-
START’s Lame Passage
January 11, 2011 | 12 comments
-
Follow the Rule of Law
January 4, 2011 | 47 comments
-
Suing Obamacare
July 20, 2010 | 32 comments
-
Hiding Behind U.S. Law
July 9, 2010 | 9 comments
-
The Criminalization of Business
June 16, 2010 | 32 comments
A Further Perspective
A Shrewd Choice
Kagan would be an effective advocate on the Court.
President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice is no surprise to many. By most accounts, she is likely to be an effective advocate on the Court. For those in favor of the Court’s steady erosion of the constraints on government power enshrined in our written Constitution, her nomination should be welcome. For those opposed, her nomination provides a call to arms to defend the principles of limited government.
While she would be only one of nine Justices, Kagan’s capacity to influence the direction of the Court may be significant. As many have observed in recent days, she has a strong intellect — an asset in attempting to influence colleagues on a Court that is noted for its intellectual firepower. In order to shape the direction of the Court, a Justice must possess the ability to craft arguments that are persuasive to the other members. Kagan appears to have the potential to excel in this area.
Kagan’s experience in the Clinton White House and as a Dean of Harvard Law School are another advantage. In these positions, she honed political skills that facilitated her meteoric rise from law professor to Supreme Court nominee. As a result, even some prominent conservatives such as former Solicitors General Charles Fried, Ted Olson, and Ken Starr supported her nomination as Solicitor General. Again, these are skills that would likely magnify her presence on the Court.
Kagan’s age is also significant. At 50, Kagan could expect to serve decades on the Court. With increased tenure comes the potential for increased influence. As with Justice Stevens, Kagan’s stature on the Court would likely grow over time.
Finally, Kagan’s limited paper trail provides an air of neutrality. Already, some on both the left and the right have attacked her as overly “conservative” or “liberal.” While it is likely that those on the left have little to worry about, the fact that such debate exists has allowed advocates of her nomination to paint her as a “moderate” who will serve as a neutral arbiter. The Obama administration has taken up this theme, urging a swift confirmation. This same record and her apparent openness to those who hold more conservative views are likely to place her in a position of influence on the Court.
In many ways, Kagan’s nomination parallels that of Chief Justice Roberts. Like Chief Justice Roberts, she has won respect in many quarters. While she lacks the practical experience Chief Justice Roberts obtained over decades of private practice as one of the nation’s preeminent Supreme Court and appellate advocates, she may possess many of the same talents, contributing to an ability to advocate positions that move the Court marginally in the direction she favors. For the Obama administration, her nomination is likely to prove a shrewd one. The question for Republicans is whether they can mount a strong opposition.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (230) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Douglas Smith
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/14/a-shrewd-choice
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 5.14.10 @ 6:30AM
Are you terminally stupid,Douglas?...or do you just think the rest of us are?...neutral?...the woman is an out and out socialist...anybody who took time to read her senior thesis can see that....advocate?...for what?...shutting down free speech if there is a 'societal interest' in doing so?...partial birth abortion?.....blatantly disobeying the law of the land where military recruiters are concerned because she carries her brains around in her panties?....well,yea,pretty much all of those....there are some VERY serious gaps in your education,Douglas...self delude much?
2Anglico| 5.14.10 @ 8:40AM
The author is being slightly sarcastic. He is pointing out that she is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Red Rich| 5.18.10 @ 4:33PM
I don't see any sarcasm there at all, nor is he even implying she's a "wolf in sheep's clothing".
Tom| 5.14.10 @ 10:25AM
She will be an advocate for positions Obama holds. From what I have read and seen of her Smith is correct; Kagan will push the court left, she is a bright woman. She will present problems for the conservatives on the court for decades. It was indeed a shrewd pick by Obama. I hope they find a skeleton in her closet that leads to her defeat but I am not holding my breath.
A.M. Mallett| 5.14.10 @ 2:57PM
What in the world gives anybody cause to think this rather unhealthy looking woman will make it well into her sixties. I see a cheeseburger attack just waiting to happen. We can only wait.
Joseph Chiu| 5.14.10 @ 3:39PM
The best observation so far.
Marc Mallon| 5.14.10 @ 10:59PM
I'd feel better if Justice Scalia stopped smoking cigarettes. . . .
Red Rich| 5.18.10 @ 4:31PM
LMAO
Yes, he is terminally stupid, but all liberals are, they support abortion, and abort themselves at a much higher rate than republicans and conservatives do. He's just one of the lucky ones who happened to survive his.
Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 6:35AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : A Shrewd Choice [spectator.org] on T links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Loadmaster| 5.14.10 @ 6:41AM
I think I'm going to be sick.
Clinton nee Publius| 5.14.10 @ 12:25PM
Ditto. She's a socialist who was a communist just like Obama and we already know the corrupt Republican Party will not oppose her confirmation. Nothing. No way. Nada.
Voting Republican is the same as voting for socialism as the Republicans only care about their own power and doing whatever is necessary to ensure they get their cut of the Regime's largess.
Yep, I'm already sick and getting sicker by the minute.
Dr Risk| 5.16.10 @ 1:18AM
Suicide on the installment plan still kills you.
drudge ette obama| 5.14.10 @ 6:52AM
This article is disturbing in that it finds potential in a vacuum. It was not worth the cyberspace it was written on.
The lack of a paper trail is not an attribute, it is either her deliberate plan to hide tangible proof of her leanings or the lack of ability to write what anyone else wants to publish or read.
I know all I need to know about her. She's socialist-leaning, a "living constitutionalist", pro-judicial activism when it supports her position, arrogant in that she has contempt for the founders and the constitution, and she seems to have an odd personal life. Add in her 1st (speech)and 2nd (guns) amendments comments and I think we have a real progressive lefty here. If she is gay, then she should be open about it, along with her opinion about gay marriage and so-called gay rights. She probably wants to upgrade sexual persuasion to a heightened scrutiny status.
Finally, she is a fleshy, portulant woman for aged 50 and doesn't look too healthy. I was a little disturbed to hear that she leaves her car running all night when she becomes distracted. It's probably a good thing that she doesn't have small children.
These are my thoughts - that she was reportedly fair as a dean means squat to me. Once she has the power and no need to please others, then we'll see the ideologue come out.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 5.14.10 @ 8:53AM
Please, no arguments based on this kommie’s looks. Limit all criticisms of this lady whom obummer calls his friend to her known positions. Just his friendship, given his track record of picking friends and staff, should send the storm-flags flying. Don’t be distracted by the sleight-of-hand feint that she may be a lesbian. This was probably drummed up by those who seek to portray her opponents as homophobes. I will freely admit, while the opportunity to express myself is still permitted by the FCC, that over the past 2 years I have become more and more a kommie-phobe. This one apparently has no problem with limits on the First or Second Amendments to a Document her potential new boss views as flawed because it limits his power. Yes, her new boss - you think she was picked to serve The People? Add to these her refusal to allow military recruiters on campus, and you know exactly why she is obummer’s komrade. She is another leftist loon who hates the very people who volunteered their precious lives so that she could hold and express her stalinist stupidities. The sin-ate needs to determine whether or not she is an advocate of state-imposed ‘social’ justice or of Constitutionally mandated ‘equal’ justice. Make no mistake, she is another link in the chain beavisbud is forging with which he intends to shackle us all. I fully expect all the demo-koms to march in lockstep, arm-in-arm, chanting “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” while calling me a racist terrorist, behind this nomination, but make no mistake, any republi-kom who backs this softball player needs to be sent packing in a new suit of tar and feathers and riding atop a razor wire rail this looming November. She is a shrewd choice only to those who believe OUR Constitution is some sort of New Age kommie manifesto.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Go Galt!
