Never served as a Judge.........

I don't live in Missouri and the people of Missouri don't speak for me. An election which was held where the Republicans turned out in greater numbers because they had a more contentious primary doesn't speak for the entire nation.

I am from Missouri and if you count the votes Prop C you will see that even if all the republicans voted for it it has 100,000 more votes which came from Democrats

Grow up. Obamacare is going to provide deadbeats with the prod to get insurance instead of mooching their healthcare at my expense. And, I wish he would mandate that you buy GM cars, but he won't so slubs can continue to buy their rice burners at the expense of American jobs. I just can't stand paper conservatives, you'all talk a good game, but when it comes down to it you don't add a damn thing to our country beside hot air.

Gosh, Mark, do you call the White House each morning to see whether or not to have Cheerios or eggs for breakfast? I don't think the government has the authority to mandate that I purchase anything simply because I happen to be breathing.

Frankly, "Obamacare" would have been better if all it did was effectively remove the monopoly protections that health insurance has.

• --They should have to compete with each other across state-lines
• --Insurance should be portable so that a person can pay the same rate that they had at one job if they move to another or become self-employed.
• --There should be an insurance exchange where services are commoditized and buyers can buy from the best/most competitive providers
• --Insurance companies should not be able to drop coverage on a customer that has not been delinquint on their payments. They should have the option of buying the customer out of their contract however, but only at the consent of the customer and only on good-faith and full disclosure

I'm not thrilled about this mandate that people MUST pay for insurance. Because what this will really do is make it even less likely that insurance companies will be competitive since they will have a tremendous number of customers available.

However, these types of mandates are nothing new, people have to buy insurance if they own a car that gets driven on public highways...the only major difference is that it is voluntary to own a car (italicized for areas that have sub-par mass transit and owning a car is a must).

-----------------------

Anyway, on subject...

I respect Brown's opinion, but I disagree with it, we've had SCOTUS justices that have little-to-no legal experience sit on the bench before. In fact, in some cases I prefer it because they will take certain aspects of the constitution more literally and have less of a mind for finding the loopholes and grey areas set by legal precedent and 200 yrs evolving interpretations.

Unfortunately, Kagan is still a lawyer for all intents and purposes...she just doesn't have the bench-experience that Brown would prefer.

We have enough lawyers in power...its time to get people that actually have more common sense and less incentive to just see how far they can twist the law to satisfy corrupt interests...not that corruption is limited to lawyers only...it's just that they've earned a lovely reputation for themselves now haven't they? ^_^

I don't think the government has the authority to mandate that I purchase anything simply because I happen to be breathing.

That is your thought and hope, GoUSA, but it is not yet fact. The courts will decide the matter ~ and either way they go, the losing side will yell "legislating from the bench." Frankly I think the Obama healthcare plan is all splash and foam ~ but I've read a lot over the past two months on the Commerce Clause of the constitution. So far I have found nothing that conclusively prohibits the imposition of mandatory insurance coverage. But then, I haven't salted my study with liberal or conservative seasoning which is required of arbiters today ~ even those on the judicial bench.

Kagan will vote cases exactly as Obama would have voted them. This is no secret to anybody, which is why Ted Kennedy's replacement is voting "no".

Go Scott Brown, this is why we voted you in.

You are correct. Just as Bush's appointments followed his viewpoint. That's what happens in America when you are the President of the US. Yoiu get to appoint like minded people. Republicans do it. Democrats do it.

I think you should look at how many Supreme Court Justices graduated from what is widely regarded as one of the finest law schools on the planet. I also think you should look at how many Supreme court justices did not serve as judges previously. The supreme court is quite different from ordinary courts. There is no jury. There is no need to "operate the courtroom". The supreme court is comprised of constitutional scholars who debate the fine points of constitutional law amongst themselves after the case is presented. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT LEGAL ACADEMICS DO.

If you hear a lawyer such as Scott Brown carping about her "lack of judicial experience", know he has the training to know this is nonsense both historically and in terms of how the court really functions. Think what you like but get your facts straight and then wonder why you are being deceived.

