The American Spectator

Shamus| 7.1.10 @ 6:25AM

It's very clear that Kagan is not qualified.

Eric Cartman| 7.1.10 @ 9:40AM

What do you mean not qualified? She's a white Obama in drag. That's what Democrats have become, so she is right up their union controlled alleys. SO for Democrats, she is qulified.

Eric Cartman| 7.1.10 @ 9:56AM

Oh, and since the Republicans are spineless, balless wimps, she will be on the court screwing America for the next 40 years. Unless (God forbid) something happens to her while waddling across the street to her next double stuffed cazone.

Dixie Pixie| 7.1.10 @ 12:58PM

Greetings Cartman

A person that bloated with licentious sanctimonious pretentious is almost certainly to spontaneously explode without warning.

mike| 7.1.10 @ 1:10PM

Not true. I point to Rush Limpballs as proof

Dixie Pixie| 7.1.10 @ 4:26PM

Corrections Mike

That would be a good point if the Maha Rushie was still expanding, he is not.
So your analogy falls apart do to the lack of weight.
Sorry I could not resist that small joke.

Did I really hear from Kagan's own lips that the common sense of a case had nothing to do with the Constitutionality of a case. In Kagan's legal world, a judicial ruling could be nonsensical and still be Constitutional.

Think about it, Kagan has stated it is proper to convince one and all the judge is a babbling idiot with a nonsensical ruling just so long as it appears Constitutional in Kagan's eyes.

How long until the USA blows apart under such nonsensical judicial rulings.

FTM| 7.2.10 @ 5:16AM

The judicial defense against an idiotic judge used to be an informed jury. The jury has the right to find the defendant not guilty if they feel that the law is misapplied, tyrannical or contrary to common sense. Informing a jury of their rights used to be a common practice. Informing juries of their rights went out of style with the civil rights movement because you couldn't get a jury consisting of a collection of half-educated white rednecks to convict a half-educated white redneck of pitching a stick of dynamite into a church and killing a bunch of little black girls.

The downside to not informing juries is of course that the modern jury doesn't know that they can tell the lady that if she doesn't know that coffee is hot then that's her problem. Same as with the judge. If the informed jury doesn't agree with the judge or the prosecutor then tough, the jury has spoken.

This is another "hole" in the federal constitution and most all state constitutions. Last I heard there was one judge in Texas that informed a jury of their rights as jurors before a trial started. The judge in Texas reduced the caseload for that jurisdiction by a lot, can't remember the statistic, because the county attourney knew that he'd never get a jury to convict in most of the BS cases that are in the court system today.

tfgray| 7.2.10 @ 8:32PM

Cartman, I think you have her confused with Scalia. Also, it's a "calzone."

Stas| 7.1.10 @ 12:15PM

She is qualified:
1. She is white. 2. She is woman. 3. She is jewish. 4. She is Progressive. 5. She has lots of friends who support Obama . 6. She is needed for Jewish faces (goats) to lead the Israel to the sloter house. 7. She is bipolar. 8. She is none commital to any religion. 8.She has no opinion on anything. 9. She wants to be "Beaty in the court". She needs a soft job for life.
Amen"

Fairbanks99| 7.1.10 @ 3:00PM

She is Paul Blart, Court Cop.

Jean| 7.2.10 @ 5:33PM

I love it. This is so true!

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 1:24PM

How does one earn the term 'honorable' in her case? U.S. attorneys do not have the title, even if confirmed (like the Solicitor General) by the Senate. Her nameplate at the hearing has the title.

She is trouble - like her current sponsor, the POTUS.

Fangflyer| 7.6.10 @ 4:33PM

If there were any true patriots in the Senate, she would never be confirmed. Wake-up America! This gender confused person is the worst nominee for the Supreme Court since the last nominee!

The Bishop| 7.1.10 @ 6:38AM

I'm sure it was nerves that caused her to address Patrick Lahey as "Justice" Lahey during her confirmation hearings. However, it does make one wonder if she has more than looks in common with Lou Costello. How can she possibly sit on the same bench with Antonin Scalia?

loulou| 7.1.10 @ 10:51AM

Lou Costello, John Goodman and Fred Flintstone all rolled up in one.

But the problem is not her fuglyness but her leftyism and lack of regard for the Constitution.

Stephanie| 7.1.10 @ 12:13PM

I fell out of my chair laughing at those comparisons!

Goat Faced Wog| 7.1.10 @ 12:45PM

HEY ABBOTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!

Beth| 7.2.10 @ 5:34PM

Who is on first? Obama and Kegan

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 1:30PM

Justice Scalia or a Justice Bork (sadly didn't happen) would hand her her hat every time. But, a vote is a vote.

I could have answered the questions as well or better than she. Kohl's questions were very tough (where do you want to be in five years?)

A loss of a conservative judge or even Kennedy spells doom. This guy gets two appointments in less than 18 months; Bush got two in eight years.

Margaret| 7.1.10 @ 2:55PM

Don't be surprised if he get's 3. Ginsburg is getting up there and surely won't wait for a conservative president.

Beth| 7.2.10 @ 5:35PM

Sounds like a job interview at Wal Mart

LT| 7.1.10 @ 3:09PM

You wrote "How can she possibly sit on the same bench with Antonin Scalia? " I don't think she could sit on a bench with Judge Judy! Even a park bench!

Gr82Cu| 7.1.10 @ 3:35PM

I'd like to see Judge Judy on the Supreme Court bench! She's fair & ARTICULATE! At least what SHE has to say makes SENSE!

PaulD| 7.1.10 @ 6:41AM

It seems that, during the Age of Obama, Senate confirmation hearings have become merely a formality. I believe he could nominate Paris Hilton, and after a brief series of questions like "where do you see yourself in five years", she would be confirmed.

Rick V.| 7.1.10 @ 8:39AM

Paul,

Did you mean Perez?

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 9:22AM

I believe Both Paris AND Perez could be living in the body of Elena Kagan.

Stephanie| 7.1.10 @ 11:34AM

Not to be too ugly, but she is such a cow.
No insult toward bovines meant.

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 11:56AM

While my comment was strictly to the moral depravity of all three individuals, the phyiscal usually does reflect the spiritual, (what's inside).. and like they say, it's what's inside that counts.

Ned| 7.1.10 @ 1:13PM

I'll have you know some of my best and closest friends are Bovine-Americans! Harumph!

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 8:59PM

Are bovine-Americans sacred cows? How long can this concept be milked? Or should I pull the udder one?

Beth| 7.2.10 @ 5:37PM

Kagan says "Thank you very mooooooch"

Carol| 7.1.10 @ 7:00AM

I care.

Why can't all the Republicans be like Jeff Sessions by telling the liar she is a liar? How can a society last that worries about political correctness before what is right? Why am I banging my head against the wall everyday hoping the Republicans get a spine?

The Republicans need to stand together and filibuster this female version of Obama.

I'm actually thinking maybe Specter can prevent Kagan from sitting on the court. Afterall, what does he have to lose?

Melvin| 7.1.10 @ 7:11AM

It is not fashionable for establishment Republicans to call a Liberal a liar. Calling a liar a liar and a extreme liberal a liar is so Tea Party, don'y you think?
The Republican Leadership still doesn't get it.

Carol| 7.1.10 @ 7:40AM

After the Republicans called out Joe Barton for calling Obama a shakedown artist WHICH WAS THE TRUTH I wrote to them telling them I will be supporting Tea Party candidates who do get it and they won't be receiving any more donations from me.

Money talks and they'll get when their coffers are down to nothing.

LT| 7.1.10 @ 3:12PM

Bravo Carol - you're right - and it's not only necessary to withhold donations but to tell them WHY we are doing so!

