparent in her responses about her judicial philosophy. "That's my excuse for giving you a little bit more even than you wanted about Constitutional change," she said -- noting that she returned to one of Leahy's initial questions to speak more on the subject of her judicial philosophy.
But she underscored that it would not be right for her as a nominee to discuss how she would rule on specific cases during the hearing. "In particular. it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases, to grade cases" because those cases themselves might come before the court again, she said.
9:13 ET: In her answer, Kagan discussed how some rules in the Constitution are very specific -- like the minimum age required to be a senator, while others -- like the idea of "unreasonable" searches -- require interpretation. Kagan said that all lawyers should apply the Constitution as written. In some sense, she said, "we are all originalists."
9:09 ET: Leahy's second question: He asks about critics' wariness about her admiration for Justice Thurgood Marshall, whom conservatives yesterday called "a well-known liberal activist judge."
"How would you describe the way the Constitution has been amended since it was written?" Leahy asked.
9:07 ET: Kagan's father was a lawyer, and her mother, Gloria, was a fifth and sixth grade teacher. Her father died in 1994; her mother passed away two years ago.
9:03 ET: Leahy's first question: He asks Kagan to discuss her parents' influence on her and their values about teaching and the law. Kagan began her response by saying the question offers her "a wonderful opportunity" to speak about her family's influence on her.
9:01 ET: Kagan just entered the hearing room and took her seat. Chairman Leahy has gaveled the hearing to order.
8:45 ET: Good morning from inside the hearing room, where we'll be live-blogging the second day of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing.
After yesterday's mostly scripted opening statements, today's questioning promises to be a bit more substantive and unpredictable. In the first round of questioning, each member of the committee will have 30 minutes to quiz Kagan on her judicial philosophy and her views on a host of issues -- from on-campus military recruiting and Don't Ask Don't Tell to gun rights and abortion.
Visit this page throughout the day for updates on the latest news.
Leave a Comment:
Good Morning All
Thank you for doing this Carrie, it was great to read last night and catch up on the proceedings. It sure brought out the trolls last evening on FR.
OF COURSE THE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE'S LOVE INTERNATIONAL LAW, IT'S SOCIALISM!!!
And why would the Left be worried about OUR Constitution anyway? Their boy-toy in the White House wants to be like FDR. just look up FDR's "Second Bill Of Rights" and argue how that isn't the groundwork for socialism.
Obama's own argument in his book "The Audacity of Hope" of Justice Antonin Scalia's position that the "original understanding of the Constitution must be followed". Obama claims to
There's that favorite word of Obama's. Fundamental. As in his "fundamental transformation of America". But Obama's "fundamentalist" name-calling of Scalia is misplaced. Originalists understand the Constitution NOT our democracy, to be "fixed and unwavering" (apart from the amendment process, of course). Originalists recognize that, precisely because the Constitution leaves the broad bulk of policy decisions to legislators in Congress and in the States, there is lots of room to pursue and adapt different courses through the democratic processes. No originalist believes that judicial respect for the operations of representative government will guarantee that we will be rewarded and all good will flow.
Obama finds himself compelled to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution, that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. No one disputes that the Constitution must be "read and applied" in the context of an ever-changing world. The question over the last several decades is whether it is legitimate for judges to alter the Constitution's meaning helter-skelter, in particular, whether judges have uncontrolled authority to create new constitutional rights to suit their views of what changing times require.
In the end, an examination of Obama's record and rhetoric discloses the stuff he is made of,,,,his own constitution. Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist Liberal progressive partisan who will readily resort to lies and deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism.
AMERICA DOESN'T NEED TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED. IT NEEDS TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY RESTORED!!!!
US Army Retired
God, give the woman a break! I am one of those awful REPUGS, but this woman has character and grace. And, has a sense of humor! I have watched every moment of her testimony and I'd vote for her in a second! I also find her refreshing!
US Army (Ret)
Let me guess, you think that giving Corporations the right of free speech, which has only been given to Citizens is not "rewriting the Constitution?? If so, then you really need to take a look at your drivel and reconsider what side you are really on. Scalia and co have worked hard to distort the meaning of the Constitution and putting some balance back to the Court is Long Needed. The Right Wing Cabal on SCOTUS are the worst enemies against our Constitution that I know of since Bush is no longer in office and Cheney is dealing with his lack of a heart. You are so worked up to defend our Constitution but you apparently are only getting your info from the right wing controlled media and it plainly shows. Quit believing their lies and distorted version of things because they will only try to lead this coutry the rest of the way over the cliff into pure fascism, ya know, like the Axis during WWII? Corporations making the laws and controlling the Nations rather than the Nations controlling the Corporations. Look up Italy under Mussolini if you have any doubts as to my veracity here.
There should be three very serious questions asked of any and ALL, elected OR appointed, Court Judges at ANY level: 1.) DO YOU support, respect, and abide by the Constitution of The United States of America, as written, and legally amended, through the due process included therin, to amend the Constitution, or, DO YOU belive the United States Constitution has to be "Interpreted" to be understood by the English Speaking Citizens of this Great Nation? 2.) DO YOU Support, respect, and abide by the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, The "Bill of Rights", that diredt the basic rights and freedoms and tenants of ALL Citizens of this Nation, DO YOU believe these basic rights and freedoms are "Intrpretable," or meant to secure the freedoms stated by the Constitution's writers and Ratifiers. 3.) DO YOU believe that any law that is passed that changes, removes, alters, or Abridges any part, Section, Word, or Letter of this United States Constitution, without the Amendment process, should be termed Legal, and Do you believe that, any State, County, Township, Village, City, County or other Municipaliy should be able to pass any law, if that Law, or ordnance, should or shall change so much as one letter of the United States Constitution be termed legal? ( Can the several states pass laws that remove any or all of any rights and Law's as laid down in the United States Constitution)
This may or may not make any sense, but, we do have a Legal and binding Constitution and Bill of Rights that are being Pissed upon at a very regular interval, like Daily.
Well, Class, to answer the Tea Party question "What have you done today to help America" or close to it.
, I leave you my Bio from my information gained by clicking on my name line...
""I have, as my Forfathers have, fought and nearly died for this Great Nation of ours. I think that anyone, anywhere, that tries to change so much as one letter in one word of our Constitution should be Tried and Convicted of Treasonand/ or Sedition, as the case may fit. PRISON, not "Club Fed" for the remainder of their natural life, plus 50 years. There are very plainly written instructions for changing this Greatest of Documents, and those instructions are not being followed, but, pissed upon at every opportunity by this, and ALL administrations, since 1960. Homeland Security, FBI,CIA,Local, or State Laws cannot infringe on any part without the process defined there for ALL to read and abide by.
The Bill of Rights, the United States Constitution, The Declaration of Independance, These are not just "Good Ideas" for those times, they are the Very soul of our Nation, and Freedoms derived from those those Documents.