Why should someone support someone with little to no experience because of their geographic location or party denomination? I don't get that at all. The issues and experience in DOING THE JOB are what we the voters should be concerned with. Not team flag waving. I'm sure we should add literacy to the list as well since so many are so arrogant that they admit they don't even read the crap they're voting on and would rather revert to grade school name calling than actually know what they're voting "yes" to.

Kagan wouldn't have voted for Scott Brown anyway. She is a democrat.

I guess its good that you cant vote on these issues Canadian/Americanviewer- Just because someone is from your area as you say, does not automatically mean that you should support them. You should support people based on their qualifications. Senator Brown does not feel she is qualified. I would actually be upset if he said "While i don't feel she is qualified, im going to vote for her because she is from my area."

I think your view is a problem with a lot of politicians- if you A) dont agree with or B) dont know about something- you shouldnt vote for it. Its pretty simple. Doing otherwise is making an uneducated vote, which many citizens do, but our politicians should be above.

and a coward. Idiot you can deal with, cowardice is tough.

I agree. That man is an idiot.

HIS inexperience is showing.

Idiot because he actually looks at the issues before he votes? which of course Martha Coakly would not have done as she voted in lockstep with the moonbats!

what's your native language? Maybe I can translate for you.

Brown doesn't vote strictly party line. That's not a fair analysis.

I disagree with his view, but I don't suspect his character.

From what ive seen of Senator Brown, i would have to disagree with your comments Adler. Brown has voted with the Democrats a few times now. I think Clarke Ong has it right - i dont suspect the man's character.

Brown is in trouble with the Tea Baggers who supported his candidacy. By withholding his decision until well after the outcome has been assured, he allows himself to cast a meaningless 'no' vote that appeases the right-wingers but doesn't affect the outcome. Heck, the way politics works, Brown (who was one of the people who introduced Kagan at the hearings) probably told her what he was going to do. It happens all the time in both parties; people will vote for/against something to make a political point as long as it didn't change the outcome. He probably decided he would vote against Kagan as long as she would win anyway.

Rich-1924719
Brown is in trouble with the Tea Baggers who supported his candidacy

May I ask you where you got this tibit of information from?
Brown ran on trying to stop Obama Care. During the campaign he said many many times that he would not vote straight ticket ( which his record supports )
While a lot of people dont like Brown, he is doing exactly what he said he would do.

maybe Rich-1924719 has psychic powers?

Rick, maybe you missed the fact that a lifetime appointment to the USSC is somewhat different from elected office where those who elected you can remove you if they decide you don't measure up? Even when you voted for Obama and his inexperience showed in every possible way for the first 18 months you gave yourself a way out. It's called 2012. Kagan has no 2012.

Kstarr - it is not one of the qualifications for SCOTUS that one has to have either bench or bar experience. One can serve with neither of those experiences, so I guess our forefathers did not necessarily believe that the bench or bar experience is a requirement. You just get these notions from your party's talking points. Smarts and wisdom does not necessarily come with either being a former judge or an attorney. She obviously is an attorney, so for you guys, that should be a qualifier, right? Oh, excuse me, maybe she's not activist enough to give corporations the right to act as citizens....I forgot.

cathy M - save the partisan sarcasm please - as my post was only pointing out Rick's weak comparison regarding lack of experience between someone running for elected office and a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. If you want to debate that, then go ahead - the rest is just silly.

quick question - Trial Lawyers supported Democrats - is that what you meant by "for you guys"??????

Presidents should not be the appointing forces for the Supreme Court, as it's clear that politics rules those appointments on both sides. And before someone asks, NO, I don't have a solution. I would welcome some realistic ideas, though - ideas re: how we can select SC justices without allowing the party in power to do the appointing.

MN... you make a valid point. When the Executive and the Legislative branches of government are today riddled with the worst of political gain... a power-mongering that has no concern for grass-roots America... they should not be empowered further by stacking the Supreme Court.

The Court is NOT, under our constitution empowered to MAKE Law. It is to clarify existing Law .... and those come from the Legislature. The Executive Branch may submit suggestions, but the Executive Branch is NOT to MAKE Law either.

The Executive may use the Veto, but carefully. That has not been used wisely in all cases historically. But, nonetheless, it is the Politicians and their Lobbyists who are destroying our country; they are NOT representing the voters wishes.

The only Branch of our Government that has, until some decades ago, been an objective mitigation of Political power-driven Legislators and Presidents has been SCOTUS.