BILL COWAN| 7.1.10 @ 12:15PM

"HOMERUN", Melvin !!! TOOOO MANY RINOS !!!

loulou| 7.1.10 @ 10:52AM

The Republicans have no spine.
Lindsay Graham is a disgrace.

odmartin| 7.1.10 @ 1:06PM

Lindsay, where were you last Christmas? In la-la land? Even if his question related to the underwear bomber, it made no sense. Hell, Lindsay, where was your brain on Tuesday?

Son Of Sam| 7.1.10 @ 7:37AM

Whether she's pleasant or clueless, originalist or "Thurgoodian" is besides the point. The Constitution NEVER gave a handful of unelected judges with lifetime tenure the power to thwart the will of the people by pulling and twisting the Constitution as if it were Silly Putty. If that were true, then why bother having elections? Why bother having legislators? Why bother with all that democratic messiness, when we can can have all of our decisions made for us by a council of wise latinas, softball players and those who think we should search for precedent in the decisions made by courts in Belgium or Upper Volta?

In all seriousness, ask yourselves: if we the people of all fifty states are on record as saying that marriage is one man and one woman, should the will of the people be trashed by a handful of the unelected and unaccountable? How is that any different than "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

Dixie Pixie| 7.1.10 @ 10:33AM

It is really simple Sam.
The Washington Elite simply wants to get rid on the last restrictions on the ability to satisfy their whims and fanciful dreams. Kagan is just a professional tool of the NorthEastern and Washington Elite.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 11:47AM

James Madison, The Federalist #78:

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

SHS| 7.1.10 @ 12:14PM

I believe Hamilton wrote Federalist #78, not Madison.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 1:42PM

By Jove, you're right.

LT| 7.1.10 @ 3:19PM

Great points Sam - one mistake - you said "all fifty states" - according to POTUS there are 57 states.....
when Quayle misspelled potato we heard about it for weeks and were told how dumb he must be. when obama said he visited 57 states we were told he was tired. In all truthfulness, I don't believe he really knows much about America and her history - or cares.

Dan| 7.1.10 @ 6:48PM

Don't forget army "corpse man"...twice! Yep, they love the military! Corpse man!!!

davelnaf| 7.1.10 @ 8:10AM

All leftist nominees to the Supreme Court play it ultra safe. They know that their strongly held beliefs put them to the left of eighty percent of the American people and to get into the high court they must lie about themselves. So, just how much lying a leftist must do is the real issue in these instances. At best Kagan’s ‘answers’ have been a fake toward the eighty percent, but if executed properly enough each one has allowed her to sail right past the opposition and score. But these proceedings are not a game and her obvious disingenuousness is creating the kind of mental dissonance that turns off most Americans. Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, Kagan’s kind of dishonesty is easily seen through and gets you fired before you are even hired.

odmartin| 7.1.10 @ 1:14PM

The ultimate insult to us is that the imbicilic senators might think that we really believe what they are saying to Kagan. The Supreme Court justices used to be held in reverential awe. What now?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.1.10 @ 8:21AM

Aside from the fact the she could do a double of Paul Blart Mall Cop or a decent imitation of Lou Costello, the fact that Elena Kagan is being taken seriously for this position shows how far off track this nation has become.

MacDaddy| 7.1.10 @ 9:46AM

The only person in America likely to truly benefit from Ms. Kagan's confirmation to the Supreme Court is Mike Myers....in his guest appearances on Saturday Night Live, he can imitate her just by donning a robe.....

LT| 7.1.10 @ 3:26PM

I think its the politicians and MSM who are *really* off track. Then I think about the morons who keep voting for those jerks in DC and think it really is this nation as you say. Maybe, if we remove the dead, illegal and multiple voters things might become better aligned? Unfortunately with all the criminals in obamas regime things can only get worse.

NavyBrat| 7.1.10 @ 8:24AM

Ms. Kagan (John Lovitz's secret love child) represents everything that liberalism is. It is perpetual childhood. Kids always think that the stated rules don't apply to them. There's always a way to skirt the rules. Add to this the liberal "empathy" for all things antithetical to the foundations of this country & you have yourself a liberal. The only hope that this country has is that the balance on the court won't change for a while. At least not until a real conservative President, a la Ronnie, can get in office & nominate someone to complement the intellectual firepower of Roberts, Thomas, & Scalia.

As for Ms. Kagan & today's ship of fools running our government, Thomas Jefferson was almost psychic when describing how their policies work. Its almost akin to Caesar's subversion of the Republic:

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."...Thomas Jefferson

Jim O'Brien| 7.1.10 @ 8:29AM

The nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is absurd. She has never practiced law, never had a client, and has never been a judge at any level, much less the Supreme Court of the United States. Don't American citizens deserve a qualified judge?

In addition to this gross lack of relevant experience, she would arrogantly presume to subvert the meaning of the Constitution; i.e., the rule of law.

c krum| 7.7.10 @ 10:13AM

Barrack Obama is not qualified to be President, yet the American people elected him. It is obvious that qualifications for office no longer apply for government office...if they ever did.

A. C. Santore| 7.1.10 @ 8:37AM

Like all liberals hiding under a façade, she is a wonder at telling a lie which looks like the truth.

The latest ruling on the Second Amendment, she purred, is "settled law "- which is true - while not adding that the Supreme Court can change "settled law" the first time it gets an opportunity.

And with her on the Court, that opportunity might not be long in coming.

Live Long and Prosper, the five Constitutionalists!

Rebecca| 7.1.10 @ 8:44AM

She is still an unknown. I wonder if she's thinking to herself right now what a sham her own hearings are? I would assume she is stretchy when it comes to reading/interpreting law.

I also wonder if Harriet Miers should have gone ahead with a hearing and been turned down, if that may made Kagan's sailing a little bumpier.

She also is not Scalia's opposite. He is rare. Most eggheads don't have any common sense. It may be that it is because he values the common, ordinary aspects of life, like hunting, while also appreciating the finer things like opera, that he irritates and confounds his opponents.

After all, the supreme court is made up of supposedly constitutional scholars, who are really just people.

odmartin| 7.1.10 @ 1:24PM

Other than Harriet Miers, has any Republican president in recent history offered a vacant lot as a nominee to the Supreme Court? Are there no Democrat judicial statesmen or women? Sonya's and Elena's future judicial votes were predictable from the moment either name was put forth.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 2:41PM

As were those of Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

susan| 7.3.10 @ 9:13AM

But THEY were qualified!!!

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 1:06AM

It's pretty hard to make a case that Thomas was "qualified" but "Sotomayor" was not, unless you simply define "qualified" to mean "someone whose votes will line up with the way I want the case to come out." On any measure, Soromayor's qualifications far exceeded Thomas's.

JP| 7.1.10 @ 8:47AM

"The sparring with Senator Sessions over her decision as Harvard dean to kick military recruiters off the main campus due to what she considered the "moral injustice" of Bill Clinton's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was amazingly dishonest and oily."

I wonder if her sensitivity to gays at Harvard extend to Muslim organizations? In Saudi Arabia, and Iran gays are beheaded. I know of no imans who preach toleration towards homosexuals. And gays of course must remain deep iin the closet in any Muslim nation.

Kagan's problem is not with how the military treats gays -its with the military and its culture in general. And make no mistake, she will use her judicial authority to do everything to destroy it.

Grzmlyk| 7.1.10 @ 8:55AM

Can somebody explain to me the utterly inexplicable pathology of the GOP? Helloooooo, what about the REALITY of what Kagan is??????

The saccharine, solitious fecklessness that is the true soul of the Republican party is NEVER so nauseating - or evident - as when a Democrat SCOTUS nominee takes HER seat at these hearings (I say "her" because the days of male Democrat SCOTUS nominees are over until there's a trans-gendered, gay-reverted half black, half Hispanic Muslim waiting in the wings).