IF you EVER find that you cannot Support the Law, as defined by our Constitution, then you better get out of town, I will hunt you down, I will Protect MY Constitution, MY Country, as the Founders meant it to be. No interpretation needed for this Document, if you read and understand the English language, read it, heed it, it is "Cut in stone".
I will defend it from the likes of Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, Communists and the Presidents and elected officials believing in such groups, until I take my dying breath.
I AM AN AMERICAN. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK. I WANT THE RAPE AND PILLAGE OF OUR NATION TO CEASE AT ONCE. I WILL TAKE UP ARMS TO DEFEND MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GIVEN BY GOD AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
End of Story, if you feel differently, move to some place that suits you, but don't you dare try to stay in, and destroy, MY AMERICA!!!!!!""
Psst.. Ray.... get OVER yourself! This country belongs to ALL of us NOT just right wing nuts such as yourself!
Care for a cup of tea?
'...IF you EVER find that you cannot Support the Law, as defined by our Constitution, then you better get out of town, I will hunt you down, I will Protect MY Constitution, MY Country, as the Founders meant it to be. No interpretation needed for this Document, if you read and understand the English language, read it, heed it, it is "Cut in stone"....'
Hey, Ray
How about the prt of the Constitution that says 5 black people equal 3 white people ?
Are you gonna defend that with your life ? The Constitution presumed Slavery to be natural... gonna defend that with your life ?? How about the part that allows only property owning mailes to decide our laws ? ... Is that worth your life ??
Just curious
The Constitution said NOTHING about Corporations being citizens ... NO CONSTITUTION EVER DID .... Will you FIGHT that DISFIGUREMENT of our Constitution ?
I'm waiting Ray.....
B. Honest,
I see you are calling the right fascists and think their ideals a fascist one. I believe you need to look up the definition before apllying the word.
Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.
Grčić, Joseph. Ethics and political theory. Lanham, Maryland, USA: University of America, Inc, 2000. p. 120
Truth be evident that fascism is a nationalist/socialist agenda of aligning the strong leadership (big government) with no ambition to protect the individual save what is good for people as a collective (hence the singalur collective identity). This is most event with Nazi Germany (which was a Communist/Socialist country), labor parties and communist movements. The Republicans/Conservatives do not wish to remove individuality, nor do they plan to single out one race, creed, or sex of equal rights (as provide by the constitution).
The Socialist/Communist movement preaches erradiation of Jews, capitalist, and gays throughout history. In fact Karl Marx explains that it is easier to get people to hate a race than to hate capitalism. Therefore he theorizes the hatred of the Jew due to their ability and desire to achieve. We even see it in today's political struggle with Socialist/Socialist leaning individuals downplaying Israel and their ability to protect themselves.
While many Republicans do not support the right to Gay marriage, this is only due to marriage being a religious institution. Common law does not allow Government to marry people, but to form civil unions. What Republicans fear is the Government creating dogma with the seperation of Church and State. The seperation, as stated in the Constitution, is not of the existance of Religion in public affairs (such as the celebration of religious holidays) but defines the power of the Government to claim a centralized religion. Which we only see two groups pushing at the moment: 1) Socialist/Communists with the pushing of Atheism and 2) the push by many extremist groups to make countries Muslim States.
What you claim as fascism is a gross abuse of words with little to no care of their meaning our weight. Frankly, it is the pot calling the kettle black; however, the kettle is a nice mauve color. If you would, please lay out a full discription on what makes the 'right' (as you call it) fascist. If it involves racism, please discard. The Labour Parties (Socialists) of America pushed racism to increase membership throughout American History with Blacks, Chinese during the construction of the railroad and etc. Also, it was Woodrow Wilson (the Progressive) that brought more segregation into the Federal Government in sacrificing rights for the "greater good". The fact remains that Republicans supported Blacks (even in political offices as early as 1870). Fo that matter, Republicans spent much of their time after the Civil War de-segregating the Government, only to have item re-instituted by a Democrate (Wilson).
Don't hold your breath MSierra - me thinks Ray doesn't have the testicular fortitude to man up and answer... Just my humble opinion!
Good Morning Gingerbread Mamma, are you ready for a great day of Whack-a-Troll? I am sure that with all that is going on we will have plenty of easy targets. What I would like to see are some sensible folks that understand the entire idea of Honorable Opposition who don't use profanity for their talking points. Now wouldn't that be novel?
And to the Staff of FR: Thank You for this forum, but can you PLEASE change the font from this difficult to read grey to just solid black? It is not like you are paying for the ink, it is just pixels ya know. Other than that I think you have an awesome Blog here and enjoy being able to post here.
Good morning Gingerbread,
I am going to try and see as much of this as I can. I can hardly wait to see what filth wil spill forth from the repugs today. Yesterday Sessions, Graham and others basically attacked Thurgood Marshall. What are these people thinking. This Supreme Court Justice (who was denied being accepted at the University of Maryland Law School because he was black) later graduated from Howard Law School Magna Cum Laude. He was the voice for "Voiceless Americans" and their champion in fighting against racial discrimination in all forms for all people. He also was a Solicitor General winning 14 of 19 cases. As a Judge in the Court of Appeals non of his 98 decisions were ever overturned. He was appointed a Justice in 1967.
All this does is finally show the American people that the repugs are racists. There can be NO doubt now. The party of small government and Big Business has done it again.
Good Morning B. Honest.
DAV,
I saw that and was rather amused. Since the Grand Oil Party has trashed the Latino community to the point they will be lucky to see 10% of the Hispanic vote, now they have ventured off in a new direction. Trashing the accomplishments of someone like Thurgood Marshall. Let's not forget Glen Beck's scheduled rally on August 28th. Yeah, the Grand Oil Party is now the party of the people? Um, yeah...
Disgusted,
It just keeps getting worse. These people just drip hate, I can smell them from here. Just about everything that comes out of their mouths from trying to paint our President as Hitler or a Nazi to supporting Big Business, Big Oil, the Super Wealthy, etc., etc., and yesterday some clown from AL tried to connect President Obama to slavery with quick background shots of Nazi Concentration Camps. I find just about everything these people say repugnant, morally and ethically.
I bet you never said anything of the sort about GW...
Take it easy JJ. I would hate to see you strain yourself digging for such witticism in your retorts. Please be careful. If you strain something, I hope you have good insurance.
In my opinion GW and his henchmen (repugs) were (are) totally corrupt. They caused most of the mess we are in today and refuse to take ownership for the tragedy they caused for 8 years and continue to perpetrate on the American people today. The repugs are the party for Big Business, Insurance, Oil and the wealthy of the wealthy. They are driven by their GODS called greed and power. They are not a party for the people as they keep demonstrating day in and day out. They show their racism and bigotry in attacking Justice Marshall and trying to paint President Obama as a Nazi. They totally support Big Oil as presented by Barton, and several others, they pass huge tax cuts for the wealthy, get us involved in two wars - NONE of which was funded and trillions of dollars that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for. They refer to the unemployed (who by the way paid into the system) as Hobo's, lazy, looking for a handout, unmotivated etc., etc.