Only 982 days to go.
loulou| 5.14.10 @ 10:36AM
Regarding her physical appearance, I agree.
She isn't practicing healthy eating habits a la Michelle, is she?
Leaving her car running is supposed to be endearing? I find it disturbing.
She is a political hack who isn't fit to sit on the Supreme Court. Man up, Mitch McConnell, etc.
Stephie| 5.14.10 @ 1:15PM
" Man up, Mitch McConnell, etc. "
I won't hold my breath on that one.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:14PM
He won't man up, she's in, so get over it. It's gonna be the boys against the girls, and you know who wins the arguments boys ... can't wait for the political hack Alito, blowhard Scalia, Idiot Thomas and poor misguided Roberts to be challenged by the girls. Hahahaha.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 5.16.10 @ 3:44PM
"It is a far better thing to remain silent & let everyone believe you to be a fool, than to speak up & dispel all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Achilles Toejam | 5.16.10 @ 2:08PM
It's no surprise Obama will nominate someone who is right in line with his Marxist beliefs, the fact that she has very little of a paper trail and no experience of a judge so were rulings could be examined make her the perfect stealth nominee. I have no doubt that some Republican soft heads haven't read the writing on the wall of the coming storm and make nice and play house with the Obama regime.
No doubt this is a huge crap sandwich we will all be forced to dine upon again like the health-care legislation and the new cap & tr... oh that's right it's now called "American Power Act" because too many people figured out the scam so we're back to the shell game terminology but the game is still the same crime Inc.
Is there hope for restoring our constitutional republic? We'll see if there is hope in November.
Ret. Marine| 5.14.10 @ 7:13AM
Shrewd you say, phoney, try penny in penny out. It's all about the payback. Kagan, the great keeper of the "won's" background, locked and sealed records is a mental migdet compared to the likes of Roberts. Funny thing is, all I have ever heard about is the time she uninvited herself into the world of politic's (and lost the battles by the way) she turned out to be a great thinker of the progressive persuasion. Man are you as delussional as this pretender-n-theif Douglas. You must be. I would like someone nominated to this position who actually has an understanding, the orginal type that is, of the Constitution, not the make it up as we think we might get away with Constitutionalist. Good grief, we are in trouble.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:20PM
A Corporation is a person? Really? You're already in trouble and you don't even know it. Roberts' Court is one of the most activist Courts ever - challenging even the Warren Court in modern times. But they give YOU want YOU want, don't they? Bush v. Gore proved that. It was a Florida problem, even if they had to recount every damn vote.
So much for originalist, strict constructionist Justices. None of the Conservatives is that, that's for sure. That went out the window in order to institute what you want. But - how did that work fer ya? You ain't too proud of them Supremes, you betcha!
Liberal Reader| 5.15.10 @ 6:39AM
Gore didn't ask for recounts for the whole state. He asked for them only in places where he was confident that he could cheat. We got to watch some of the chad counting cheating as it was going on. This is what fascists like purplegay call democracy. Mix in the lax rules for voting so that they can get aliens voting in our elections and you have a perfect system as far as they are concerned. Eventually all this cheating will be done behind closed doors like in Venezuela. In September we can send a lot of these Il Duces home for good.
Purpleguy| 5.15.10 @ 7:02PM
Had the Supremes left in the hands of the Florida Supreme Court, a full recount probably would have been done. Everyone who was a student of the Supreme Court of the U.S. was surprised. Never had any Court interceded and over the supremacy of the States to conduct their own elections. That is not strict constuctionist, now is it? I thought the conservative position has always been States Rights over Federal - Ronald Reagan, William F Buckley, hell even Bill Krystol would have been apoplectic if the Supreme Court overruled Abortion rights in the States - oh, that's right they did, and they were. Well, now you can say the Conservative Justices threw States Rights in the toilet too... ;-)
Liberal Reader| 5.15.10 @ 11:08PM
When liberals get shut down trying to steal elections they really lose it. If they would have applied Florida law the Supreme Court would have let them alone. Those judges tried to look the other way while progressive clowns tried to steal the election. Purplegay has no respect for our Republic and wants to turn it into some liberal Reich. November 2 is right around the corner and will be the end of his political life. He should take care of his mental illness now and not wait. November may be too late for him.
Achilles Toejam | 5.16.10 @ 2:26PM
PG has a one track mind it's always the same thing the 2000 Florida election, well the votes have been counted, recounted and recounted again in the final tally Gore lost!
So get over it! Liberals love the activist courts bbecause it's the only way they can implement their agenda because they would never be able to get it through the Legislature so the courts do their dirty work but the people are waking up and learning that the courts don't make law only render opinions on the law.
Any prolonged debate with PG is a waste of time as you are doing nothing more than casting your pearls before swine so shake the dust off your feet and let him stew in his own poison, I've got better things to do like change the paper in the birdcage now where's that old New York Times paper.
Richard Baker| 5.14.10 @ 7:21AM
Effective advocate? Foolish me, I thought the job of a Supreme Court Justice was to review Cases with the Constitution as the defining guide. Advocacy is not the purpose of the Court. That has been the problem since the Warren Court, particularly. Penumbras and emanations, anyone?
Tom| 5.14.10 @ 10:27AM
I do not think Smith is implying that such advocacy is a good thing he is pointing out if she is confirmed she will be an advocate for leftist causes.
JP| 5.14.10 @ 7:23AM
Every so often we hear the same arguements. In the past, I believe it was Breyer who would be able to take on Renquist. Or was it Scalia? Kagan, by virture of her CV, is a progressive. She ticket punched her way up the Left's career ladder in much the same way Roberts did climbing up the Right's ladder. However, the big difference between the 2 is that Kagan believes in outcome based jurisprudene, while Roberts attempts to interpet the law. Kagan will twist the law to meet her agenda; otherwise, Obama would never had allowed her to get within 100 miles of the nomination. As others quipped this week, "Obama essientially nominated himself."
To gussy up this nomination as some kind of shrewd move is disingenuous. Yes, perhaps in some cases Kagan will pull Kennedy into her camp. But don't think for a second Kagan will ever join Kennedy, Ailto, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia beyond unimportant cases. And don't think for a minute that Kagan will be able to match wits with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas. She isn't a legal scholar as much as she is a politician. In that sense she is probably closer to Warren or perhaps O'Douglas. And over time, the people will see that she is about as radical as those 2 politicians posing as judges. Simply put, she is a safe Far Left vote.
Shamus| 5.14.10 @ 7:48AM
This person will be a complete disaster on the court. She's totally unethical and understands nothing about the law. It's a shrewd choice only if you goal is to destroy the American system of government.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:22PM
Give it a rest with the destruction of the American system of Government. "If any conservative ever has power in any elected or Court position, it will be the destruction of the American system of government. " - how does that sound to you?