The fawning GOP makes a half-hearted pretense of being tough on the nominee, but even this brief pose is struck with a nod and a wink: The GOP is clearly of the opinion that absolutely any SCOTUS nominee put forward by a Democrat ought to sail through with a minimum of hair-mussing (funny how the Dems fight to the death when even the most eminently qualified conservative - say, a Robert Bork - is nominated).

Obama could have nominated Squeaky Fromme (a once-and-current Charles Manson acolyte who tried to assassinate Gerald Ford), and Orrin Hatch would cluck-cluck about her checkered past for a moment before gushing about her glorious qualifications, and Lindsey Graham would wag his finger at her misspent youth for a nanosecond before telling her that, no matter how she answers his questions, he'll vote for her.

This is the GOP, folks. The SCOTUS hearings - both for Sotomayer and now for Kagan - tell you all you need to know about the future of the Tea Party movement, sadly.

Nothing will change until the whole rotten structure is kicked in.

PJ| 7.1.10 @ 10:58AM

I also can't believe why the GOP is behaving this way towards Kagan. I can only conclude is that the GOP believes it has a majority of conservative judges in the Supreme Court & might as well play nice until they control the Senate someday. They're probably thinking, "So what if 4 judges are liberal. They won't do any harm because they are in the minority." This is stupid thinking because Kennedy is not reliable & Scalia is not a spring chicken anymore who can very well drop dead during Obama's tenure.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 4:38PM

But the President gets to appoint replacements to the Supreme Court, and Obama is President. Anyone he appoints will be at least as liberal as Kagan - he isn't going to appoint a conservative.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 4:58PM

RCV,

Did President Reagan get his replacement, Robert Bork? No, he did not.

The time has long passed for you democrats to get paid back for that one.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 6:43PM

My point was that, if the Senate rejected her, as it has the right to do so, President Obama's next nominee would undoubtedly be less to the liking of conservatives. I would have preferred that he appoint an experience judge with a proven record like Judge Diane Wood, who has been on the 7th Circuit for 15 years. If Kagan is rejected, she would likely be his replacement. I am confident conservatives would be even less happy with her than Kagan. She is considered a liberal intellectual counterweight to conservatives Posner and Easterbrook on that circuit, and Democrats would be more than delighted to have her be the nominee.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 7:05PM

RCV,

If the Republicans had the brains, and the guts, to filibuster the KAGAN, they wouldn't then accept an even more liberal nominee.

President Dither would have to nominate a Kennedy.
Anthony, that is.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:49PM

Oh, please, yes... i'd love to see that fight over Scalia's replacement. Not that I wish him dead or anything, but we all have to go sometime... next year would be a good time, don't you think?

David| 7.1.10 @ 9:18AM

I let my Senator, Mr. Cornyn, know flat out that if he supports Ms. Kagan's nomination I will not support him in the next election - even if it means voting for a democrat (after all, is there really much of a difference between a democrat and a RINO? they are both destroying the USA).

Floyd Looney| 7.1.10 @ 12:34PM

You might remember that Cornyn came out immediately after she was nominated to say there would be no filibustering. No spine at all.

Barbara Tuckerman| 7.1.10 @ 5:06PM

Is he shaking in his boots yet? Get serious.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.1.10 @ 9:28AM

Grz,
I'm just as frustrated as you.

Sigh, there is no doubt that Obama will get his rubber-stamp on the Court. The only question is the name of that rubber stamp. The R Senators know that they are outnumbered, and I wonder if they are trying to keep their powder dry for November.
They just don't see themselves raising hell like we private citizens can. That may be a mistake, but maybe they just want to remain "collegial" at least on the surface.
The lame duck session after November is what truly worries me...and I think...the Rs as well.

There can be some huge damage done in that lame-duck session.
Thoughts?

LT| 7.1.10 @ 3:41PM

Ken, I don't see the logic for "keeping their powder dry". I am basing my vote in Nov. on what my representatives are doing NOW - and they should be making the hard choices. A filibuster would be a boost to any (R) Senator in the confirmation hearings. He would be vaulted to the front page of the TEA Party newsletters and guaranteed support in Nov. Softball will only get lukewarm support from those not paying attention. Both of my Senators are Ds and as such made their minds up when reading the Party line. All I can do is tell them (if they bother to read my letters) I will be actively supporting *ANY* opponent they have in the next election.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:43PM

That's because they are SENATORS, not a bunch of yokuls ruled by emotions of the moment. They are caretakers of our country, not your mouthpieces. I can respect any Republican or Democratic Senator that can stand up for principle against the tide of emotion from the lunatic fringe - and both sides have 'em - makes things interesting and fun...

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 10:10PM

Now that you mention the lunatic fringe........

Grzmlyk| 7.1.10 @ 9:49AM

I see your point, Ken - and I, too, fear the lame duck session mightily.

But what really galls me is the friendly, hail-fellow-well-met bonhomie among what should be sworn enemies. WTF? It's like a friggin country-club luncheon over there. I thought Republicans were supposed to care about this country, not occupy themselves with yucking it up with people who, if they had the chance, would eviscerate them in a second.

Don't they realize that the corrosive, corrupt, nihilistic Kagan could be on the court for 30 years or more, or that Obama and his ilk are ONE justice away from nullifying the Bill of Rights and tossing the rest of the Constitution onto the trash heap of American history in favor of Mao's Little Red Book?

Obama is politically vulnerable right NOW - he will very likely regain some footing as people tire of the oil spill in favor of the endless fascination of who will be Oprah's replacement and the Fed keeps interest rates low enough to prop up the Potemkin village of recovery into 2012.

Sieze the moment, GOP!

I mean, Jesus, are they keeping their powder dry until the battle is over so that they can hand over to this country's plunderers a pristine powder magazine with the seal still unbroken?

Hell, fighting the Kagan nomination should just be a warm-up: They should really be figuring out a way to impeach the odious Obama - not for political gain, but to stop the transformation of America into yet another sclerotic, Western Europe style social democracy (which even they are beginning to realize results in DESTRUCTION).

The info coming out of the Blago trial, along with the Sestak/quid pro quo brouhaha (remember that brief tempest?) ought to be enough rope to hang this administration, if anyone cares to pursue it instead of trying to get invited onto the "A" list DC party circuit.

HEY, GOP: THE TIME TO WET YOUR POWDER IS NOW!

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:47PM

I think it's great... keep it up... the more y'all talk about your powder and taking aim and all that sort of 2nd Amendment remedies, the more you scare the bejesus out of the moderate independents in this country. And, they FAR outnumber you or the Democrats. So keep it up, put Sharron Angle in the front line, with Rand Paul to back 'er up. You people will never win (a few races here and there, sure, but majorities, nope) , but it sure is entertaining ....

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:06PM

Nothing like a frustrated Arlen Specter voter to make me laugh. Just like a broken clock - gives the right time twice a day

barbara Tuckerman| 7.1.10 @ 5:07PM

It's over boys. Get used to it or move/

darcy| 7.1.10 @ 11:45PM

I agree with you, grzmlyk, and would add that with each passing day the Republicans, with the notable exception of Jeff Sessions, have shown themselves to be the Redundant Party. The fawning behavior of Lindsey Graham reflects appeasement and capitulation; it is truly nauseating to behold.

Should Republicans fail to mount a principled and tenacious fight against this egregious nominee, then we will know that we've already reached the status of a one-party state, with the Redundant Party merely voicing token opposition but having no real intention of reversing our slide into socialism.

Andrew Keirns| 7.1.10 @ 9:59AM

I think the line of questioning to Ms. Kagan should follow a line back to the person appointing her to the position. PrezBObama has talked about income redistribution and empathy in the past ...;
"Ms. Kagan, President Obama has expressed he wants the Court to do more to redistribute income. How do you see the Court's role in redistributing income? And Ms. Kagan, how do you empathize with someone before the court who is married, with children, when you are not married and have no children?"