The life terms of SCOTUS is like a blasted Monarchy! Not exactly what we fought the American Revolution for.

Second Sight - Indeed... Along with a good many of my fellow Americans, I would like to see term limits applied to all public service positions to reduce/prevent the abuse of power.

It would be very interesting to hear what our "founding fathers" and those who actually fought in the revolution think of today's America, wouldn't it?

MN

I agree, you know back in the day - it was an unpaid position. Now it's a friggin' career bigger than an 'honest' profession. We have bastardized the intent of the legislative body to a hybrid model that is ineffective and no way representational of the constituents it was designed to serve. Every porkulus add on from both sides to every perquisite and COLA increase for Congress - including office allowances, none of that is how it was designed. People used to be honored to serve and after a short time they were happy to hustle home and get back to running their personal affairs. Now they just spend their days tanning and figuring out which lobbyist will 'entertain' them this evening. sick and sad state of affairs.

Well said, Clara!

He was basically given the election anyway. Martha Coakley, his Democratic opponent, did nothing.

Let me say that again: His Democratic opponent did nothing during the campaign. If she had put up a fight at all in the early stages of the special election campaign, she very well might be the junior senator from Massachusetts right now.

I wholeheartedly Agree with you on that Sean. What little i saw of her, made me think, she thought she was Entitled to that Seat. Acted like Royalty. Brown earned his Victory, but saying Kagan has No Experience is the same GOP lame argument, that i've heard for 35 years now.

his hearing was his campaign

As was President Obama's!

Touche!

Rick -KY since you brought up Obama - his campaign was NOT his hearing - he managed to dodge the national media most of his campaign. See, a hearing means you actually answer questions.

Strange, Republicans were always complaining that the campaign was "all Obama, all the time", now we're supposed to believe that he wasn't vetted? Can't have it both ways.

A worthless suck-up v/s a Harvard-bred thought leader. good comparison Lee. Time to get back to your tea pot.

hey Lee, good argument for not confirming Kagan there. Nice job.

That's a hoot. Meyer's only experience was being the attorney for GW Bush. Ms. Kagan was the President of Harvard Law School.

Yeah, that's exactly the same.

Correction, I meant Dean of Harvard Law.

and why do we glaze over the fact that she CLERKED for Thurgood Marshall. That had to be some of the best MOST DIRECTLY related experience that a Supreme Court Justice candidate could HOPE to have.

Haters hate,...it's what they do. And now, they can SUCK it; cuz' it's in the history books now, you betcha!

Based on the Senators' opening statements they only want clerking for Justice Marshall to count if it can be a negative. Apparently it fully cemented her radical, leftist tendencies without actually providing any experience.

Good one, John - they do like to have it both ways, don't they?

I won't lie - I thought he was going to at least be an improvement over other Republicans. I was wrong, and I won't get the chance to register my disapproval until 2013.

Eugene - I'd love to see the Democrats support something "for the betterment of the middle class."

Please let us all know when that actually happens.

So far, they've done nothing that will help the middle class nor, in fact, the country.

I'm an independent, but right now I'll take the party of NO over the Democrats, who somehow believe it's their job to dictate to all American citizens. They are the least representative gov't. we've had in ages. "NO" is the APPROPRIATE response to this administration and congress. Talk about "taxation without representation....!"

Ms. Kagan will just follow her party affiliation, exactly as they all do, which is why SC justices should not be appointed by the Presidents - NONE of them.

Yah.

1/3 of our prior SC justices had no prior judicial experience. Some of them are considered to be the greatest of all time.

Actually read the story again. He said he also put courtroom experience into consideration. It seems that Kagan (other than in her role as solicitor general) has none of that either.

"...(other than her role as solicitor general) has none of that either."

Are you're saying that her experience arguing before the Supreme Court is worthless, or that her experience arguing before the Supreme Court is worth less than other courtroom experience?