Well old navy vet, you're quite something. You accuse those with whom you disagree of being hateful - but you do so using some of the most hateful terms I've heard in a while. But, then again, this is a common trait among liberals.
There sailor, now what hateful thing are you going to call me?
Hey Spider...this is like taking the US government to task for executing murderers. Sure, they are murdering too, but lets remember who started it and what each parties role is.
The Democrats didn't start the hate, but it is hard not to sound hateful when detailing all of the incredible offensive actions of the Republican party in the past 10+ years.
Wow I am reading how hateful some view certain people that are posting. The irony for me is that while describing this trait of being hateful all I am seeing is the same exact thing that is being criticized. I wonder in order not be considered hateful is the pre-requisite that you must agree only with people posting or is there some other benchmark that this is derived from????? Of course when Pres Bush was in office the Dems simply filibustered anyone put up for the Court of Appeals. It is almost a matter of Pot Meet Kettle.
US Navy Disabled Veteran- Retired
Your saying that that the Republicans really don't like minorities? Or is just the ones from the South that expouse all this ignorance. The little Kebler elf Sessions is still upset that his own party disowned him when he came up for a nomination, and as for Graham, I actually thought he was smarter than that. But apparently, Party before the people.
Ittsy bitsy Spider,
REPUG.
Navy vet, surely you received a dishonorable discharge.
Jessie,
Sorry 100% honorable discharge with Navy Pension. What did you do for our country other than piss and moan????????????
jesse hardly
Navy Vet asked a pretty simple question - what did you do for our country?
USN Disabled Vet (Ret)
Don't ya just love it when these chickenhawks that never served go and bring up your service time in a derogatory way when they have no way to rebut your statements other than to insult and cry "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"?
Easy game of Whack-a-Troll, I think I am breaking my own record for points today, but somehow ya stay ahead of me ;) Keep up the good work mate!
hey spidey man...
in #3.6 you state Navy Vet used some of the most hateful terms you have heard in sometime...
want to give some examples?
Do you a**holes really think that international law trumps our law and Constitution? You lefties are fools.
International law has no such original jurisdiction and so cannot trump the U.S. Constitution any more than it can trump the E.U. Constitution, British Parliament or the Chinese government. Any justice that thinks otherwise and substitutes their own WILL (pleasure) for the WILL of the Framers must be punished by impeachment and degraded from their stations (removed from the bench) for BAD BEHAVIOR. (Hamilton, fp81)
"It can be of NO weight to say that the courts, ON THE PRETENSE OF A REPUGNANCY, MAY SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN PLEASURE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTENTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE. ... The courts MUST declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would EQUALLY BE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THEIR PLEASURE TO THAT OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. ... If, then, the COURTS OF JUSTICE are to be CONSIDERED AS THE BULWARKS OF A LIMITED CONSTITUTION AGAINST LEGISLATIVE ENCROACHMENTS, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty." (Hamilton, fp78)
OOPS!
US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Oh you Liberals have such short memories. I understand your selective amnesia for the "filth" you so demonize on your "moral soap box" (do Liberals actually HAVE morals?).
But we "repugs" (actually Indepnedents) are here to remind you so that you can sleep better knowing how "unfilthy" your deviant party truly is.
Here is the link to yesterdays MSNBC/AP article "Cheney leaves hospital after treatment".
http://politics.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/28/4577569-cheney-leaves-hospital-after-treatment?threadId=995980&commentId=15166522#c15166522
I'd like you to particularly read the very first post.
I'm not quite sure, but it may have been posted by one of your buddies on the Left side of common sense. But I'm sure you and all the other Liberal Progressives will find a way to JUSTIFY the filth spewed throughout that whole thread by the cowards of the Left. if not I'm sure you'll just blame it on your usual scapegoat,,,,,
"George Bush did it".
Liberals,,,,so easy!
Good morning, all. Wish I could see the show, but I'm sure I'll be able to come here and read all about it. Save me a donut for later. Cream-filled bismarck, please.
Thanks Awesome First Read crew for bringing us the blow by blow details of Kagan's confirmation hearings via live blog. Another day at the repugnant one's clown show as they Whine Baby Whine about everything. Limpwristed conservative crybaby Huffy Jeffy Sessions sure sounds like he's a LogCabin Repugnant One with his highpitched lispy voice.
Eric - Jeff Sessions represents my neck of the woods. I greatly disagree with almost 100% of what he says and stands for but really. Log Cabin republican = Gay republican. Are you really going to stereotype homosexuals by calling them limpwristed and high pitched. I don't play for that side but still believe that all people should be respected and not stereotyped. Some of your self believed funny names and sayings are only funny to an ignorant person like yourself. A majority of your posts give a bad name to liberals. The democrats are supposed to be the big tent all inclusive party remember!
I've only see one other person on here call you out before. Whats up with that, First read regulars, why all the free passes for Eric? Fair is fair. Isn't Eric a troll like all you others say you are going to whack today?
Eric - I want to apologize. I made a mistake. I'm not apologizing to you. I found out you ridiculed R- Sessions from Alabama not R-Sessions from Texas. The Alabama Sessions isn't from my neck of the woods the R- Sessions from Texas is.
Yesterday it was your attack on Israelis. Today you ridicule homosexuals. Really no response? Only Michael T said something the other day about his rant against jews. Haven't posted on this site for long but have read Eric go on and on unchallenged. No one puts him in his place or is afraid to, well not this progressive.
Yellowdog, you indeed have a good point, I, personally, do not care for Eric's name calling either. GLBT's need to be respected also, just like anyone else. Thank You for pointing this out but I normally pass up reading posts when they get into such childish name calling as it shows not only disrespect, but a prejudicial attitude.
Mind you, I am very much against the present Repub line and their rhetoric, most of it is a load of lies and terribly slanted towards the corporations and other over-moneyed interests. They have moved so very far to the right, that what used to be the solid middle is now considered the territory left and the new 'middle' is what used to pass for the solid right. Because of this I will speak out as I can, and I am afraid sometimes I get rather upset and use terms that maybe I shouldn't, however, I speak the truth as I see it and am not afraid to take flack from it.
Thanks for your fair comment on Eric, he should clean up his comments and Not resort to such prejudice- biased cliche's as they don't do anyone any good!
Yellowdog and B Honest,
Eric has a long running love affair with name calling and demeaning descriptors, which many here ignore. It's okay to simply skip past anything he writes, although once in a great while, he has a valid point.
I don't enjoy Eric's labeling or tribalism, however, some of his names for Beck, Limbaugh, etc. are mighty humorous. I guess we have read so much of it we overlook it, sort of like the Republicans overlook the lying and stuff that they constanting are passing on and squealing about.
Eric really should give up the labeling of groups, and stick to the name-calling of pundits, both Repub and Dem.
Isn't it a shame that ppl writing here try to call out Eric and some of the others for their name calling when all it would take to stop it is for the MODERATORS of FIRST READ to block him. I read a lot of sites but this one is the worst for filth, hate and name calling.