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 1:56PM

And she would respond: "Senator, the role of a judge is to address the legal issues in cases which come before them. If the Congress or any Executive department take an action which is challenged, we'll have to make a determination in a particular case of the legality or Constitutionality of that action based on the law and facts before us."

"As to your second point, Senator, I have many friends and acquaintances and relatives who are married and have children, just as married justices with children have friends and acquaintances and relatives who are single. That's why we have nine Justices on the Court - to bring different perspectives and life experiences to our job. But I must also emphasize that the role of a judge isn't primarily to 'empathize' with litigants, but to address the legal issues with which the court is presented based on the record and the applicable law."

This really isn't rocket science, and the current script on how to get through these hearings without making waves was written by John Roberts, and every nominee since has followed it.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:41PM

Very good, and so true.

Andrew Keirns| 7.1.10 @ 10:07AM

Almost forgot -- reading some of the comments above reminded me about citing international/foreign law: "Ms. Kagan, would you look to foreign law, Sharia law, if a hate crime case regarding the treatment of homosexuals in the USA came before you as a Justice on the Supreme Court?"

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 6:01PM

"As to the general subject of foreign law, Senator, I can only imagine consulting foreign law if it were at issue in a case, such as an international law issue. Sharia law is a set of religious tenets, which have no place in our Constitutional system in which Church and State are separate, as the Founders so wisely provided."

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:12PM

What has international law got to do with the US Constitution? Nothing at all, it is as irrelvant as my mum's recipe for fruit cake - which is actually very yummy, and much more of a benefit to humanity than international law. The Constitution made no reference to international law that I am aware of.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 10:33PM

No, but the Court sometimes has to interpret treaties the US is party to, which reference international law. And, sometimes choice of law rules in contract cases, for example, require the Court to look to and apply such law to cases before them.

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 10:16AM

Grz, Ken, all,

I'm not watching the hearings so I'm spared from hearing or seeing the insanity that is Washington D,C, and this whole fiasco.

But I join with you in saying~ GOP~ listen to us! DO NOT CONFIRM THIS WOMAN! We the people do not want her. GOP please read Quin's article today and take the advice. Have town hall meetings with us and hear our voices! Let us tell you how we feel and what we think about this woman and how she is NOT what America needs! We do not want a lady who cheers for partial birth abortion, who thinks it might be OK for the government to tell us we MUST eat our broccoli if we don't want to, who is a Lesbian and thusly promotes the perversion that is called Gay Marriage, that believes like Obama does, that the Constitution can be ignored because after all it's obsolete, isn't it?

GOP you are standing in the breach between us and the Leftists and you have been put there by God for the Scripture say so~
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Romans 13:1.

You GOP are called to "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8. So GOP~ please kindly do justice for us and don't allow this confirmation to go through. Filibuster at LEAST as hard as the Democrats would, and have some town hall meetings with us first before you do anything.

We're watching and we have the power at the ballot box in spite of Obama and his his SEIU thugs. There are more of us outraged Americans there there are of them. We just want our elected officials to actually DO the will of the people.

God bless you.

Grzmlyk| 7.1.10 @ 10:45AM

Unfortunately, Margie, the GOP is just one end of a monolithic, self-appointed ruling class. THAT'S the problem. Just like the Dems, they're all about MONEY and POWER.

That's why I fear the fate of the tea parties - we may put several tea party candidates into office this fall - only to see them become infected with the same thing that infects all politicians: Power.

The system is broken, and unfortunately, to expect the GOP to fix it is like asking the second-biggest fox to guard the henhouse.

I'm NOT advocating a third party - I'm advocating a complete reorganization of the GOP, which must be of a piece with a pivot in our popular culture and the mainstream media - which is NOT dying; it's just migrating to the Internet.

A tall order, but I don't see how we can change our governing class other than to change the culture out of which it springs. The problem is that our great history as an endless economic engine has had a toxic byproduct: It has produced a collective false consciousness fed by easy money: We have fetishized CARING above all else. But this compassion is not rooted in true empathy or the circumstances that reality dictates; it is rooted in intellectual fantasy, moral vanity, and the inexhaustible desire to amelioriate the human selfishness we cannot escape in our private selves by ostentatious displays of compassion in our public selves. It is a substitute for religion: It is redemption on the cheap (manifested so succinctly in the “green” movement).

We are no longer judged by what we produce or what we contribute or how we serve our fellow man in real terms; we are now judged by how big a show of CARING we can put on – this has become the sole virtue in 21st century America, and it is utterly hollow. How “GOOD” can person “A” REALLY be if his sole claim to “GOODNESS” is that he insist that Person “B” give his hard-earned money to Person “C?”

Conservatives have dominion over reality because we recognize that human nature doesn’t change and we set up societies whose mores acknowledge human foibles and dissuade the basest elements of our nature. Liberals have dominion over fantasy because each generation believes – apparently without recognizing the last generation’s failure – that it has eluded the gravitational pull of human nature and can jumpstart Utopia by forcing people to adhere to their definition of good. As a result, the basest in our nature rules the day disguised as goodness.

Oddly enough, I think this hubris is pretty well covered in ancient texts – including the Christian bible.

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 11:43AM

Oh My Goodness. Wonderful, wonderful post dear person!

I just read it my husband and he agreed. He then told me that once he passed by a billboard once that said "Re-elect Mayor X." And underneath it said, "Because he CARES."

Hey, I certainly agree with you about re-organizing the GOP. You know that's what I always say. Restore is a good word, too. We can't afford to do anything less, can we?

And your absolutely right. The Bible does say exactly that about man's nature. He made us good, but we blew it. "Behold, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices." Ecc. 7:29.

The only way the "culture" can change is if God changes the hearts and minds of men. That happens both by the examples of those who have been changed affecting them, "planting the seeds of Truth" if you will.. God being the one who does the actual changing, us being the sower of the seeds.

I so agree with you~ and you do such an excellent job of explaining and revealing the heart of the matter! Three million cheers to you!

(On a side note~ I told my husband that I wanted to say that I loved you. He said no, you can't do that. :^) Then he said, you should ask him, "Is there a Mrs. Grz? If not, there should be." All in good spirit. Well, the love I have for you and Ken and LLL's and NR and John II and Mimi and Stephanie and Deb R. and Al Abab and others I'm sure~ is Agape love. It's Greek for the kind of love God loves with. It's not the love bet. man & wife.

God bless you Grz.
Excelsior!

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.1.10 @ 12:07PM

I second Margie's motion.
Good thoughts, GrZ.

I shall return now to your earlier comment: "...until the whole rotten structure is kicked in..."

Have you had any further thoughts on when and where to do the kicking?

Grzmlyk| 7.1.10 @ 12:43PM

Well, of course I don't pretend to have the magic wand that will make it right. I'm not that smart. But my opinion has long been that we must change the trajectory of popular culture. I love Margie's views, but I don't think leading by example alone will do the trick, because popular culture promises the empty calories and shiny trinkets of immediate gratification and the lazy feel-goodism of self indulgence.

One quiet person behaving well in a room fool of drunken frat boys running amok will never get noticed, let alone emulated.

We need to get hold of some of the wellsprings of liberal thought – Fox News is an anomaly, and it already pays some obeisance to liberalism (Bill O'Reilly's every other opinion being but the most visible example). The WSJ's editorial page is fine, but the paper's news coverage is liberal. Conservatives rule the radio, of course, but we need to infiltrate NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, Gannett, AP, etc, and have a bigger presence on the Web. We need to extend that influence into the entertainment industry.

A groundswell of vocal protests will of course help - if the tea party movement grows to millions of average taxpayers, and they become a relentless force, and Nixon's silent majority becomes a deafening one, the mainstream media, and the culture it leads, will have to modify their stands further.

