Phony? Yeah. She’s not really a liberal or progressive - she’s a moderate to conservative. Obama is so lily-livered that he put up someone the GOP should be embarrassed to be against, let alone with the thinly veiled racism and anti-Semitism some of them are using, e.g., many references to her clerking for Thurgood Marshall and living on the Upper West Side of – gasp! – New York, meaning she’s obviously Jewish.
I wonder what her ideas are on Monsanto’s “copyrighted”
seeds?
That seems a larger issue than they are willing to discuss, their “corporate rights” to dose the planet with ONLY their seeds.
Will ANYONE bring that subject up? Both parties look kow-towed on this.
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Have you seen the comments the Repubs have been making about Thurgood Marshall in reference to Kagan? It’s all more of the same generalities about, ‘activist judges’ with absolutely no specifics.
You all can say what you wish, but the fact is that the country is in the state that it is in because “we the people” have allowed it to happen over the last 100 years by the votes we have cast. Defending the constitution and governing has not been able to be a priority for sitting presidents because “the name of the game is politics,” Whenever one side wins, the other side immediately begins to attack and snipe at the winner’s past, present and future. The impression is that since their side has lost, the votors are ignorant morons who just sllipped across the border to vote. I am reminded of lthe wolf caught in the trap chewing off his own leg while the world goes on around him. Case in point, John McCain. How many of his “Maverick” positions has he CHANGED since he ran for election with his “common person” (emphasis on COMMON) running mate? ALL POLITICIANS ARE IN POLITICS TO MOVE THEIR OWN AGENDA regardless of the voters that they supposidily represent. And you wonder at the mess we are in. Remember, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
“The actions you took helped created a climate not healthy to the military on campus,” Sessions said. “You were taking steps to treat them in a second-class way and not give them the same equal access because you deeply opposed their policy” on gays.
Irony. Absolute irony. Like… it’s so delicious. Especially from Sessions, who advocates treating gays in a second-class manner.
Simon – thanks for the link – it’s a great article.
Howgozit – what do you mean? She’s the Solicitor General! Perhaps not a position the average person on the street knows much about, but certainly all the “experts” knew her well.
Roberts’ remark about just calling balls and strikes strikes me as balls.
The Constitution does not interpret itself. If there were no serious questions of interpretation there would be no need for any justices at all – or maybe just one. But the fact is that reasonable people can disagree about interpretations. The Justices often disagree among themselves, and they are not stupid people – well, most of them aren’t. Well, four of them aren’t.
Take the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There are (at least) two quite reasonable interpretations of this language. One could say that ALL the words have to be taken into account, including the beginning: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Why did the founders not simply say “The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Well, this side would say, the right has to be exercised in the context of a well regulated militia. Otherwise, there is no need for the initial qualification.
But the other side can reasonably say, Not so. The language of the main clause is unambiguous, and the initial subordinate participial phrase makes no difference.
Both of these interpretations are defensible. The interpretation of the clause is not just a matter of calling balls and strikes. You have to determine the strike zone first. Then you can call balls and strikes according to that determination.
MILLARDGUY almost 14 years ago
We are screwed …. another phoney from the O,,,,,
meetinthemiddle almost 14 years ago
As opposed to Roberts and Alito who “respected stare decisis” - for about 5 minutes.
Motivemagus almost 14 years ago
Phony? Yeah. She’s not really a liberal or progressive - she’s a moderate to conservative. Obama is so lily-livered that he put up someone the GOP should be embarrassed to be against, let alone with the thinly veiled racism and anti-Semitism some of them are using, e.g., many references to her clerking for Thurgood Marshall and living on the Upper West Side of – gasp! – New York, meaning she’s obviously Jewish.
jaxaction almost 14 years ago
I wonder what her ideas are on Monsanto’s “copyrighted” seeds? That seems a larger issue than they are willing to discuss, their “corporate rights” to dose the planet with ONLY their seeds.
Will ANYONE bring that subject up? Both parties look kow-towed on this.
Simon_Jester almost 14 years ago
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Have you seen the comments the Repubs have been making about Thurgood Marshall in reference to Kagan? It’s all more of the same generalities about, ‘activist judges’ with absolutely no specifics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html?hpid=topnews
sidl almost 14 years ago
You all can say what you wish, but the fact is that the country is in the state that it is in because “we the people” have allowed it to happen over the last 100 years by the votes we have cast. Defending the constitution and governing has not been able to be a priority for sitting presidents because “the name of the game is politics,” Whenever one side wins, the other side immediately begins to attack and snipe at the winner’s past, present and future. The impression is that since their side has lost, the votors are ignorant morons who just sllipped across the border to vote. I am reminded of lthe wolf caught in the trap chewing off his own leg while the world goes on around him. Case in point, John McCain. How many of his “Maverick” positions has he CHANGED since he ran for election with his “common person” (emphasis on COMMON) running mate? ALL POLITICIANS ARE IN POLITICS TO MOVE THEIR OWN AGENDA regardless of the voters that they supposidily represent. And you wonder at the mess we are in. Remember, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
@motivemangus - Not to mention her playing softball. That obviously makes her a lesbian.
dwnoname almost 14 years ago
Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Joseph Stalin
WarBush almost 14 years ago
Activist judge…pfffff! Next thing you know they’ll say she’s neosocialist!
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“The actions you took helped created a climate not healthy to the military on campus,” Sessions said. “You were taking steps to treat them in a second-class way and not give them the same equal access because you deeply opposed their policy” on gays.
Irony. Absolute irony. Like… it’s so delicious. Especially from Sessions, who advocates treating gays in a second-class manner.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
Simon – thanks for the link – it’s a great article.
Howgozit – what do you mean? She’s the Solicitor General! Perhaps not a position the average person on the street knows much about, but certainly all the “experts” knew her well.
Roberts’ remark about just calling balls and strikes strikes me as balls.
The Constitution does not interpret itself. If there were no serious questions of interpretation there would be no need for any justices at all – or maybe just one. But the fact is that reasonable people can disagree about interpretations. The Justices often disagree among themselves, and they are not stupid people – well, most of them aren’t. Well, four of them aren’t.
Take the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There are (at least) two quite reasonable interpretations of this language. One could say that ALL the words have to be taken into account, including the beginning: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Why did the founders not simply say “The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Well, this side would say, the right has to be exercised in the context of a well regulated militia. Otherwise, there is no need for the initial qualification.
But the other side can reasonably say, Not so. The language of the main clause is unambiguous, and the initial subordinate participial phrase makes no difference.
Both of these interpretations are defensible. The interpretation of the clause is not just a matter of calling balls and strikes. You have to determine the strike zone first. Then you can call balls and strikes according to that determination.
Simon_Jester almost 14 years ago
I think the Repubs are only calling Thurgood Marshal an ‘activist’ Judge, coz they can’t get away with, ‘uppity’.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
When ROBERTS couldn’t remember the oath of office, it was indicative.