I caught bits and pieces of yesterday's opening remarks. It was like being in two different centuries at the same time. Apparently republicans do not recognize the road they're traveling. By trashing, which is what they did, Thurgood Marshall, they trashed one of the great Justices and civil rights at the same time.
Activist judges are only activists when they rule against or for one party's ideology. I'll take the Thurgood Marshall activism any day--it favored people and individual freedom. John Roberts's right wing activism favors corporations with little resemblance to what the Constitution intended--so much for strict constructionists because nowhere in the Constitution does it say corporations are people. Democrats in their opening remarks did a good job stating what it means to Americans to have such an extremely conservative Supreme Court.
Keith O might be right--Jeff Sessions does resemble a Keebler Elf, no disrespect to Keebler or elves.
Jody,
LMAO, he does look like an elf.
Looks nothing, thats just the results good old fashion inbreeding
Jody . . . I totally agree with your comment regarding the conservative activism of our current Supreme Court Chief Justice. If corporations should be considered with the same footing as individual people, when will the CEO and owners of BP going to be charged with manslaughter? If corporations are on the same footing as individuals where political contributions are concerned, why doesn't that standing extrapolate to the rest of the laws and restrictions that govern the rest of us "small people"?
Thank you Jody and School Teacher.
I'm currently waiting for the lunch break to be over so I can hear that Stupid, ooops, sorry, that illustrious Senator from Texas. No matter how often I voted against him, we still have John Cornin representing the great state of oil, oops, I mean Texas. I heard Conin yesterday. Today I get to hear General Kagan respond. I can hardly wait. She is delightful. AND, she is both very bright and a smooth politician. Maybe she can do something to improve the court, even if she would be a replacement for one of the four on the court who believe they should stick to the constitution.
I don't know what the surprise is regarding the behavior and questions coming from some of the republicans in this hearing. Their entire agenda is to try and score political points as well as attempt to make Obama's selection of Kagan look bad. I expected this behvaior so no surprises here.
I do understand the frustration and anger however when we see some of these folks sitting up there with the attitude that they are above everyone else in intelligence and common sense. I am always amazed when I watch such preceedings just how some of these folks got elected, or how voters could have been so dense to have voted for these people to represent their States. I mean some of these elected officals obviously have nothing but air between their ears. And for some that air is tainted with archiac, backwards, illogical and in some cases predjudicial thinking.
CA, Touche,
Everyday I keep seeing the same crap and it gets even more venomous as time goes on. People have to start waking up to what these people are really about and how they are destroying our country. We on this board see it because we care about our country and we are engaged in the process. There are too many who are just sitting on the arses doing nothing, reading nothing and then complain about what happened. 34% of Americans as of yesterday still think our President is not an American. How can this be?? Do pundits like Rush and Glenn have that much power? This is both sadand very scary.
Prejudicial thinking is absolutely correct CA, they Pre-Judge everything and if it does not meet their 'inner Rush/Beck template' then they find any way possible to vote against it or obstruct it's passage, or the person's confirmation to their appointment, that they can. Usually shooting themselves in the foot while doing so, not realizing that their rhetoric, without research, is like waving around a loaded gun, so they end up either nailing themselves in the feet or shooting their mouth off at inappropriate times, and often take down their friends with them. Sometimes this is actually a great pleasure to watch, almost like a game of Whack-a-Troll, only they do it to themselves!
It is really too bad that the Repubs, like I said yesterday, are basing their thinking in the distant past and have lost their bearings in this present century. You would almost think that since the year number is back to low numbers that we should be re-running the last century: Something like the supposed Y2K bug on the computers making them think it was 1900 all over again. Did that happen to the Repub brains, faulty programming that is just now coming to light??
Luckily, Elena Kagan is much smarter than those sitting there digging themselves deep holes. She will be confirmed and the Repubs will only make themselves look worse and worse with their racist, corporatist insane drivel and push themselves further and further into the margins of political discourse. Eventually they will no longer be relative to politics other than an object lesson in what happens when you pursue ideology with no relation to reality. The history books will have a heyday with that meme and the lesson will be very plain for future generations to see. Sadly, a largish segment of our population is beholden to that same mindset, having been told by the well known extreme right wing media personalities who cannot seem to get their facts straight yet manage to tell their lies with a straight face.
I can only hope that a natural passing of Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy happens to come to be during President Obama's term. I don't want violence to happen to them, but God Willing, may there be SOME way to break up this terrible Cabal.
The fact is most superme court justice nominees put together a script to follow as best they can and to say what they need to say in order to be confirmed. It is the committee's job then to use their intelligence to do some research and to ask pointed questions. I have no problem with being against a nominee if one has done their homework and have some legitimate concerns. But these guys grab for anything, showing that they are ignorant hayseeds who expose their intent of just attacking a nominee because they were appointed by the opposite party. Their is no substance in these hearings coming from these idiots who are supposed to be asking intelligent questions.
When I see some of them in various proceedings their lack of smarts and illogical long drawn out comments make me want to puke. We have bloggers on this site, including some on the right who could present themselves in a much better professional light, to ask better questions and to show some intelligence. You know that such nominees are responding with a serious demeanor while laughing at these idiots on the inside.
B. Honest,
This gets a vote. I have been listening to this all morning and I wish the repugs would stop interrupting Justice Kagan. Looks like she is holding her own very well. If she continues the repugs are going to look pretty petty end of today.
US Navy Retired
I think so many people worked so hard to get President Obama elected. I don't think they've really gone away. The Republicans are helping us by showing who they really are. I don't think it does us liberals any good to get into screaming matches with these meatheads, even though that sure gets them all the publicity they are craving and makes it seem one-sided. But the real way to push back is in the voting booth. If Democrats, Independents and other demographics want a government that pees all over their constituents, and supports no regulation, supports either by word, act, deed or omission all of the racists remarks and innuendo that have come out, then they will sit on their arses. Even though fickle Palin junky Chris Matthews (who by the way has blown it with me) believes differently and just gets all hyped up on the junk that he calls news and for god's sake, the polls, the polls, the polls....I believe that we are just waiting for the voting booth. It has not gone very well for the Tea Baggers or the Repubs, not like they thought it would. And the more they show themselves the more thinking Americans will not buy their line of crap, which would make our country such a much worse place to live. If you think it's bad now, trying to clean up their mess, what do you think we would face with more of them in office?
Cathy M, You are so very right, I think that many of us are just keeping our heads low knowing that the right will attack anyone who they can target, on a National, Regional and Local levels, even your corner bar. So we keep quiet, post in blogs and the like, and come time to vote, we can show our numbers and power, and toss the REST of the Repubs out. Frankly, I like these polls saying Dems are behind, it will make more of the lazy end of the Repubs overconfident and many will decide that they, personally don't need to vote since there are so many other Repubs going to vote... While those of us that see the massive problems STILL being caused by the Repubs will turn out in masses because we see the used teabags and their ilk and know that we had better vote if we don't want to see the return of the Bush years. Pretty simple really!!