Getting Republican candidates to sign a pledge might help - of course, politicians think nothing of lying, but a constituent contract with our GOP candidates might hold some of these people's feet to the fire - and one tenet of that contract would be to fight tooth and nail against any SCOTUS nominee that represents a judicial philosophy that is at odds with the Constitution.

It isn't easy - after all, the reason good is rare and evil is the norm is because the path of righteousness, as they say, is very hard and not for the faint of heart; false idols abound, and human nature is easily distracted (as the Israelites, and countless others, could attest).

But we must go back to a society focused on the INDIVIDUAL; a century of group identity politics has got to be beaten back (easier said than done, I know).

We have to commandeer some of the levers that shape our culture and then steer it away from the systemic juvenilism that characterizes popular culture today. We idolize not only the aesthetics of youth, but its naive sensibilities and imperviousness to the lessons of history, as if simply wishing "from each according to his needs" hard enough, or coercing subject peoples into its strait jacket with enough muscle, can make it a viable organizing principle.

One thing is certain: Liberalism will never be defeated once and for all. It is evil itself, the classic wolf in sheep’s' clothing, a protean and multi-headed hydra that requires eternal vigilance.

I also think a fiscal collapse is inevitable within the next three years or so; I believe the tectonic shifts have already happened and we're just waiting for the tremblers to hit the surface of everyday life. Once that happens, and the edifices of complacency fall with shocking pervasiveness, we must take a page from the Obama/Emanuel playbook and not let the crisis go to waste.

Once we open that wedge, we must pounce. We need to outlaw government unions. Abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, for starters. Make charter schools happen in inner city neighborhoods. Amend the constitution so that these gaping loopholes in things like the commerce clause are closed.

I also think we have to fight fire with fire - use Alinsky tactics on them (which will only be effective if we have more of an echo chamber than Rush, Sean, Levin, etc. - that is the democrat party's biggest advantage over us. It's not the ideologues in DC, it's their megaphones in media).

But one way or another, this white-glove treatment of Democrats has got to go.

And that's why the Kagan and Sotomayer hearings truly make me sick. We're moving backward, not forward.

BTW, I just saw Navy Brat's comments on family - that is just as important as anything I've said!

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:15PM

Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Tse Tung had a few ideas on kicking, but something tells me that these won't hold your attention very long.

NavyBrat| 7.1.10 @ 12:34PM

Grz, Margie, Ken, et al:

You are correct about the how the degredation of our society is related to the degredation of our government. Since ours is a gov't. of, for, & by the people, its only as GOOD as the people.

The culture of the people must change, & it can't be done by any other force other than the family. It is the family that instills the initial recognition of G*d & His Law. Its from the family that we learn work ethic. It is from the family, in conjunction with G*d, that allows our kids to grow up & be honorable men & women, & therefore, productive citizens.

While I'm only 31 & have no kids of my own, these are the lessons that I've gleaned from growing up. My parents instilled my values in me. I didn't recognize the significance of this when I was younger & knew everything, but who does? But as I've gotten older, gotten married, & taken on more responsibilities, the more I realize how much they were right. More people need to learn the value of family. More people need to know that only virtuous people can truly be free.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan & speculate for liberty, but it is religion & morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, & if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers & the forms of government, but they will not obtain lasting liberty."...John Adams

"G*d who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of G*d? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that G*d is just; that His justice acnnot sleep forever."...Thomas Jefferson

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 12:57PM

Beautiful, NavyBrat. You've said it all.

NavyBrat| 7.1.10 @ 1:04PM

Ms. Margie.

Thank you, ma'am. Cheers!

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.1.10 @ 1:17PM

Grz, Brat,
Thank you for the base we build on...gotcha'

GRZ,
In all modesty, I am smart enough. I got the magic wand.
First, I seriously question your time-line. I think we are working on a much shorter "compressed" time-line.
Why?
Two reasons:
1. international upheavals.
2. frightened angry people goaded on by the communists.
(Damn, I got a meeting. Finish later.)

Grzmlyk| 7.1.10 @ 1:31PM

Ken: You have the magic wand?

Just out of curiosity, how come you haven't waved it yet? What the heck are you waiting for?

CZ| 7.1.10 @ 12:01PM

So true, so true.

aware| 7.1.10 @ 12:38PM

Grzmlyk, you are sooooo right! I was frustrated as you sound for over 30 years. Then came TARP under REPUBLICANS! That made it quite clear, government is a vast criminal gang and they're all in on it. With pitifully few exceptions.
The choice at the next election is looking like the Commie Party or the Stupid Party. What a choice!
And what the Hell happened to this country?

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:39PM

"We the people do not want her" - luckily, you people don't have enough votes. so you're outta luck - she will be confirmed and you will like it.

Yeah, and you talk to God now?

"We're watching" - you just wrote you didn't watch the hearings... do you READ what you write. You sound like an idiot.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:18PM

Liking it is not the same thing as putting up with it. A lot of people put up with the likes of you, but don't expect Christmas cards any time soon.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:05AM

I thought you're Australian - what r u doing on AMERICAN Spectator?

Barbara Tuckerman| 7.1.10 @ 5:10PM

In case you haven't noticed for several decades that "Grace" you all sing about has been nothing but chaos, calamity and destruction. It just keeps coming, oil spill, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and do forth. Could it be God paying us back for all our evil deeds across the world?

margaret| 7.2.10 @ 5:48PM

I too wish that this nominee could be filibustered. Howerver, I believe I heard that according to Senate rules, only legislation can be filibustered. The Republicans tend to try to adhere to Senate rules(unlike the Dems). The Dems have filibustered many lower court appointees of Bushes, but I beleive they can be appointed when out of session.
Help me with this someone!
Kagan is really unqualified! I've been calling Dems in Senate to remind them the Republican voters rose up and complained aboutHarriet Myers and that the ABA could come up with at lease a cadidiate that had some experience and would be have judical temperment. Elena shouild stay in acedemia.

Cuffs| 7.1.10 @ 10:32AM

We will soon have a matched set--
a president with no experience and
a chief justice with no experience.
With Kagan(a regurgitating liberal
Harvard drone) a Sotomayor(learning disability
affirmative action hispanic) we are on the
road to a complete breakdown of the
rule of law by the constitution.
These two women are a disgrace. They have nothing in their heads but to be rubber stamps
for the socialist agenda of Barry & Friends.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 2:48PM

First, John Roberts is Chief Justice.

Second, your attack on Justice Sotomayor as a "learning disability affirmative action hispanic" is a pretty baseless slur. Sonia Sotomayor is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton and of Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Review. She served as a prosecutor in New York for 5 years, and was appointed by President Bush to the federal district court, where she served for five years before being appointed to the Court of Appeals, where she heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases.

You, sir, are an ignorant bigot.

Grzmlyk| 7.1.10 @ 3:35PM

Who is the bigot? Hope you have a mirror handy.

About those credentials:

All tainted by affirmative action.

Ah, yes, affirmative action's corrosive qualities touch not only its opponents, but its supposed beneficiaries.

I point out that Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and it's pretty obvious now that he couldn't spell "cat" if the teleprompter didn't spot him the "c" and the "t."

Were you just as impressed that Bush's GPA at Yale was higher than Gore's? Let me guess: That's somehow DIFFERENT, right?

Sotomayer is a bigot - and unlike your aspersion cast at "Cuffs," we have her record to prove it.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:35PM

Doesn't matter now, Chuckie, she's on the Court, so live with it. We put up with the Corporatists - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and sometimes Kennedy, so you can do it to. I sure hope Obama has a chance to replace the bombastic one - Scalia.... Oh and btw - Kagan is not an affirmative action reject , as you claim Sotomayor is - what's your beef with Kagan? Come on, let's hear it... it's probably just as enlightening...