Average Infidel| 5.15.10 @ 5:33AM
Shut up purpleturd, you have not figured out yet that you and your mental-midget mind bending examples are just sheet-on a cone with the usual dribble over the nuts?
Purpleguy| 5.15.10 @ 6:54PM
??? ... whatever...
JimE| 5.16.10 @ 6:07PM
Its sounds to me like a liberal moron babbling jibberish. Your degree in scatology is of no value here, it might impress the idiots at KOS and your islamic controllers but we all know you are a retard.
Louis Jenkins| 5.14.10 @ 8:19AM
This morning on the am news the host said she had met with several leading Republicans and they had mostly "kind things to say about her." Is this the kind of welcome she is going to get? I guess we'd better crawl under the box and forget it.
Bilwick| 5.14.10 @ 9:03AM
As Robbins Mitchell asks above" "Advocate for what?" It's difficult to imagine "Il Dufe" picking an advocate for liberty, and everything I've read about Kagan indicates she's just another State-humper.
Ned| 5.14.10 @ 9:19AM
What I find so amazing is how everyone plays this game of picking members for this supreme club and manages to keep a straight face.
Liberal presidents pick justices who they hope will vote liberal. Conservative presidents pick justices who they hope will vote conservative.
Right now Kennedy is the only one who matters unless there is an untimely death of one of the four conservative justices. If that happens we are screwed.
I am not advocating rolling over and not fighting any nomination by this administration, we should fight with everything we have. Perhaps some flung mud will stick and we can jam up the gears a little, and maybe draw attention away from other destructive activities being pursued by our current leaders.
Meanwhile pray for the good health of the four justices who vote the right way and at least hope Kennedy will gain wisdom with age.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:24PM
Yep, Scalia is getting a little long in the tooth and he ain't looking any too thin, is he? We can only hope Thomas goes soon. We'll be stuck with Alito and Roberts for a while. Just some other mistakes Bush left us with.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 5.16.10 @ 3:47PM
Purpledupe is proof of the accuracy of the statement, "you can't fix stupid!".
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:23PM
I really doubt Scalia will make it through another four year Obama term. He's practically as fat as Limbaugh.
Dennis Bergendorf| 5.14.10 @ 9:24AM
Richard Baker is right. I believe it was Nancy Pelosi who referred to Supreme Court justices as "whistleblowers." But for all of you in a tizzy over this nomination, remember the words uttered by George Will and others: "elections have consequences." The nation elected a left-wing Democrat, and he, believe it or not, gets to fill vacancies in the Court. He's going to get his wish, even it takes three or four attempts. And, he's replacing the second liberal, so the balance won't likely be swayed.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 5.14.10 @ 11:45AM
In Article. II; Section 2 of The Constitution of the United States, a document that has only been repealed in the wettest dreams of the marxist masses, was written in part, “The President shall ... have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to ... nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ... appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court ...” This does not mean that the senate is simply his rubber stamp. They are supposed to be a check on his lust for power to assure The People that only those qualified are put in such positions of authority. kommies must be denied a seat at the supreme bench, and only the senate is in position to maintain our Freedoms, note that pesky word “Consent”.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Go Galt!
Only 982 days to go.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:26PM
Nope, a raving lesbian bondage whore could be appointed as long as they have the qualifications. Even a pointy headed ideologue - oh, that's right we have one, Alito.
Liberal Reader| 5.14.10 @ 10:33PM
It is time for troll intervention Soprano's style. Let us know where you are and we will take care of the rest. You need this kind of help.
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:27PM
If she is nominated, and if she is in fact a " raving lesbian bondage whore", I really hope they start televising Supreme Court hearings.
Nick| 5.17.10 @ 12:52PM
I'll bet you do, pervert.
Christopher| 5.17.10 @ 5:41PM
Oh common, it was a joke. I don't really want to see her acting out bondage routines from the bench, unless there's a goat involved.
darcy| 5.14.10 @ 3:44PM
* Print
* ShareThis
Elections have consequences. That reminds me:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144082,00.html
WASHINGTON — With President Bush planning high-profile initiatives in his second term like Social Security (search) reform, Democrat leaders are digging in, vowing to stop the Bush agenda dead in its tracks.
"We, as Democrats, have got to stand up and fight aggressively from day one," said outgoing national party chairman Terry McAuliffe.
The Democrats understand "consequences" as meaning time to FIGHT.
Republicans, OTOH, read "consequences" as an opportunity to offer token resistance while grasping for as much reflected glory as they can walk off with -- to hell with the country.
We have two parties -- not to sit down and make peaceable power-sharing arrangements -- but to go to battle against the agenda of the OPPOSITION on behalf of the people whose servants they are.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:27PM
Republicans are wimps, count on it. She's in, let's move on .
dnha14| 5.14.10 @ 9:52AM
This drivel was posted on American Spectator? I might have to adjust my browsing habits, if articles like this continue. It is one thing to attempt to present an objective view of the appointment. It is another to disregard the completely radical past of the appointee. I hope the Republicans can at least put up the pretense of opposition. If they don't, I'm not sure if there is anyone in the country I can vote for, in good conscience. Neither party could possibly represent me.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:28PM
Yeah, that's right, only tune in to hear only what you want to hear. Why not just talk to the mirror. Putz.
Liberal Reader| 5.15.10 @ 6:26AM
Why do progressives attach themselves to weak woman? It is anger at their mothers for leaving them at day care centers to be taken care of by minimum wage employees. The anger must stop. Purplegay needs to seek help in troll rehab. This hatred of responsible adults is driving him into a serious mental health problem. He looks for solace in the arms of woman like his mother that tell him he is good child with a bright future. He needs to hear that he is wasting his life and needs help.
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:34PM
Your responses to Purpleguy are so pathetic. You should stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
Doctor Right| 5.14.10 @ 10:20AM
This is gut-check time.
1. Republicans on the Judiciary committee need to grill this Softball-playing Ellen Degeneres fan (is that clear enough) repeatedly to get the answers they want
2. If Kagan is evasive, call her on it and grill her some more.
3. She is, by all accounts, a pleasant individual. TOO BAD! DON'T let that distract you.
4. DON'T let the objections of Democrats on the committee sway your opinions, guys! Come November, they'll be in the minority; treat them like it.
5. STOP worrying about the media; they already hate you, so deal with it, and act like men (and women!)
6. BE PREPARED TO FILIBUSTER!!! It's about time that these un-American scumbags (also known as Democrats) got a taste of their own damn medicine. And again...When the media, like the hypocrites they are, complains - IGNORE THEM.
7. MOST IMPORTANTLY, REPUBS: We are watching. We want action. We want tough-minded individuals who are NOT afraid to fight. Think "Michelle Bachman"; she has more balls than most of you men put together. Also...don't forget "Bob Bennet"; if you let us down, and cave-in without a fight, we will PUNISH you in November. Don't think we're bluffing, either...We've had enough.
Now get to it, folks!
Ned| 5.14.10 @ 12:05PM
Also, by subjecting her to intense questioning it illustrates the type of individual the President wants on the court and in turn defines him.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:30PM
Michelle Bachman? Really? Hahahahahaha ...
Liberal Reader| 5.14.10 @ 10:37PM
Get help before you enter troll hell. There is no escape and you are close to the point of no return. I can get you a troll rehab clinic. In time you will be able to move out of your mother's house and get a job. You will feel better about yourself. The transference of hate to strong women is just what you feel because your mom won't kick you out and you know that is what you need.