Good Morning Feisty, USN Vet (Ret), CA, Cathy M, Jody, Living and all the rest, I hope you are having a great day!
B Honest you're a dumb ass, Brain washed just like all the people on here that love obama and his GOONS.
Cathy, B.Honest and others,
I agree with you and I apologize for being overly emotional in some of my posts. It is that I believe this country was founded on such concepts as Freedom, Equality, Justice, Compassion and I am scared stiff these are slowly being taken away by those who we elect to represent us and just do not listen and are so far out of touch they may as well be on Mars. They do the bidding only for those that give them the most money. Both parties are guilty to some degree. What makes it so troublesome is the constant lies, misinformation, failure to stand up and admit what you did, and yes the hate I see from the right. As far as I am concerned they started that fight. If you do not agree with them you are unamerican, where did we here that before. If you are unemployed through no fault of your own you get labeled Hobo, lazy, etc etc. Big businesses rules and the h3ll with the average American. This is what riles me. WE have lost our way in some respects and it is people like many of those here that post their ideas day in and day out who can help bring us back. I know it sounds dim, it probably is, but d@@nit, we have to stand up now. And if some people want to say that is hate, go right ahead. Seems to me that on this post the ones that raise that flag are the ones most guilty. I do hate many of the things I am seeing lately. That does not mean I personal hate any particular person.
Hmm, Great day for Whack a Troll, Mike, did they pay you to post on any blog you can find Dems on?? Sure sounds like it, you have nothing to say other than to put people down and call them names. Do you not realize that that only shows what an idiot YOU really are?? Grow up and get a life!
Somehow you folks only insult those who actually have something to say!
B.Honest
They do seem to be out today dont they. We must be getting to them. They are getting nastier, I guess they have trouble with the truth. To them telling the truth is being hateful.
The Republicans have put God in place of all laws ................that is dangerous?????
All smoke and mirrors. She will say anything to be confirmed. Look at yesterday's decision on the 2nd amendment. Sonia Sotomayor reversed her confirmation answer (YES SIR) when asked about the past decision on the 2nd amendment and voted against it. She took it a step further and said the past decision was WRONG. What a bunch of lies. Say anything to get confirmed and then become an activist!!
Well you people sure ought to know about activists judges as that's all Bush put on the court. And your second amendment right to carry guns and act like a cowboy means nothing to me. Look around at all the countries where the men in their little masks are out waving their guns (my gun is bigger than your gun), and that's all you are, a bunch of little boys just trying to get a testosterone fix, waving your very manhood in the air. What a way to become a third world country. Do you really want people wandering around your shopping mall or movie theater carrying AK47s? As far as I'm concerned you're all a bunch of F'n freaks who need to get a life.
I'm familiar with guns. I have a gun. I just don't have to parade it around and wave it in the air or strap it to my thigh (another phallic symbol I guess). I have one in my home in order to protect myself if it would ever come to that. But I like having the safety of knowing that not a bunch of loose cannons are running around ready to shoot anyone who they disagree with. What a bunch of losers.
Bo from Brockwall, TX
Just like Alito and Roberts. Said whatever they needed to get confirmed and then become true activists by saying corporation and Unions are actually people and should be shut out of the process. Just wait til Hugo Chavez starts putting his money into our elections because of idiots like Alito and Roberts decision. Maybe then you'll understand what a true activist judge does.
Philip -
Senator Hatch's statements today offered a great explanation and clarification on the Citizen's United ruling. Google it. The ruling was based on 75 precedents. Have you even read the case summary and ruling? Or are you simply repeating talking points?
Bo - Greetings from North Texas. You call Sotomayor an activist judge and greatly disagree with judges being activist for their political side. You want them to call only "balls and strikes" like an impartial umpire as John Roberts stated in his confirmation. Why then did Roberts act as an activist judge in the Citizens united case.?
My understanding was it merely was a case brought by people who wanted to show an unflattering documentary of Hillary Clinton close to the date of a primary election. It was against state election laws to be able to do that so close to an election date. As a result the group filed a case that went all the way to the supreme court. Not only did the Robert's court say that the group couldn't be stopped from showing the documentary but in a grand bit of activism his assent ruling stated that a corporation or any big money interest could give an unlimited amount of money as part of their 1st amendment right.
Suddenly a case about showing a documentary was used by the right to declare that the likes of BP oil can bypass campaign finance reform laws. That my friend is judicial activism in the grandest degree.
Mark,
Its only activism when a justice make a decision that favors someone other than a large corporation. When they rule for big business, that is just being conservative. It is only activist when the rulings help advance society and do not add to the bottom line somehow.
Yellow Dog, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The Republicans use the phrase activist judge when the call does not go the way they want, however, they become silent when the call goes their way. I truly believe that the phrase "Activist Judge" is just nothing but a red hearing.
I truly believe that this current lot of Republicans, which have been around for quite some time, are a bunch of angry white guys who hate being out of power, who hate anything of color, who hate people who disagree with them, and are definitely against this country, judging by their words and actions.
They really don't care that this country is in trouble, the only thing they care about is blocking anything. By blocking anything speaks volumes about their real concern for this country and the average American Citizen. They only care about the ubber rich. That has been proven by their own actions.
Yellowdog..don't worry..be happy..and remember who BP gave all that money to.
I think what the real problem is is that certain Republicans have such a disdain for anyone who doesn't endorse their views, that they become activist judges in their minds. Also that Kebler elf is still upset because his own party disowned him when it came to his nomination. The problem w/ these few is simple. If your not a white Protestant male, they will have a issue. If you a minority, Black, Hispanic, Asian, ect. or God forbid a woman, that is where the issue starts and their dogma simple cannot allow for common sense discusions of the facts.
Terry - Sad to say but you are right about most of the republicans. Thanks for your service from me an Air Force brat!
Terry, good to see you today.
You are right on. They seem to be getting nasty today. More than the usual brainless dribble. We must be hitting a few nerves since it is getting harder for them to hide behind the lies as many fine people on this post are exposing them for what they really are. Too bad, I have Republican friends and they do not behave like this at all. We do not agree on many things but one universal truth is they love this country as much as I do. Many are Veterans, DAV's (like you an me).For that they get my respect. Thanks again for you service.
What message didn't you people get from the 5-4 vote yesterday? Look at what is going on. Should have been 9-0. C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N.
Looks like your the only one on here that understands what the constitution is about. Need more people on hear like you.
I have read that this lady is so far to the left on 2A rights that it is not funny, strange (but sadly not surprising) how I have not heard much about that in the "mainstream" news agencies.
Probably because there is nothing to confirm such a rumor.
Not a rumor Rick.
As a law clerk Kagan recommended that the Supreme Court not even hear a claim that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment. The sole reasoning that she provided for denying the claim: “I’m not sympathetic.” She even lumped the National Rifle Association together with the KKK as “bad guy organizations.” Truth is she knew the ban was unconstitutional and would not stand up in court. And as we recently learned, It didn't.