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 4:52PM

"I sure hope Obama has a chance to replace [...]."

Is that a threat against Justice Scalia's life, PurpleJackass?

I sure hope the four true, American justices (and Kennedy) have Secret Service protection!

It would not shock me, at all, for some stinking liberal to go "Lee Harvey Oswald," after watching "The Pelican Brief."

I pray for God to watch over and protect those five justices.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 5:20PM

I pray for God to watch over and protect all of our Justices, as well as our President.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 6:29PM

Did you want a cookie?

Radegunda| 7.3.10 @ 1:13AM

Beef with Kagan? Let's start with the fact that she is manifestly dishonest, and that she does not respect Constitutional restraints on government, and she has absolutely no judicial record, and she doesn't even sound intelligent when she tries to squirm away from questions that bear on her dishonesty and radicalism.

Her ludicrous, slobbering worship of Obummer demonstrates that she is sorely lacking in rational judgment.

Fairbanks99| 7.1.10 @ 3:40PM

Wasn't Barry an Ivy League grad and "editor" of a law review? Those creds don't carry much weight any more. BTW, it was Sotomayor who was a member of the Mexican Klan known as "La Raza" - "the race", so you might want to look at her for an example of bigotry.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 6:07PM

RCV,

Sotomayor got appointed to the federal court because of a deal between Al D'Amato and Moynihan, not because of any accomplishments of her own. It was pure politics.

In her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor couldn't even use the words "imminent" and "province" correctly:

http://hotair.com/archives/200.....ent-twice/

Sotomayor is most definitely a product of affirmative action, like the man who appointed her.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 7:29PM

Wake up, Nick. Almost every judicial appointment in America is "pure politics" as you define it.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 8:26PM

RCV,

So, that makes it okay to put an illiterate on the highest court in the land, let alone a district court?

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 11:57PM

No, Nick, Justice Sotomayor is not "illiterate". I know you like to throw around phrases like "affirmative action" as if you know what you're talking about, but here are the actual facts:

Sonia Sotomayor was the Valedictorian (you know, the highest GPA) at her high school, Cardinal Spellman High, a Catholic school in New York City. (Catholic schools don't need to use affirmative action to attract Latinos.) Because she was the #1 student at one of the most respected high schools in NY, she got admitted to Princeton. Now affirmative action sometimes gets you into an Ivy -- which wasn't the case with Sotomayor -- but it can't get you to the rank of summa cum laude, as she graduated, nor into Phi Beta Kappa. She had close to a straight A average in her final two years at Princeton.

You can disagree with her on policy issues, and obviously you would appoint judges with different philosophies. But to pretend that she lacks intellect is just plain silly.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 12:33AM

RCV,

Merely asserting something does not make it true.

I'm well aware of Sotomayor's record, from debating this last year. Were you her grade verifier back then? You have know idea if she deserved her grades or if they were given to her. It was the '70s after all.

And, I don't have to pretend. I gave you multiple examples of her inability to use the English language properly. Reminded me of the time I saw Maxine Waters say "squash a subpoena" instead of "quash," during a hearing on C-SPAN. Man, was that hilarious!

"Illiterate" is artistic license and not meant to be literal. But, she is just another street kid who was pushed ahead, instead of having to earn promotion because of merit.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 5:27PM

Nick - If misusing the English language were an offense, GWB would have been impeached in his first week.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 6:10PM

RCV the Hypocrite,

There is a big difference between getting tonge-tied and using the wrong word over and over again, when you supposedly graduated summa cum laude.

Radegunda| 7.3.10 @ 1:16AM

Same goes for Obummer. But lefties keep telling themselves that he's brilliant notwithstanding all the contrary evidence.

dasboot| 7.1.10 @ 10:45AM

On the court Kagen will act on her resentments for the USA, men, children and Christianity, as well as her own self-loathing, for 3 decades. Makes me want to puke.

CZ| 7.1.10 @ 12:01PM

You are so right. It will all come out.

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 10:45AM

This just in: Elena Kagan demanded sex change operations be covered for Harvard students when she was Dean.

http://us1.campaign-archive.co.....b2bb222d2e

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:29PM

Did you get one?

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 5:42PM

Well we can only wonder as to the true gender of a guy who calls himself "purpleguy." It's also a fact that most Leftist men (if that is what you are), are very limp-wristed, if you know what I mean. They go around internet sites nah-nahing others like little children.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:04AM

Hey - YOU'RE the one focused on sex change operations, not me, sweetie - as if it matters one iota to anyone else's life - that is unless you are looking to have one. Are you ?

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 5:09PM

You may change some appearances of phenotype; you cannot change genotype. Purpleguy: do you anything interesting to say?

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:02AM

Yes - in the era of genetic engineering you are wrong and as usual, without the facts, don't know what you're talking about.

DaveS| 7.3.10 @ 10:58AM

I have a B.S. in biology. I know what genotype and phenotype mean. Y our turn; take it.

Richard| 7.1.10 @ 10:48AM

She is a provincial, insular, unworldly, New England/New York Liberal. She doesn't have the experience nor the wisdom to judge this huge and varied nation.

victor| 7.1.10 @ 12:35PM

Precisely why her boss, who is much the same, appointed her.

Qualifications? We don't need no stinking qualifications!

loulou| 7.1.10 @ 10:55AM

Just the fact that she drools over Thurgood Marshall indicates her poor judgement.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Thurgood Marshall was known to be stupid and was senile for much of his time on the SC.

Tim | 7.1.10 @ 10:55AM

Kagan is perhaps the most "openly" biased
Supreme Court Juustice that we have had in some time.

The key is to turn over the Senate for the next 25 years so she and her ilk will always remain at the loosing end of 5-4 rulings.
Then in 30 years or so as happens to all mortals she will finish her stay here and visit Hell and Hob Nob with her own kind and only be a foot note in our History Books.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:23PM

Feel better, sore loser?

Northern Rebel| 7.1.10 @ 11:45AM

When republicans nominate someone for the court, liberals unite and vote in a block, whether they succeed or not.

When democrats nominate a communist, people like Flimsy Graham make a big show of asking tough questions, then vote for the commie.

It would do the republican party some good, if they united, and voted against this military hating socialist activist. Their constituents would be heartened, and more apt to show up this November.

When they united against Maobama care, we took notice, and gave them credit. If they continue to be worms, then hopefully we will continue to run candidates in the primaries, against these RINO's, until we purge the party of their ilk.

It does no good to Elect a Scott Brown, If he is going to impersonate Splash Kennedy, everytime a vote comes up.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 11:52AM

"When republicans nominate someone for the court, liberals unite and vote in a block, whether they succeed or not."

That's absolutely untrue. When GWB nominated John Roberts in 2005, he was confirmed 78-22. Exactly half of the Democratic Senators, including the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, voted to confirm him.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:28PM

So, at least some of the Republican Senators know their duty, and it's not to listen to dopes like you. It's not a popularity contest for a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate is not positioned by the Constitution to deny someone chosen by the President for the Court. The provision for Advise and Consent is to filter possible wrongdoers from getting on the Court, not your political opponents or competing philosophy. That's what elections are for. And, Obama, won, he gets to choose. Can't wait to see if he gets to choose Scalia's replacement ... but if not, we'll all live with the outcome... Just like you will with Sotomayor and now Kagan.... !

Brian| 7.1.10 @ 11:59AM

She is "likable enough", like an amiable dunce?

Louis Jenkins| 7.1.10 @ 12:01PM

Kagan is riding the range, bent on getting her due now boys. It's almost laughable to see her speak so politely to her fellow Senators, who by all aspects have fallen in Love with her. And she's had the gaul to critize the interview process for Supreme Court Justice! Lindsey has said his best and wishes her well, and by all accounts, he's in her hip pocket. (Lindsey's got to go.) And while Sessions came accross cross and upset, he too will vote for her. This is the government we've inherited. We deserve better, but got what we've voted for.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:22PM

Well, elections have consequences, and with a Supreme Court Justice, only one vote counts - the President - the Constitution says so. Sooo, while Bush appointed his choices, it's now our turn. So grin and bear it like a good American, and when it's your turn again, we will too. Have a nice day!