Purpleguy| 5.15.10 @ 6:51PM
I find strong women quite attractive. Not like you conservative types that want the little woman at home baking cookies and ready to throw their legs in the air when DA MAN comes home. Troglodytes like you died out with the Neanderthals - how'd you survive?
Liberal Reader| 5.15.10 @ 7:20PM
As long as you keep trying to find someone is the image of your mama you're going to keep ending up with weak woman like Sotomayor and Kagan. They want to take care of you too no matter what you do. They aren't good for you. Get help.
JimE| 5.16.10 @ 6:11PM
Purpletard, so you dig being dominated by large transvestities. Since you don't throw your legs open you must bend over and spread.
loulou| 5.14.10 @ 9:37PM
Amen, Doctor Right.
Elena Flintstone isn't denying her lesbianism is she? (Not that I care) But I would think that would get the gays all upset. Be proud.
chalkdust| 5.16.10 @ 12:28PM
Simple and to the point Doctor Right. Even plain enough for polititions to understand.
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:38PM
I like how you used bullets. They made your post seem more authoritative.
As an aside: . I'm assuming you don't care for women's softball or the type of women who play the game. If in grilling Kagan about softball the Republicans do get the answers they want, what do they do then, the Democrats are in the majority?
wouldee5150 | 5.14.10 @ 11:00AM
you gave up before you started writing this piece. The GOP has given up too. WHy equivocate over Kagan? Obama's MO is to bust a move and force a decision before -people realize what he is up to. He is always doing that. By now, conservative thinkers should have figured this out. Since Obama wants Kagan confirmed quickly, the red flags should immediately go up all over the country. Instead, we get soft-pedaled cautious optimism that she will not be so bad, after all.
Stealth Marxism is dialectical materialism and chaos and confusion through amoral nihilism is the MO for covering the nafarious agenda at play.
Kagan epitomizes censorship of student choices, and disincentives for personal freedoms and liberties, by disinviting militaery presence on Harvard campus. To accomplish this, she runs afoul of SCOTUS.
Anyone that believers that this marxist enigma will not attempt to legislate from the bench is seriously misguided and unfit to comment on her true intentions, which are self-expanatory.
We might as well fall down and worship every disingenuous word coming from Chuck Schumer, just like the inebriated aestheticists fawning over his smiling regurgitant spew.
Schumer gets it exact;ly right about Obama's MO, about Kagan's Marxist stealth, and with the affirmed gullibility of Americans et all to believe his stilted hateful spin on the situation. Schumer would have us believe that her times as dean @ Harvard qualifies her to be a Constitutional scholar.
What Schumr deflects, so pretentiously, is that SCOTUS is not in the business of social engineering and Rawlian social justice biases of the perverse LEFT.
SCOTUS is in business to maintain the integrity and precenedt of the US COnatitution, not reinvent it! ONly rushes to jeudgment fail to exercise sound judgment.
Kagan possesses no sound judgment, judging by her willingness to censor student choices and liberties. She will undoubtedly censor all choice and liberty odf all Americans if allowed to taint SCOTUS with her hateSPEECH and Marxist worldview.
Bookmark truth; never forget where you leave truth when skipping from reading things to opine on things.
Truth matters; The US Constitution matters; Marxist-socialist prevaricators do not matter-they are excused.
Kagan m,ay sit down, and Obama will come to greet her in the gutter, soon enough.
Let's not sympathize or empathize with their rightful destiny. They chose their plight; they can eat their own cake. After all, they eat their own when discovered. Right?
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 10:02PM
You're post was too long. Most people that come to these sites won't read the Gettysburg address. In order to keep your audiences attention you should have said - "Republicans should not vote for Kagan, she is a Communist".
Scott Brandt| 5.14.10 @ 11:14AM
This was a good post. I don't get why people are killing the messenger here. If Douglas Smith was President, I'm sure he wouldn't nominate Kagan, but he's not, and none of the snipers about Mr. Smith's column are either. You don't like Kagans, then don't elect Obamas. Republicans can make some points in the confirmation hearings, but she will be confirmed, and she's probably the best that can be expected.
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:42PM
Absolutely agreed with your post. If Republicans can get Alito on the court then the Democrats should be able to have Kagan. To the victor go the spoils.
George S| 5.14.10 @ 11:19AM
If you went to court and the judge looked at you before the trial began and said: "I have no sympathy for your argument", would you think a fair trial was in the offing? Now, Ms. Kagan said that about the Second Amendment. So, do we really expect a fair hearing on constitutional matters written in plain sight? I don't think so... but maybe her persuasion skills can convince me otherwise.
This is a disaster; I see no blessings hidden anywhere.
J.P. Travis | 5.14.10 @ 11:20AM
"As many have observed in recent days, she has a strong intellect..."
Huh? Based on what? Her courtroom skills? Nope, she has very little experience in the courtroom, and her performance as Solicitor General has been embarrassing and unsuccessful. Based on her many scholarly papers? Nope, very little of that, too. Based on her experience as a judge? Gosh, she never was a judge, was she? I guess what it boils down to in your opinion is that anybody with a Harvard or Yale degree is assumed to have great intellect, no matter what they have, or have not, done in their life.
Anthony| 5.14.10 @ 11:50AM
This is a joke, right? Do you actually think this "empty dress", both in physical stature and intellect, will influence the other members of the Supreme Court, especially the "Core 4" giants on Original Intent ??? What are you smoking dude??
While at U of Chicago, madam clueless breathlessly pronounced that the empty suit Obama was "her hero". That is a disqualification in and of itself.
To bring up how madam clueless might have fawned over Slick Willie while at the Clinton frat house, brings images to mind that that would reduce brave Odysseus to a weeping mass of humanity.
I suppose Scalia will attempt to be nice to her in order to sucker her into the weekly poker games so he can fleece her, however, if she brings cigars, guys, JUST SAY NO!!!!
Oldefarte| 5.14.10 @ 11:55AM
Once again, the primary [or sole] purpose of her nomination is her ability/desire to advocate cases involving ''''SEXUAL ORIENTATION''''', of which her professional history provides ample clues!!!!!!!!!
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:32PM
Might as well bend over then.
Liberal Reader| 5.15.10 @ 3:08PM
More projection. Get help.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:02AM
No, I'll let you 'bend over' and I'll show you my Louisville Slugger!!!!!!!!!!
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 10:06PM
MODERATOR please remove Oldefarte's threat to stick a Louisville slugger up Purpleguy's derrier.
He/She should be banned from posting on this site.
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:46PM
I think he bends over frequently as his moniker is - Oldefarte - which maybe is a clue, not sure, just surmising.
Nick| 5.17.10 @ 12:55PM
CHRISTOPHER - You are using HATEFUL, hatey, Hate Speech.
Please remove yourself from this website.
Better yet, just throw your computer away.
Christopher| 5.17.10 @ 5:44PM
You're right, i should tone it down but you have to admit Oldefarte is a maniac. I shudder to think what he was implying he might do with his "Louisville Slugger".
Gr0w1er| 5.14.10 @ 12:32PM
Advocate/activist, yes; jurist, no.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:33PM
She will fit in perfectly then.