Now don't go getting all trite and asking for sources, blah blah... Get your head out the MSNBC sandbox and google it for yourself.
rightly - you realize that nothing you just said is true, right? Your combining bits and pieces from all over the place and trying to make them seem relevant. They are not. I can't tell if you're outright lying or just confused.
Captain Tripps, of course you can't tell if I'm lying, confused, or telling the truth. More apparent though is that you don't care. You have your marching orders, reviewed all the news that MSNBC deemed fit to allow you to know, and off you go or your blind little course to randomly call those who don't align with you a liar. Deny, deny, deny, until it becomes not true. If you weren't so cliche, your actions might be a little funny. But no, it is only sad.
There are some people who do glean for the bits and pieces and put then together to tell a more complete picture. Sometimes it is necessary to do just that. Actually it is almost always necessary to do just that. I'm sure if you put your thinking cap on you can come up with a few examples. So yes, Kagan can sit in front of the committee and blather on about what she will do, or meant to do, but it is more revealing to see what she has said and done. Even the little forgotten about quips. Of course your method of waiting for MSNBC to tell you what to think, well, I guess its made you who you are today. Bravo on that. Car salemen probably love you ("No Captain, thats really the best price on the window sticker there, and the rustproofing package, well that is mandatory...").
However, if you do want to break some new ground here, navigate to that little window that says "search" on your home page, and type in something like "K A G A N N R A" or K A G A N N O T S Y M P A T H E T I C" then hit the return button. You'll find the stories then. Cripes even the Huffington post has it. You can probably visit that website without getting in trouble by your lib peers.
If you really want to go for it, search for her views that the gov't can suppress political publications, or that foreign laws may be used as a basis in US court decisions.
The only marching orders I have are adherence to the truth.
Well for one she never compared the NRA to the KKK, so that was either a lie or a "misunderstanding" on your part. And You clearly don't know what "not sympathetic"means, for a law clerk. It means she thinks his case has no merits and would therefore be a waste of the courts time. For about 20+ more years, she was right (as such cases were routinely dismissed), so obviously some other people agreed with her. Hell, 4 of the current Justices still agree with her (and in the past, a majority, not to mention just about every lower court in the country), so really I was wondering what point you were trying to make?
Captain Tripps, I've reread my post several times, and cannot find the word "compare". Typical use of a standard leftist discussion trick: alter wording to suit your purpose, in this case add the word "compare" to make it deniable. You state that I said Kagan "compared" the NRA to the KKK. If that were in fact the case, you would be correct: she did not "compare" the NRA to the KKK. But I did not say "compare." I said "lumped together." That is different than compare. Lumped together means "include". During the creation of the Volunteer Protection Act legislation Kagan singled out two organizations: The NRA and KKK. She said she wanted to make sure these two "bad guy organizations" did not get the protections or benefits the legislation offered to other groups. She included them and only them on her list of bad guy organizations. That incident illustrates that she has a far left view of gun ownership.
Yes, she was "not sympathetic" to having the gun ownership case heard by the Supreme Court when she clerked for Marshall. I don't believe your explanation that her phrase means something other than its plain English meaning. But even if that is the case it does not matter. The standard language of the court is irrelevant. It could have been a check box on a form indicating "don't bring in the case". The bottom line is that she did not want the case brought to the court. Now, believe what you want about her intentions, but as a clerk for Thurgood Marshall of all people, if it were a case that could have been used to restrict gun ownership, she would not have let it slip by. But, as I believe she foresaw that its outcome would in fact reinforce gun ownership rights, she then did what she could to keep it out of the Supreme Court. Which also illustrates that she has a far left view of gun ownership.
If you could focus on the topic and not try to bring in other off topic distractions of made up "facts" about what other courts or justices have or haven't done you'll have a good chance of understanding the point I am making and you would not need to ask: she has a far left view of gun ownership. Now if you look at the original post and all the reply posts in this particular thread (except yours), you will find that that is what this discussion is about.
These hearings are a waste of time. Since the cases that will come before the Supreme Court are so varied and each must be judged on its own merit, there is no way to find out, via a hearing, how a judge will vote. Even her past record is not good enough, but it can be used as a guideline. In my opinion, the decision to nominate her or not, has already been made in the minds of the questioners. These hearings are only held to let the public get to know her. But let's face it, the judges are there for life and the following generations will have no idea who she is, but will only think of how she voted, case by case.
Watching her is like watching a sit com...something like Lou Costello in drag. LOL
I must disagree. More like a younger Rodney Dangerfield in drag.
One question: Who the f#%& reads bottom to top?
Why won't anyone ask her why, at her direction as dean, Harvard stopped teaching Constitutional Law and taught Global Law instead?
So we can handle the problems with outsourcing by corporations?
Actually Donna, no, she didn't, Glenn Beck lied to you once again (and I know that's where you got it from). She supported the ADDITION of new international law courses to the first year curriculum, which the school faculty then approved, no existing courses were removed or changed.
Facts. They matter.
So with her extensive judicial background, Kagan feels she's qualified to "interpret the Constitution over time". I didn't know she was so much smarter than the country's founders. Thank God for all these elitist libs to show us the error of our ways and thinking.
but conservative justices are smarter then the countrys founders?
Scarab333
Please give me a break. The constitution is always evolving because if it wasn't you'd would be able to buy your alcohol if it didn't
Nice try but I do not drink. And the constitution does not evolve. It can be amended but activist judges would rather just shred it and turn it into an abortion.
Of course it evolves, an Amendment directly changes what it says, but we don't think the same way our founders did, we don't live in that world, and if the Constitution doesn't change accordingly it's pretty much worthless. We don't interpret our laws based on the ideology of the 18th century, sorry, that's so patently ridiculous I can't believe you would even hint as much.
No it does not evolve. This "living breathing" document idea is a liberal construct to enable them to justify "finding" or creating new rights wanted by the leftists and as well ignoring actual enumerated rights they disagree with such as the Second Amendment.
scarab333
Is that why GWB ignored it when it came to your 4th amendment right of illegal search and seizures. When the lil shrub was easedropping on your conversations, reading your emails without a warrant, you we're ok w/ that? Right?
Pretty sure the "living, breathing" came from a Supreme Court Chief Justice, and it a view held by many in the legal profession.
Seems like the only people who think differently are the same types who believe the Genesis story to be literal and that you can figure out the age of the Earth by the "begats" in the Bible. Now we have a word and a perception of people who think those things, why would the same strict reading of the Constitution, a much more practically important document, be seen as acceptable?
um ! uh! um ! uh! um ! Uh! oh sorry i was just quoting this bull dike , Anti american Kagan . A total left wing wacko activist who is definetly going to be nominated thanks to all the demdumbs voting her in.. even though she has really only practiced law for a total of three years hahaha omg ..what a joke !!anything to get a left wingnut in there!
kroni, she has been nominated already, that's why she's there. There is no requirement that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer or judge and in fact, others have not been. Please state your specific "evidence" that she is 1) a wacko, 2) an activist, and of what cause she is an activist. Please also explain what calling her a "bull dike" does for you.