Either way, I don't understand how you can equate "her experience arguing before the Supreme Court" with "none of that either".

second sight, I would have to agree with your conclusion - what are we to use to evaluate Kagan if she has no bench experience AND she is evasive in her hearings? She's brought nothing with which she can be evaluated for this appointment. How many of us would get a job if we 1) had no experience and 2) evaded questions from the interviewer?

second sight, I would have to agree with your conclusion - what are we to use to evaluate Kagan if she has no bench experience AND she is evasive in her hearings? She's brought nothing with which she can be evaluated for this appointment. How many of us would get a job if we 1) had no experience and 2) evaded questions from the interviewer?

The Chief Justice didn't know, I suspect, the Muslim language versions that the new prexy wanted. I think that is a point in the Chief Justice's favor.

Scott Brown is intelligent, which is more than I can say of the juvenile name-calling the 12 year old posters resort to here. Brown is bi-partisan and more power to him. That is one thing I doubt you can be "extremist" about, and extremism is certainly defined by example in some of the comments here.

Extremism is, of course, the sign of a brain-dead IQ... it shouts ignorance big time.

How ironic that SecondSight would would say "The Chief Justice didn't know, I suspect, the Muslim language versions that the new prexy wanted," then say "Scott Brown is intelligent, which is more than I can say of the juvenile name-calling the 12 year old posters resort to here." I'd say that SecondSight has no authority on the subject of intelligence.

That being said, Mr. Brown is entitled to vote no. Whatever. It's posturing, for sure. I hope he decides that he doesn't HAVE to posture so much and start acting like an honorable Republican--a species that's nearly extinct.

Juevinile namecalling & Muslim version are 1 & the same, 2nd sighting. What a joke you are!

lolol Ricket et al Of course the biased and uninformed would feel threatened by someone who has graduate degrees and law background. It's ok... I have been trained in analyzing personality disorders in order to make appropriate referrals.

Mr. Obama is not just inexperienced. He doesn't just have a rather destructive agenda. There are a number of psychological therapists who see serious evidence that he needs psychological help. I can link them if you require.

Until you do some research yourselves, you folks who are so self-satisfied with name-calling... you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Unless you take the trouble to inform yourselves... of course, and able to express your position cogently, you cannot be taken seriously. I am a school teacher, editor, and published writer. I have hopes for all those who have the energy, even, to post here, regardless your position.

Now, I do implore you, educate yourselves. If you make an accusation, support it with relevant facts and impeccable sources... if necessary, quote them.

These discussions are excellent practice. Think! Do you believe you can be persuasive by insulting a person. That, good people, never insults your target.

It just insults yourselves.

Roberts did fine until he was interrupted by Obama, who apparently thought he would need help saying " I, Barack Hussein Obama...". 18 months later, many are thinking he probably did need help.

ROFL... Mr. Austin... you certainly cannot define as cowardly the seeming resistance against the mainstream in his area in order to be cogent in evaluating all sides.

He has shown he supports the working class, the people who voted for him. And his analysis of Kagan is in their best interests. Its appearance of being "non-liberal" is nonsense and objective observers know it. As for cooperating with her introduction, wasn't that before the screening interview?

But even if not, he has done his homework.... Cannot say that for all the lobbiy-defined politicians.

Going against the ignorant stream as shown here? That takes guts.

walkin - the difference is...... mandates are not required if you choose not to drive. Some may not want to choose to be in that health care system as well. What happened to the freedom to not have the government involved in choices about your own body? Hmmmmmm?

You are more than free to choose NOT to participate. You are however REQUIRED to pull your own weight for YOUR health care. So if you choose to NOT have health insurance, then you can pay a higher tax so when you decide to go to an emergency room because you broke your neck and have no insurance because you thought you were invincible the rest of us do not have to pay for YOUR treatment. I wouldn't think that would require explanation to those who claim to be from the party of personal responsibility. But I guess it does.

Shellie, so glad to hear you post of personal responsibility - that's what this is all about. Many prefer to be self insured (pulling their own weight) and have the means to do so. They don't want an insurance company OR Obama's Health Commissioner making their treatment decisions for them. So what business is it of yours to decide they need to be taxed if they don't expect you to pay a dime for their care? Choice, remember?

kstarr1, a major health emergency can easily exceed $1,000,000 in expenses. The last 9 months of my favorite Aunt's life cost $900,000 as she died of COPD. How many of the uninsured have $1M or more socked away for this sort of thing AND enough additional to cover all their other expenses during a period when they will probably be unable to work?