Liberal Reader| 5.14.10 @ 10:40PM
This love of weak women stems from your desire not to hate your mom for not throwing you out of her basement. You can love your mom even with her imperfections but not try to foist these other losers you have attached yourself on the rest of us. Get help.
Purpleguy| 5.15.10 @ 6:49PM
She'd eat all you mental midgets' lunch and then some. You couldn't hold a candle to her brilliance. You're just jealous 'cause you lost in 2008 with Grandpa McCain ... the best you got?
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:04AM
The way I hear it, she [and her friend the Homeland Security Director] 'eat' many lunches, mainly of the polish sausage variety!!!!
JimE| 5.16.10 @ 6:13PM
Purpletard,
Your mom is more of a a man than you'll ever be.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 5.14.10 @ 12:32PM
In “Dreams from My Father” Obama wrote that while a student at Occidental, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” When he nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, he referred to her as “my friend”. Connect the dots, and I don’t think, though I could be wrong, she was ever a punk-rock performance poet.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Go Galt!
Only 982 days to go.
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 10:00PM
My, what brilliant logic. Congratulations, genius. You just cracked the Obama Code. Someone call Tom Hanks. I smell a movie deal. Dipshit.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:06AM
Tom Hanks, golly,geez, shazam, you must be thing about his movie PHILADELPHIA, huh?
Anthony| 5.14.10 @ 12:38PM
Reading this drivel for the 3rd time, I must ask lecturer in residence, Douglas Smith, of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law; have all you "intellectuals" at the university level lost your damn minds??
What world do you operate in? What penumbras do you see emitting from this woman of modest intelectual and practical experience that we mere mortals don't see?? How does this woman begin to compare to Chief Justice Roberts???
It has been said, and it is without a doubt true, as so eloquently demonstrated by Mr. Smith, that the so called "intellectual class" is dangerously prone to falling prey to intellectual and political demagogues and charlatans, who have wreaked havoc on humankind throughout history.
The Obama love affair by these same "intellectuals", and now this praise over madam "empty dress", demonstrates just how dangeous these folks continue to be to the well being of our culture and society.
Dai Alanye | 5.14.10 @ 5:55PM
Smith has attempted to give a restrained survey of what Republicans are up against in opposing Kagan. Many readers, Anthony apparently among them, are mistaking his weighing of the factors as advocacy for the woman.
Anthony| 5.14.10 @ 9:32PM
Restrained survey did you say? Ah I get it, it's that nuiance thing that seperates you intellectuals from us hoi poli. O.K. I'm with the program now.
Sorry Dai Alanye, Professor Smith's introduction to this article informs us that Kagan will be an "effective advocate" on the Court. Really? And why exactly is that, her minimal paper trail? Or maybe her few years as a political hack for Bill Clinton? That must be it, eh?
Professor Smith further dares to spend entire paragraphs comparing this empty dress to Chief Justice Roberts. I see no restraint in these falacious comparisons.
I'm sorry that your soaring nuianced intellect has failed to reveal that Professor Smith has a deep admiration for Kagan. You see, Dai, words have meaning, and we do not look to the obscure metaphysical in order to see the intent of the word as it is presented.
In other words, Smith is an elitist that looks at Kagan and sees one of his own. Got it now, fool??Or am I being a bit too nuianced?
P.S. Let Smith defend his own article, which he has failed to do.
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 8:16PM
What evidence do you have of Roberts's intellectual superiority to Kagan?
What do you base that on?
I think you don't know your ass from a HOLE in the ground when it comes to this topic, so you just make stuff up.
Nick| 5.15.10 @ 1:16AM
"What evidence do you have of Roberts's intellectual superiority to Kagan?" - Nate
Because, moron, Chief Justice Roberts got the KAGAN to claim that Congress can ban political pamphlets.
She is a mental midget compared to all four conservatives on the high court. She is also an avowed socialist. And wants to confiscate guns.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:08AM
The ASS is Obama and the HOLE IN THE GROUND is what his friends accompolished on 9/11/01!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Williams| 5.14.10 @ 12:58PM
I would gladly relocate to any state in the Union that has a Republican senator willing to vote against this unqualified ideologue, who will, once confirmed, continue to degrade this once-great country. However, given the gutlessness of almost all current Republican incumbents, it would appear my options for relocation are slim...
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 10:05PM
You could always move to that country in the world that has a standard of living as great as ours but instead of a political system like ours has a libertarian form of government run by right wing crackpots, oil company executives, closeted homosexual Bible-thumpers, and retarded radio talk show hosts ....
But that country doesn't exist.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:12AM
No, but I do know of a country that is run by left wing DOMESTIC TERRORISTS that are financially/philosophically beholden to taxpayer-funded, partisaned government organizations such as Acorn, Rainbow Push and the Greenlining Institute; and that promote their moronic Jewish momma-boys and failed Air America radio jockeys on MSNBC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 10:11PM
MODERATOR - this guy Oldfarte is using hate speech. Seriously this guy needs to be banned. I expect the American Spectator which has such Jewish luminaries writing for it as Ben Stein to not tolerate these type of posts.
Nick| 5.16.10 @ 11:46PM
Typical bleeding heart liberal.
Christopher wants to gag everyone he doesn't agree with.
When liberals get the power of life and death, they just shoot the people they disagree with.
Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 1:58PM
The American Spectator : A Shrewd Choice list university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bilwick| 5.14.10 @ 2:06PM
For you edification and entertainment:
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2...../#comments
"Release the Kagan!"
Michael Tomlinson| 5.14.10 @ 2:42PM
While her paper trail is limited it is not without substance. Kagan with her limited ability and naivete makes clear she is hostile to freedom of speech and the 2d Amendment. Her advocacy for socialism is documented in her thesis too. So while she has done much with her life it is more than clear to one who takes time to examine her scarce writings she is unqualified for the SCOTUS and Republicans should filibuster her.
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 8:13PM
Michael,
You might not know this, but lots of people reach 50 having changed the views they had in college.
Her thesis, which I've begun to hear a little about here and there, so desperate are the Republicans to find dirt on her, is completely irrelevant. She's been in government for fucking DECADES, man. She's served in two administrations, she's the Solicitor General (confirmed by the Senate), and she was the president of Harvard.
As for filibustering her, they won't because they know sooner or later they're going to have a president back in office.
Just live with it. You lost the election. This is how it goes.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:16AM
Yea, dumbass, this government has mostly been run by Harvard morons,etc for most of my lifetime [because most of us were too busy working, raising families,etc to pay attention to politics]; but guess what, genius..........NOVEMBER 2010 IS FASTLY APPROACHING AND ITS '''''CHANGE''''WILL BE SUPREMELY EVIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
darcy| 5.14.10 @ 3:24PM
While I don't usually traffic in scatological verbal slings, your cheery endorsement of the socialist Kagan makes me gag, it stinks so bad.
Michael Tomlinson has it exactly right about Kagan. And the fact that an AmSpec writer sees her nomination and possible appointment to the SCOTUS as little more than routine reminds us again why the country is on the verge of going down the drain: The opposition does not oppose!
It offers no foil, no push-back. It lacks courage and a clear appraisal of what's at stake. Instead it merely goes along for the ride, making all the right sounds to confuse the voters, so that it can carve out its share of the spoils of power with the Left, whose goal is our destruction.