Rick - she is anti-military (supported Harvard recruitment ban) and from Boston - cesspool of socialist, Marists, anarchists, communists and Obamaists
Supporting the Harvard recruitment ban because the military is discriminating does not equate with being anti-military.
Cesspool of socialist, "Marists", anarchists, communists...you mean the home of Paul Revere, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Sam Adams, the real Tea Party, the shot heard 'round the world, John Hancock, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Calvin Coolidge, George HW Bush, Alexander Graham Bell, Ben Franklin, Susan B Anthony, Clara Barton, Louisa May Alcott, E.E. Cummings, Emily Dickinson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Robert Frost, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allen Poe, Henry David Thoreau and Thomas Paine?
Hmm, Scarab333 and Kroni3us must be one of those paid right wing agents. Probably even the same person with an alt. Obviously trying to stir up discontent and hate using namecalling guaranteed to stir up the gay crowd and progressives. That individual apparently does not understand the history of the Supreme Court to begin with as Judicial or Law experience is not and NEVER has been a requirement. A high intelligence and reasoning ability along with good connections has been the general rule, but even that is not hard and fast. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the Ultimate Group of Peers in order to decide what laws go past the Constitution and to decide matters of fairness within the law. They are not supposed to be the ultimate lawyer, as the major purpose of a lawyer is to find a way to get his client past the laws that exist unscathed or to just plain find a way around the law so they can do as they please. Sometimes all it takes is common sense to stop these lawyers in their tracks, and That is what we need in SCOTUS Justices, Not the Lawyers turned Judge who become activists on the bench and attempt to actually Make law from the cases they are handed. The Judicial Branch is NEVER supposed to Make law, just decide on the constitutionality of the laws and/or the fairness or appropriateness of the application of such laws.
You need to go back to class Kroni3us and Scarab3, learn your History, your Civics and English so that you can actually speak on the subjects without resorting to your profane, judgmental descriptors of people. Hmm, Looks like George-3.... is one with the same as the rest...a planted paid agent of the Right. Whack-a-Troll!!
I know exactly what the requirements are for being a SCOTUS judge. My point is she fails the main requirements of being impartial. and determining whether laws are constitutional She has already let us know she is just a left wing political hack intent on rewriting the constitution to fit her political adgenda. Sounds to me like you are a paid left wing agent sitting in front of your computer trying to wack-off...I mean trolls. Oh well it doesn't matter your a failure at both efforts.
Boy they are out today. Why is it that they cannot articulate an intelligent thought. When I post the truth strongly, I am hateful, not a Veteran and lately dishonorable discharge. I guess we are getting to them. They can no longer hide behind the lies and BS.
"Honorable Discharge" DAV collecting Navy Pension
Scarab
Are you saying that Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas are impartial? They are the antithesis of impartial and ARE rewriting the Constitution into their OWN version, totally ignoring 2 centuries of precedent. We NEED Kagan on the court for balance and we NEED for one of the Cabal of Five to vacate their seat somehow. The ones with an Agenda happen to already be seated on the Court and have been steadily working to destroy this Nation as surely as Bush did. They need to be stopped before they succeed. Our only 'agenda' is to right the wrongs perpetrated upon the Citizenry of this Nation by the last 30 years of Republican Misrule and especially the last administration's criminal gutting of the Constitution, our Regulatory ability and our Economy. If you are still supporting the Repubs then you are complicit in their criminality and I have NO respect to give you!
I happen to be a Disabled Navy Vet as well, Honorable Discharge before ya ask, and have been there and did that in my Serving and Doing My Duty For My Country, which, sadly, happens to include you.
Yes they are out in groves over Kagan , the extreme left sure want her in there, which she will be ! no ones questioning that!, but here we go with another liberal, anti - abortion nut, the only good thing I heard out of her mouth today was when she slammed Feinstien over the courts gun ruling hahaha had to laugh at that. Look Disabled Veteran , Im a non disabled vet, was in 2 wars , 3-7 marines , so dont think that plastering that along with your far left views will make anyone think you are right! She did stop recruiting at her Ivy league school until she was threatend with no government funding ... period, Im sure you like that about her! Anyone Obama puts in there is going to have his extreme views .. and will be his puppet untill he is voted out of office , he has no respect for the constitution.. whack a left winger !!!!!
Kroni3us
And I take it Harriet Miers was an excellent choice?
Actually, President Obama has chosen thoughtful, only slightly left of center people for the SCOTUS, especially since he happenes to be extremely well versed in Constitutional Law.
I thank You for your service to our Country in your time in service and the two wars you went through and survived. However your extreme right wing rants show that you are as brainless as many of the other jarheads I have met that don't think for themselves, just follow their Republican Commanders orders over the cliff or onto the beach yelling UURAAAHHH and become gun fodder while those commanders sit at the rear drinking coffee. The Survivors come home and either switch parties immediately because they have SEEN how destructive the Repub policies are or else they become Rush/Beck dittoheads because they still cannot think for themselves and the right wing media sound just like those commanders. The Marines still need a 'few good men' because most of em they get aren't!
Actually Krony she never stopped military recruiting, she stopped giving them access to University assets. They maintained a presence on campus but were no longer given place of preference, because their policies were at odds with Harvard's non-discrimination rules. You should really read the facts, then comment, it's so easy to pick apart your misinformation.
just another kook like the other four kooks yesterday. four kooks retended the second amendment does not exist. judicial activism is always on the left.
hahahahah!!! yessssssssssssss!!
Bauer-899752
And giving corporations and unions equal voice in the voting process is activism? I suppose when the unions start pouring money into a candidate you compalin about that too.
Philip-1877113:
The notion that there would be spending limits at all would have likely been unbelievable to the FF. They are a very recent institution allowed by activist judges.
The decision you refer to really just restores a tiny piece of the limits back to where they have been for about 85% of our country's existence. Slightly muting a fairly recent clearly activist is hardly activist in itself.
And, personally, I couldn't care less if Unions pour money into campaigns -- they pour GOTV labor in all the time - that's no different than money.
Because they intended politics to be a part time job. This is why the Constitution has to be interpreted, it's asinine to attempt to apply it to today's lifelong politicians the same way as they would have to a guy who was a farmer 80% of the time. And I'm pretty sure they had laws against bribery that would have applied towards giving a candidate money. Can't call it that today but that's what it would have been seen as 300 years ago.
here is the truth. kagan will be a rubber stamp for for the president. this president who has no respect for the constitution. it is all about power for the progressives.
Obviously, you're an idiot... Next, please!
I believe Kagan is plenty smart enough that she will Never be a "Rubber Stamp" she is too independent to do something like that. The Lady has class!
Whack-a-Troll!