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 5:12PM

Ask, if you could, Reagan if only his 'vote' counted (Bork). Scalia must have your shorts in a knot all the time - as he has Stevens's and Breyer's.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:23PM

Al;l the talk about new politics, hope and change, bringing people together etc that I heard in the election campaign clearly did not originate from your desk.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 9:35PM

Of all the recent Presidents, Obama has done the most to reach across the aisle, and gets slapped down by the "Party of No" every time. As a former Republican, I'm ashamed of that party. Everything they do is to get back into power, and screw the country, the people and their children. Whether they are apologizing to BP (Barton) or downplaying the worst economic downturn since the 1930's (an "Ant" Boehner) or lying to the people (Death Panels) they are a disgrace to the country. Instead of joining with the Democrats to help the people and businesses of this country, they are still trying to create Obama's Waterloo - at the expense of the American people. What a disgusting display of political pettiness and ignorance.

If the Republicans do win control of either or both houses of Congress, you will deserve what you get. You better hope you got yours, and they can't take it, 'cause they will and give it to their Corporate masters.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 10:00PM

Actually, mate, I live in Australia, so I won't be getting the punishment you hope for. As for feeling ashamed of the Republican Party, I am sure that the feeling is mutual and your absence causes no sense of either longing or deprivation. I believe the saying is 'don't let the swinging door hit you in the ass'

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:00AM

WTF? Are you trying to influence a foreign election? Typical conservative...

Roxanna| 7.1.10 @ 12:01PM

Elena Kagan was the root cause of one of the greatest frauds in the history of jurisprudence, i.e., partial-birth abortion, and nobody's going to do anything about it. She has already shown her dishonesty and her lack of regard for the law. She's going to get confirmed, Republicans can't stop her and democrats wouldn't dare, where she won't let the facts, the law, or the Constitution get in the way of forcing her ideology on us.

Samwise| 7.1.10 @ 12:03PM

Yet, no matter what the American people want, we know that Kagan is going to be on the Supreme Court. Just the fact that she lied during these hearings should eliminate her but it won't because Obama lied, those in his Administration lie, deceive and cheat...and if Kagan doesn't get the nomination, Obama has Woods (I think that's her name) waiting on the side lines...and I hear Woods is far more radical than Kagan...Let's hope Republicans and Independents come out in full force in November and turn the thugs out of office...if we don't, then Obama and his comrades will have two more years to inflict terrible damage on our country...haven't heard any more of Tea Party rallies...are they backing off?

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.1.10 @ 12:53PM

Sam,
No Sir!
We are not backing off. Lots of primaries left. Lots of phonecalls to make!

The rallies are merely pep rallies. Now we KNOW we are not alone.
Go to teaparty patriots and find your local teaparty and sign up.

kitty hogan| 7.1.10 @ 12:10PM

How many single NYC women with no kids do we need on the Supreme Court? Of course Elena has a good sense of humor, SHE'S the joke.

Jackie| 7.2.10 @ 5:53PM

Elena Kagan's comments are like a bad lounge act.

fed up| 7.1.10 @ 12:11PM

Just what this country needs, another professor. Hasn't actually done anything, but can tell everyone else how and/or what to do. Just like the artifical, counterfit, immitation of the president that nominated it. Something has to be done to protect the people from har -vurd before its too late.

Big Elk| 7.1.10 @ 12:12PM

What's with all the harvard grads in the Federal Gov't? Grade-inflated Harvard, is all reputation and no substance. In the last 100 years Harvard grads have ruined the country with their commie-fascist-progressive philosophies. The greatest president in the last 100 years was Ronald Reagan, and he did not go to Harvard, and that's why he was the greatest. We should have a law against any more Harvard and Yale grads being in the Federal Gov't. Kagan is obviously a commie sympathizer, just like the Chicago pimp president. She will be another Harvard nazi/ fascist on the court, just like ACLU commie Ginberg. And, I don't care if she's a Jew or not, she's still a nazi! All fascism comes from the political left. We can all pray that Kagan will get hit by a Mac Truck and her guts spread all over the road; now, that would be great for the country.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:20PM

Don't forget your faves - Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy - all Ivy Leaguers - we can't have that now can we... oh that's right, you LIKE them... how transparent you are.

"And, I don't care if she's a Jew or not, she's still a nazi! " - that's just rude.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:27PM

Rude, huh! I guess you lifted your recent suggestion about having a sex change straight out of the debutante's etiquette handbook.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 9:29PM

Hello? What planet are you on?

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 10:03PM

Earth. You mean you do not know what planet you are on?

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 5:27PM

I agree. Those Harvard grads like Antonin Scalia have got to go!

John Dietrich| 7.1.10 @ 12:14PM

I think that we are just about at the point where nothing less than [deleted lest Big Sis send her goons a-callin'] can save our freedoms and way of life in America.

kathymm| 7.1.10 @ 12:15PM

In what looks to be a slam dunk, merely because of the unequal committee which so far is playing out to be settled along party lines.....we're about to witness another miscarriage of the legislative branch.....in deciding to install anyone in what is a lifetime position- no do overs- no re-electing if they do a good job....they should be approaching this like a murder trial......in other words there should be NO doubts, and that simply is not the case with Kagan who has a lifetime of history of bias, abuse of power, and deep seated convictions that are her personal opinions which will be excersized in what will amount to unjust decisions

David| 7.1.10 @ 12:21PM

RCV, dem votes for Roberts were an anomaly. Look what happened with Alito's nomination. The dems try to destroy the characters of every super-qualified nominees like Miguel Estrada, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and they tried to do the same to Sam Alito.

Republicans, please, please, grow some juevos and filisbuster Kagan. She is far outside even liberal legal thought. Please don't confirm this screw-up.

She needs to be asked about the current Sup Ct ruling (5 to 4) against the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College and whether she believes in a right to "association" with whom one chooses. The Society will not receive college funding, as every other discriminatory group does, IF they do not allow non-Christians, atheists, and homosexuals to not only join their group, but actually SERVE IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS. WHAT THE F__K WAS JUSTICE KENNEDY THINKING TO ALLOW THIS. WHAT ABOUT TOLERANCE? An atheist leading a Bible study - what insight!!! The Christian Legal Society ought to insist on joining homo, transexual, transgender, and Jewish group on campus, and insist on leadership positions. But they won't, because they are the truly tolerant ones - they don't care what the other do or don't do. It's the folks in the other groups who are the intolerant ones.

Hello homosexual scout masters. The next step for this court will be to deny tax exempt status to churches who do not allow non-Christians to serve in leadership positions in their Christian churches. Wait and see - a lawsuit will be coming soon in a community near you.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 7:47PM

Stop making facts up. When Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Reagan, he was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY. Every single Democrat voted for him. When Scalia was nominated, he was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY. Every single Democrat voted for him. When George Bush Sr. nominated David Souter, he was confirmed 90-9, with only a handful of Democrats (Kennedy, Kerry, et al.) voting against him. When Clarence Thomas was nominated, about a dozen Democrats voted to confirm him, insuring his confirmation.

Eddie| 7.1.10 @ 12:25PM

Any Senate hearings, whether it be confirmation, investigation or whatever, are the most idiotic, photo op , "Look at me" events ever conjured up. Senators acting out their fantasies for the folks back home and the usual drab aides and associates sitting just to the rear of them trying to act interested. The bottom line is that these so-called "hearings" are a farce. No doubt the person who is supposedly being grilled has already been chosen and the rest is just for leg tingling for the Libs who occupy Congress now.