For some taste of what our response should be to this nomination, I offer Sen. Jeff Sessions comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....05016.html
And an excerpt: In each of these cases, fundamental liberties were at stake. And in each case the traditional justices sided with the Constitution and individual Americans, while the progressive justices sided with big government -- even though the basic freedoms of everyday Americans were clearly being threatened.
Fight her appointment tooth and nail; show the Left you have at least as much passion and conviction for your case as they do theirs!
darcy| 5.14.10 @ 4:05PM
In re-reading this article's conclusion, I see that the writer's thrust just might be the same point I'm making. He states: "The question for Republicans is whether they can mount a strong opposition."
Indeed, can Republicans mount a strong opposition to Democrats EVER? And more importantly ALWAYS?
If not, they are history.
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 8:10PM
Sessions is a douche bag who resents not having been selected for the court himself, as everyone in DC knows.
darcy| 5.15.10 @ 7:05AM
Sessions is a conservative. No wonder you don't like him.
How old are you anyway? 14?
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:20AM
No, dickhead, Sessions is, like Bork, a legal genius [and both know more about the law from practical applications that that lesbian ugly pig could ever know]. And besides, she not even a WISE LATINO WOMAN, so she's a typical worthless acedemic who DOESN'T KNOW HER ASS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND LEGALLY SPEAKING!!!!
martin j smith| 5.14.10 @ 4:07PM
I add my voice to those who argue that Kagan's appointment refelcts BHO's thinking 100% She is not moderate or neutral in any way,. She needs to be question to bring out as much as possible her judical philosophy and thus her political biases. The republicans on the judiciary committee will have to make a difficult call. If she comes thru as a political hack with the purpose of endorsing everything BHO approves, it will be difficult to justify passing on her. It wiill be a political bombshell but possibly necessary. Lets see what the hearing bring out first however.
Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 4:27PM
The American Spectator : A Shrewd Choice Tools links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 5.14.10 @ 4:44PM
It should surprise no one that the KAGAN is an avowed socialist. Or that she wants to confiscate guns.
What should disqualify her from becoming a Supreme Court justice is that she argued in front of SCOTUS, last September, that Congress could ban pamphlets.
6 months before that, an assistant in her office argued, in front of SCOTUS, that Congress could ban books.
Also, as far as I know, she hasn't spent much time in a court room. Her lawyer skills are probably mediocre. It should not be that hard to trip her up during the confirmation hearings.
Unfortunately, Republicans don't have any Perry Masons or Ben Matlocks on the Judiciary Committtee.
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 8:08PM
It should surprise no one that dipshits like Nick are accusing Kagan of being an "avowed socialist."
This is, of course, false. She's not an avowed socialist, nor is she a secret socialist.
She's left of center, probably, although she's taken plenty of more conservative leaning stands, particularly on civil rights issues with respect to terrorism.
Nick will have you believe that the Solicitor General of the United States, who garnered accolades for her performance during the Citizens United case from S. Alito, is mediocre in the court room. Yes, she lost that case, but it was incredibly difficult and complicated and she did well by anyone's standards who actually knows what they're talking about, as Nick does not.
Nick would prefer Ben Matlock and presumably Detective Friday on the Court, but what Nick does not know is that these are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. Life is not TV, Nick.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:38PM
Good show, Nate. Nick does go over the top, without a net, doesn't he? Nick at Nite....fits him to a tee.
Liberal Reader| 5.14.10 @ 10:43PM
Now you are attracting other simple minds to your condition. Nate is even more dysfunctional than you purplegay. Taking advantage of the weak minded is just wrong. Both of you need help. Set a good example purplegay.
Nick| 5.15.10 @ 12:18AM
Why are you even commenting, PurpleJackass?
You can't even do simple math!
You think President Bush was in office for TEN months when the attacks of September 11th, 2001, occured. Dope.
Nick| 5.15.10 @ 12:15AM
Nate,
No profanity this time?
What would you know about real life?
You believe the 14 innocent people killed by the terrorist, Nidal Hasan, at Ft. Hood was just another workplace shooting.
You don't live anywhere near REALITY, bonehead.
Nate| 5.15.10 @ 12:38PM
Well, I guess you're channeling what you think Ben Matlock would say. Good for you. Now what would Perry Mason say? How about Captain Kirk?
Nick| 5.15.10 @ 2:01PM
I don't know, Nate.
Why don't you tell me what Lenin would say. How about Stalin? What would Mao say?
You know, KAGAN's heroes.
Seeing as we all know she is an avowed socialist. And wants to take away our guns. And thinks Congress can ban political pamphlets.
Nate| 5.16.10 @ 1:57PM
Nick --
You keep saying she's an "avowed socialist." That would require that she AVOW socialism, that is publicly proclaim her affiliation with or loyalty to the socialist creed.
Since no such avowal has ever been recorded, and since to my knowledge no credible person -- elected or not -- has made such an accusation, I can only conclude that you have as usual simply made something up to suit the conclusion you have already chosen to prefer. That is, you are intellectually dishonest. Why don't you think your political philosophy can bear reasonable scrutiny?
Nick| 5.16.10 @ 5:24PM
Nate,
The KAGAN, in her thesis, laments that American socialists fought amongst each other at the turn of the last century. She also laments that their fighting prevented them from becoming a more potent political force.
It is no stretch, nor does it take great deductive skills, to conclude why she has such lamentations. This is what makes her an avowed socialist.
Her thesis is the college version of Warren Beatty's movie "Reds."
I notice you have no problem with The KAGAN wanting to confiscate guns or her thinking that Congress can ban political pamphlets.
Liberal Reader| 5.16.10 @ 4:23PM
I took a look at her thesis and kind of agree with you Nick. I would call her a social fascist though. The state owned variety of socialism is only being used in Cuba and is underway big time in Venezuela. Nothing takes a country down faster than this. All the socialists in the West have switched over to the fascist flavor. They get better kick backs and their incompetence can be hid better. I think Obama has modeled some of his public poses after Il Duce. Nate and purplegay are the internet versions of brownshirts. On the internet they are very funny but lets face it they are dangerous turkeys to trust with American freedom. Their day is coming and it won't be a second too soon. In a way their pathetic efforts should be comforting.
Nick| 5.16.10 @ 5:28PM
Reformed Liberal Reader,
Socialist. Fascist.
You say, "toe-may-toe", I say, "toe-mah-toe."
Your point is well taken, though.
Nate| 5.16.10 @ 7:32PM
You're both wrong.
She's not a fascist. She's not a socialist. She's not a socialist fascist OR a fascist socialist.
She's a socialistic fascist communist terrorist who sodomizes men with broomsticks and squats and pees on Christian altars.
Furthermore, she's a monarchist, and anarchist, a Satanist, and Islamist, and bigamist.
Her beliefs align very closely with those of the Shining Path, the Seventh Day Advenstists, and Symbionese Liberation Army.
She's a feminist, and ecologist, and an orthodontist.
Point well taken, though. You guys may be wrong on one or two points, but overall your commentary is brilliant. It's fascinating and edifying to read your posts, for both their acumen, the wide sweep of their learning, and for the brilliance of their wit.