Bill Arizona
And Harriet Miers was a better choice correct. Totally unbiased in anything that might have come down the pike. I bet you believe Thurgood Marshall was a disgrace to the bench as well? Right?
So? Even if it were true, he'll be there for 6 more years, she'll be around for 40. Go find someone better, cause the joksters your propping up now are just embarrassing.
I'm not even going to bother reading "News" by "Tweet". Please, get your crap together and write an article worth reading.
yet, here you are and taking the time to comment as well........you must be a conservative - admits to not reading the article yet says you will when an article is written that is worth reading....but of course you will never know if it is worth reading since you will not read it..........do you work for the RNC?
You must be referring to the Arizona immigration bill SB1070 that none of the whiite house staff nor cabinet have read, right?
Bravo B Dune Bravo
The military thing at Harvard is a big deal in principle but not in practice. Facts are, Harvard students don't have what it takes to become military, never will ...
Yup, Bush went there didn't he?
Yes he did ... after doing his full time in the Air National Guard in the 70's ... nowadays a little different though from what I can tell ..
He never completed his National Guard tour. His father put him to avoid him going to war. Him and 5 deferrment Dick Cheney. Big on starting wars, never had the experience of being in one. Just shows what happens when you have 2 nimrods running or in their case ruining a country and its economy.
Well they seem to graduate a couple dozen officers a year so....yeah.
And you obviously haven't seen Bush's cheerleader ensemble.
Pretty sure W went to Yale,...
He went to both.
You ask "does Rush and Hannity and Beck have that much power?" Just look at the words used on this board. Directly from the mouths of these GED graduates of the right wing radio.
Hannity say that "government's job is to protect us." This, from a conservative ? Really?
The right wing chooses big government when needed, and later ,wants small, non intrusive government in business.
Government protect us from what? Foreing invaders? Ok. Oil? You kidding? You mean that you right wingers want the US government to protect the shores (land) and the wet lands (land) and the gulf (bodies of water to include rivers, streams, ponds) and the air?
Think about what you have said: You view the role of the government as protector of the total environment. Welcome liberal conservatives. You are now a whacko environmentalist.
Protect us? Ok, how about drugs and food? How about other ways of "protecting us?'"
Strange isn't it...one day say "government is not the answer" (B Jingle) that "government can't solve problems - government is the problem" (Reagan) to it's the government's job to "protect us" (Sean Hannity)
...I would have to read Hannity's full statement rather then just a few words from it...seems to me when he sez, "government's job is to protect us" he is talking about a strong national defense and border enforcement.
ComradeChaos
But its fine to import our jobs overseas and have the Chinese send us tainted toothpaste and pet food because their standards happen to be less and so big business wouldn't have to pay as many fines for polution. I have idea, since your so Pro Big Business, getting rid of thing like the FDA, Dept. of Education and such is a good idea. I bet you you agree w/ that crackpot Sharon Angle and her skewed views right. Having safe food and water and products to eat and for your children toys to be safe isn't a good idea as long as it get in the way of profits, right?
...whoa...
...Phillip...
...uh...where in my post do I imply any of the drivel you just ejaculated?
...dude...
...you should step away from the computer after that 2nd hit on the crack pipe...
ComradeChaos
Big Business isn't fond of f the FDA, Big business isn't found of the EPA or any safety standards that they have to abide by. Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck all expose one thing, let Big Business police itself. Now after this incident in the Gulf w/ lack regulations being partially at fault, regulator being on the take for the industry, and let not forget about the coalminers who also died because of the company stonewalling the government so penalties could be accessed. And using such terms must mean you must have had your hand jerking what little is left of your brains. And your little comment about crackpipes, don't do it and never would. You on the otherhand, I truly believe would go down on anyone or animal just so you can get your next fix. Pig
FIRST READ MODERATORS. It's amazing what vile statements you allow on this site. Read Philip 1877113 at 5:03
Dirt-303814
And ComradeChaos's comments about crackpipes and me ejaculating is ok w/ you right? I will respond in kind to anyone who will write such drivel about myself. Right of Free speach, you've heard of that right? Or is it only for the hatemongers who have nothing insightful or useful to contribute?
this woman has no place on the supreme court, the only place she belongs is in prison with michelle and barrack, vote for the worst presedint in our entire us history and get there horrible liberal judges, would be nice if the republicans could hold her off until after novemmber and then obama would be forced to get a less liberal judge with a super majority in both congresses than being held by the republicans once the tea party takes over.
exactly how does having a majority in the house have anything to do with it - only the Senate votes!
why would Michelle be in prison?
your user name is perfect -
Limbagher
And once again Harriet Miers would have been a better pick. Unfortunately, Alito and Roberts got in and ARE taking away your rigts and giving them to corporations and union. So go ahead and complain, all you have a Kebler elf complaining about the likes of Thurgood Marshall and the only reason he complained and we all know it was because he was black and on the bench while his own party accused him of being extreme.
Dear Limbaughger:
Hate is a burden, it's llike carrying around a big ole sack of garbage, the longer you carry the bag the heavier it gets and the more YOU and the bag of garbage STINK! Maybe you are not old enough to see this FACT, but if you continue to be this angry and hateful you will, in time, learn this lesson and it may prove to be to your detriment! Good luck and God Bless!
If you go to ReutersExposed.com you'll see how Thomson Reuters refuses to negotiate fair wages with their employees while sending American jobs overseas. That is the real problem america needs to be facing
I think the below from a Florida New Journal says it all:
"Kagan is comfortable defending laws that give government sweeping powers to regulate political speech and her only defense is “but the government has never used the law to ban books”. Asides from the fact that the distinctions she draws between different types of media are becoming increasingly blurred in the age of the internet, why would we want to give the government any power to restrict political speech? The First Amendment’s free speech clause was meant to categorically protect political speech.
Kagan lost the argument in the Citizens United case. The Supreme Court ruled 5 – 4 against the government. Kagan will be replacing John Paul Stevens, one of the four who condoned government restrictions on free speech."
She is obviously lacking both the experience and objectivity a Supreme Court Judge should have. Her political stance, hate of the military, and overly liberal views are well documented. How is this a person that will interpret the constitution fairly and without bias if she will not even uphold free speech?
I like a person I no nothing about better than one that thinks how she should judge?.........She knows the law just like all the judges ...............just like seperation of church and state the law stands .if not it would not even be a matter to even talk about.that is why youi people want sertain judges in there to change the definition of the law????that is yalls plain.
Are you seriously defending the citizen's united case? Seriously? The assertion by the court that corporations have the same rights as regular American citizens to contribute unlimited cash to political campaigns?
If you are talking to me no that is dangeous .we will not have a voice in the future?....that is what i was talking about they are putting only people in there to change the law not to protect it.that is why the Republicans are pushing so hard to see what she is about ???that is unfair in my eyes I do not want just one sided minds .if i go to court I am screwd. and so are you??
Majog:
Could you provide a link to the Florida New Journal please? I can't seem to locate a newspaper of that name.