Your strengths are particularly apparent in the fields of political philosophy and political science. Where did you study? Liberty University? It must be some first rate institution like that. Mega dittoes, fellas! God Bless America! You're a Great American! I love my country! And a Partridge in a Pear Tree!!!
Nick| 5.16.10 @ 7:57PM
Nate,
At least I'm not stupid enough to think that the killing of 14 innocent people by the terrorist, Nidal Hasan, at Ft. Hood was just another workplace shooting.
You keep on spewing those Bob Scum talking-points. It's the only thing you seem to do well.
You still don't know how to debate, though. I made my points, and you offered no rebuttal. Typical liberal.
Liberal Reader| 5.16.10 @ 9:58PM
I am sticking with social fascist. Even though your arguments are strange they make more sense than most of your posts. Your post showed some creativity instead of the parroting of somebody's talking points. That is indeed sad. The broom stick thing is new and another look into the inner workings of Nate. Some perverse homosexual practice is never far from his twisted mind. Get help Nate. Before you became a troll I would bet you didn't think like this.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:24AM
Yea, she LOST her argument before SCOTUS too, which should tell you volums about her legal expertise!!!!!!!!!!
Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 5:15PM
The American Spectator : A Shrewd Choice capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 6:53PM
11 years counts as experience in my book.? | Business Suit links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
WAKE UP| 5.14.10 @ 7:11PM
There's no paper trail on Obama either. Wake up, Douglas.
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 8:03PM
Exactly what do you mean "there's no paper trial on Obama"?
What a stupid thing to say. You mean the birth certificate?
Get a grip, dumb ass.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:28AM
No, dumbass, we mean ALL OF HIS COLLEGE PAPERS, TRANSCRIPTS,ETC; which are/have been banned by THE CHOSEN ONE since his rise to power. Not only is he a citizen; but more importantly what do his college papers show as to his political philosophy, background,etc. You really are a dumbass, since you obviously can't/don't read/watch anything outside the MSM!!!!
Nate| 5.14.10 @ 8:02PM
Why is it more Am. Spec. article can't be like this?
It's so rare to get anything that sounds like something not scripted in Glenn Beck's back alley.
Purpleguy| 5.14.10 @ 9:42PM
I agree Nate, but the conservative mind is very fragile, and cannot handle too many arguments that confront their weak-minded sensibilities. They frequently devolve into ad hominem attacks when they have nothing lucid or cogent to say to prove their point. They know what they know and that's it. Any other view or fact that doesn't fit their own view, and their whole House of Cards comes crashing down.
Just like the TeaBagger who was at a rally protesting the government entitlements. When it was pointed out to her that her Social Security Check and Medicare are entitlements, she said, " Oh, well maybe I ought to rethink my position"... Hahahahaha.
LIberal Reader| 5.14.10 @ 10:46PM
Teabagger indeed. You had the sound of a homosexual and now we know the truth. This is unhealthy behavior. You need help. Trolling has exposed you to all kinds of unsanitary habits. Nate and you probably make a lovely couple.
Purpleguy| 5.15.10 @ 6:46PM
"They frequently devolve into ad hominem attacks when they have nothing lucid or cogent to say to prove their point" --- thanks for making my point for me. The conservative mind at work.
Liberal Reader| 5.15.10 @ 7:16PM
Purplegay quotes:
"They frequently devolve into ad hominem attacks when they have nothing lucid or cogent to say to prove their point"
"...can't wait for the political hack Alito, blowhard Scalia, Idiot Thomas and poor misguided Roberts to..."
"...pointy headed ideologue - oh, that's right we have one, Alito."
"Troglodytes like you died out with the Neanderthals-..."
"Republicans are wimps, ..."
"Why not just talk to the mirror. Putz. "
"... you mental midgets' ... Grandpa McCain ... "
"... the conservative mind is very fragile...their weak-minded sensibilities..."
"...TeaBagger..."
More projection from a mentally ill troll. It is time for troll rehab. I can help. There are many good troll rehab facilities. Stop arguing with yourself and become productive before it is too late.
Nick| 5.15.10 @ 7:29PM
PurpleJackass, also, thinks that John Marshall was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. What a moron!
And, he doesn't know the difference between "precedents" and "precedence", because he is a dope.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:30AM
Try reading/watching the MSM via NYT,CT,BH,CBS,NBC,ABC, Rachel Maddow, Keith Mommas Boy Olbermann,etc.........oh wait you already do exclusively!!!!!!!!!!
Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 11:08PM
Gold soars as investors seek safety | American Gold Coins links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.15.10 @ 6:46AM
The Republicans have little chance of stopping an Ellen DeGeneres Judge Judy but they can have a field day with the Obama administration by carefully going over a plagiarism scandal at Harvard that featured Larry Summers and Ellen Kagan.
Although the exposure wouldn't stop her nomination it would damage Kagan, Obama and Summers because it shows precisely the lack of judgment of Obama when it comes to selecting his allies. They all have unethical acts in their past, in particular Kagan.
Here are two links and clips about the scandal. It was written about extensively at the time but you won't hear anything about it in the MSM.
http://www.americanthinker.com.....rd_le.html Kudos here to the one person who did pursue the case: Lawrence Velvel, dean of the University of Massachusetts Law School, an honest liberal who knew academic legerdemain when he saw it. In April 2005, Velvel posted a nearly 10,000-word analysis on his blog that not only explores the extent of the fraud and the depth of Kagan's complicity, but that also suggests — without intending to — the inspiration for Obama's own chicanery.
http://velvelonnationalaffairs.....na_22.html So Dean Kagan has gone along with Summers’ bad-results-producing actions regarding plagiarism, copycatting and ghostwriting, and, to boot, is very proud of hiring a teacher who seems to have played a fairly important role in the American government’s abominable and grossly illegal renditions. (Goldsmith’s role is described here pretty fully in the same December 15th post.) All of this seems no more praiseworthy than Summers’ actions, and perhaps, in some respects, worse, because torture is involved. So, in my view, Kagan too should go, just like Summers.*
darcy| 5.15.10 @ 7:09AM
Bill: Thank you for the links.
jd| 5.15.10 @ 10:53AM
Sheesh, how many liberal women justices can one nominate? Seems to me that there is an over-representaiton of Jewish women as well. So much for diversity....
Nate| 5.15.10 @ 12:36PM
So three women on the Supreme Court is too many for you jd?
Three out of nine you can't handle?
And two of them are Jewish too! Just think of it!
I guess I see your point jd. You're made a compelling argument. Your reasoning is flawless.
Liberal Reader| 5.15.10 @ 3:09PM
Liberals are unsustainable. Any number of them is too many.
Oldefarte| 5.16.10 @ 11:32AM
Nah, two women and a LESBIAN, who'll provide arguments for EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS if confirmed!!!!
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:55PM
What do you have against Jews and women? Don't be shy, tell us - be honest. Let me feel the hate. I dare you.
Yosemeti Sam| 5.15.10 @ 12:50PM
Aha!
BHOs' SCOTUS nominee is so ideologically ' in with him' that she may thus be asked about the whereabouts of that Mao Zedong White House Christmas tree ornament.
No answer from her - no SCOTUS seat!
Pingback| 5.15.10 @ 5:51PM
Choosing the Best Qwerty Phone | cell phone apps | business opportunities links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
WAKE UP| 5.15.10 @ 9:13PM
Nate, it wasn't me who brought the "lack of paper trail" point up, it was brought up in connection ith Kagan - as a positive in her favour. You should check the company you're keeping, because they can't be trusted. You can't have it both ways. Either no paper trail is good, or it ain't.
Susan Grant| 5.16.10 @ 1:50PM
The only group of people who will actually get 'excited' IF Kagan is approved to sit on OUR Supreme Court will be the hard core communists in OUR government such as our very own LIAR-IN-CHIEF himself, Barack Hussein Obama, our first black, muslim president.
Nate| 5.16.10 @ 6:17PM
You are a nasty bitch, aren't you? The bigotry really becomes you. Where do you get your news, the White Aryan Nation newsletter?
Christopher| 5.16.10 @ 9:52PM
Wow, you are an actual racist bigot! I often read the extremist websites (right and left) to see what the loonies are saying - its entertainment. Sometimes but rarely you read a post by an avowed Communist or racist or child-molester - and you are it today. I've never actually heard anyone say what you've just written in real life. Please God, I pray that people like Sue Grant never, ever hold any power in these United States.
Bydand76| 5.16.10 @ 10:31PM
ok ........um what did Sue say that was racist?
Sue, sweetheart... say whatever you want and don't worry about the these two commie POS's.
Pro Libertate
Cervantes| 5.16.10 @ 10:35PM
Hey Nate and Christopher!
FUCK YOU!
What did Sue say other than the truth?
Barack is BLACK! He refuses to acknowledge is white background. At least thats what the census says.
So who is the racist now?
You two can can eat a damn bullet!
Take your racism and stuff it where it smells funny!
Losers!
CERVANTES
Christopher| 5.17.10 @ 5:19PM
I think that Sue was making a point of mentioning that the president is Black and she included the mention of it in a list of descriptions that she seems to find distastful. To list them in order:
1.Communist
2. liar
3.Black
4. Muslim
It is true that Obama is our first black president. I don;t understadn though why Sue would add that into a list of descriptions that she clearly thinks are negative. I can only surmise that she is a racist. Maybe Sue can explain.
Clearly this site is not moderated. I'll be back, this is amusing.
Northern Rebel| 5.16.10 @ 2:47PM
I see that Lib Reader is trying to rehab, by having a dialogue with himself, as purpleguy.
Nice try.
This isn't puffingpost, we have brains here.
Liberal Reader| 5.16.10 @ 2:58PM
I tell you I am a new man. I did a stint in troll rehab and moved out of my parents house. I have a job now even though it is minimum wage and am no longer bitter at adults. I want the same good thing for purplegay and Nate. You were always right and now I am willing to admit it.
Nate| 5.16.10 @ 3:09PM
Are the "brains" part of some covert operation? If so, it's succeeding, because any objective outsider would conclude most people who post here are a) uneducated; b) hysterical; c) frothing ideologues; d) ill-informed; e) irrational; f) rashly anti-intellectual and g) bigoted. That is to say, it's a Tea Bagger site.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 5.16.10 @ 4:01PM
Spoken like a truly dedicated member of the far-left padded cell brigade. Go to your nearest asylum. Your padded cell, straight jacket & drool pan are awaiting you. At least Purpleguy spreads laughter with his insanity. You are just plain deranged. Have a nice day.
Liberal Reader| 5.16.10 @ 4:05PM
Again more projection including one more reference to a homosexual practice. Why are progressive men so attracted to these perversions. Maybe that explains their low birth rates.
gene hauber| 5.16.10 @ 2:49PM
BORK KAGAN
WAKE UP| 5.17.10 @ 4:07AM
Nate, throwing your toys out of the cot and abusing everyone, as you just done above, is NOT an argument. Ad hominem is the first (and last) resort of a man who can't actually debate a point, and is very childish.
-------------
I REPEAT: if, according to Smith, NOT "having a paper trail" is such a good thing in Kagan's case, why are you in such a hurry to assert that Obama has one after all? Wouldn't it be, therefore, a good thing, in his case, to not have one too? And if he does have one, why is Kagan not having one such a good thing?
Until you can rationally discuss that little having-it-both-ways dichotomy, I suggest you leave the discussion to the adults.
---------------------------
ps - it's Tea Party, not Tea Bagger; don't be as disgusting as your trash-talking President is.
Christopher| 5.17.10 @ 5:24PM
WAKE UP - have you read all of the psosts above? No one is having an adult discussion of anything on this message board. It's kill or be killed here. If you can't handle it I suggest you go to a moderated message board.
Nick| 5.17.10 @ 6:32PM
Are you the same "Christopher" that wanted people banned for "hate" speech, in the comments above?
Who is it that can't "handle it", Christopher?
Christopher| 5.17.10 @ 8:40PM
Nick,
I don't personally tolerate anyone using racist language or cursing at me or threatening me with violence in person and i don't think it should be tolerated on the web either. I don't think the web should be a "safe" place to be a racist or bigot.
I also believe the American Spectator is the author of anything they allow to stay posted on their website therefore I assumed they would moderate it. They don't, I can handle that, but lets not pretend "adults" are having a discussion here.
Nick| 5.17.10 @ 11:48PM
Christopher,
People are responsible for the remarks they make, not TAS.
You have no right to demand TAS ban anyeone. If you "can't handle" seeing bad things on this, or any other website, start your own site. Then you can kick off whomever you want.
I don't like many things some people post here. I have only one choice: Don't come back here.
I don't "pretend" anything. One has to put up with garbage here. This is what free speech is all about.
WAKE UP| 5.17.10 @ 10:22PM
Christopher, Moderation has nothing to do with it. My entire point is that Nate has shown that he's incapable of DEBATING THE ISSUE. So, apparently, are you ( though you sound more intelligent. Perhaps you should try and keep better company :).
James| 5.18.10 @ 5:54AM
The whole discussion is a waste of time. We should be talking about how to rid ourselves of the Supreme Court.
It's been MIA for decades, and only serves politicians and special interests groups. It interferes with the democratic process more than it helps, and has come to see itself as some ego inflated divine arbitrator, that can channel the Founding Fathers and tell us what the "Real Truth" is in the democratic process.
The reality is that is full of political activists that create more laws , legislation, and complicate simple issues that Feds have no business being involved in in the first place.
Red Rich| 5.18.10 @ 4:53PM
Are you nuts?
Since when are judges supposed to advocate for anything? The job of a judge is to interpret the constitution, not advocate for special rights for one group over another?
You state:
"For those in favor of the Court's steady erosion of the constraints on government power enshrined in our written Constitution, her nomination should be welcome."
What on earth are talking about, this is a woman wrote extensively about, and lamented the so called "negative rights" of the constitution, because the constitution didn't have "positive rights" for the government. In other words, the constitution defines what the government can't do to or for us(negative rights). But doesn't define what the government can do to or for us(positive rights). BTW, that's the same crap Barak Obama taught in his law class here in Chicago, and lamented in a radio interview when he was running for state senator.
Moderation? What is that? She isn't going to moderate anything. She will vote with the likes of Kennedy, Stevens, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Souter, and she won't even come close to changing the views of Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia.
So how does that make her a moderator?
For the American Spectator, this article is just gibberish.
fjk| 7.1.10 @ 2:44AM
beijing massage
guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:21AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com