William W Watson| 7.1.10 @ 12:36PM

For all the hysteria about the need for "diversity," hasn't anyone questioned the lack of diversity of a Supreme Court consisting of three women from New York?

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:17PM

And, all Justices are Ivy Leaguers .. Oh my ... whatever will we do...?

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 4:44PM

Not to mention 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 5:11PM

RCV,

Wrong, only four of the nine justices are Roman Catholic.

Kennedy and Sotomayor are CINOs, Catholic In Name Only. I pray that they repent and rejoin the Church.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 5:14PM

Oh, sorry, I missed Benedict's appointment of you as Protector of the Faith and arbiter of Catholicism.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 6:17PM

RCV,

I do not decide who is, and is not, Catholic. People decide for themselves.

To be Catholic, you have to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church. ALL of them.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 7:17PM

So you believe in ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church as set forth in the Catechism?
1. You believe that, as to capital punishment, "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." [2267]
2. You believe that "Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal." [1938]
3. You believe that, "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin." [2241]
4. You believe that "Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely" and that "Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes." [2313]
5. You believe that, "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [2314]
6. You believe that, "The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them." [2316]
7. You believe that, "Rich nations have a grave moral responsibility toward those which are unable to ensure the means of their development by themselves or have been prevented from doing so by tragic historical events. It is a duty in solidarity and charity; it is also an obligation in justice if the prosperity of the rich nations has come from resources that have not been paid for fairly." [2439]
8. You believe that, "It is also necessary to reform international economic and financial institutions so that they will better promote equitable relationships with less advanced countries." [2440]

These are a start, but I'd like to know if you truly believe in them, and accept them.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 7:46PM

RCV,

Yes, I believe every teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This is why I'm considered a "conservative" in today's parlance.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 10:30PM

So what have done to promote gun control? Do you oppose candidates who support use of capital punishment? Are you working to reform the IMF to promote wealth redistribution to poorer countries and loan forgiveness?

Also, do you agree that Scalia, Thomas, Alito Roberts and Kennedy are not Catholics because of their votes on Heller?

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 12:10AM

RCV,

You should try reading the CCC, instead of coping and pasting it.

The Church doesn't teach "gun control." So, I don't support gun control.
This is the rest of Paragraph 2316: "The short-term pursuit of private or collective interest cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among [NATIONS] and compromise the international juridical order.

It is talking about arms dealers and wars, not the individual right to have guns for self-defense. Weak, very weak. Next time, look up the section you're quoting from.

The Church doesn't teach that capital punishment is intrinsicly evil, as it does about abortion. I don't agree with the way the death penalty is administered in this country. I wish it was biblical, requiring multiple witnesses. I live in Michigan, where there is no death penalty, but I'll vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate over a pro-abortion one.

I have no problem with loan forgiveness for poor countries, and am no fan of the IMF. The Church does not teach wealth redistribution, however, which violates the Seventh Commandment. "No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." Pope Pius XI

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/ca.....alism.html

How do the votes of these five justices on Heller, in any way, violate Catholic teaching?

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 9:28PM

Good listing ... he'll never agree, or he's a hypocrite...

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 9:36PM

Geeeez, you're dumb, PurpleJackass.

Now, I see that you're blind.
Are you also deaf?

Tim*| 7.1.10 @ 10:50PM

Catechism of The Catholic Church , Second Edition :
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 10:59PM

Exactly, Tim. The Church teaches that in today's modern day the cases in which execution of an offender is morally justified "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent" because we have alternative means of rendering those who have committed offenses incapable of doing harm.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 12:41AM

RCV,

Yes, but it is sometimes needed.

Especially against terrorists. They should swing from the highest tree.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 9:38PM

...including domestic terrorists.

Gerald Stephens| 7.1.10 @ 12:58PM

IT IS WRITTEN...

Any Republican who fails to filibuster this creature's nomination is now enjoying their last term in office.

The people will prevail one way or anther.

Plainspeaker| 7.1.10 @ 1:06PM

Hey, this is a done deal! Reach down and grab your ankles. Expect the worst, for she will be confirmed. She will really have to screw up to get fired from the court. Only Andrew Jackson fired the judges. Noone else had the stones to do it.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:16PM

Yeah, there was a hot-headed, my-way-or-the-highway type ... yeah, let's emulate him. That'll get us far. Nearly bankrupted the country, the idiot.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 4:42PM

Yes, PurpleJackass, "Old Hickory" was a typical democrat.

Tim*| 7.1.10 @ 10:52PM

Purplepuss is an argument against himself.

George F| 7.1.10 @ 1:11PM

Kagan's elastic attitude does not bode well for a supreme court judge but of course, that's what Dems like about her.

Dave Smith| 7.1.10 @ 1:31PM

Talking of homsexuals, when is someone going to ask the manly Ms Kagan if she is, as extensively rumored, a homosexual?

I could care less, but apparently she's all for DO ASK, DO TELL, right?

Dave Smith| 7.1.10 @ 1:37PM

Oh -- one other thing. The media suck-jobs (all on JOURNOLIST) taking there sucking orders from the Obama admistration, spent some time last month pushing the meme of Ms. Kagan's alleged "brilliance."

Can we have some examples of this woman's intellectual "brilliance." Oh, I don't mean a drone like ability to rise is leftademia.

I mean, one original, insightful, "thing" that has ever leapt out of her brain?

Doesn't have to be a cure for cancer. Just something that hasn't be intoned by the suspect usuals like Mama Cass Sunstein, et al.

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 1:37PM

With liberal judges you can never know the game. With conservative judges, everyone knows the game. If you don't like the score you can get 3/4 of the states to change the game. Constructionist judges respect that. This is why my fellow conservatives despise the arrogant Left because the Left NEVER likes the game as it's laid out.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:09PM

Constructionist Judges? That's laughable.... In 2 of the more recent cases, Citizen's United and the latest 2nd Amendment ruling both are signature cases where an Activist Conservative Roberts Court forced it's will on the American people. In Citizen's United, they reversed 100 yrs of precedent, and equated not only a corporation to a person, but corporate treasuries with a citizen's right to donate to a campaign as well. In the 2nd Amendment case, Heller? , they find the word individual as applied to " the right to bear arms" - Really? Where does it say that? That is activism boys and girls... so what you say you don't like on the LEFT is exactly the same on the RIGHT - except y'all believe you are holier than thou in your self-righteousnous. But that's okay, the higher you think you are, the further you fall when you drop.... and drop you will.

Ryan| 7.1.10 @ 4:20PM

Since when does "the people" in the second amendment not refer to individuals?

Not activism - it's enforcing the plain reading.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:53PM

If you had actually read Scalia's commentary, you would have realized he rearranged the words to the 2nd Amendment to fit his thought process. Now, since when can you "rearrange" the Founder's words to mean what you want? That isn't simple or plain reading, sir.

Liberal Reader| 7.1.10 @ 7:18PM

Debating trolls is such a waste of time. They are playing a game of misinformation that any corporatist fascist would but they aren't that smart. They puke up arguments that were dispensed with while the founders were still alive. Instead of reading their stupid talking points they should be serving up hamburgers at McDonalds.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 8:01PM

My point, sir, is that there are no constructionists. It's completely in the eye of the beholder. The Roberts Court confirms it every time it rules.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 8:03PM

You obviously haven't read it either ... read it and stop talking out of your ass.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/op.....8-1521.pdf

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:35PM

Arranging words from the consitution to fit one's thought processes is how one comes to an opinion. It was what judges do during office hours - they form opinions and explain their reasoning. The critical difference is that Judge Scalia has coherent thoughts that display logic and analysis, whereas your thoughts do not.

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 5:18PM

The time you spend responding would be put to better use watering the flower pots on your front steps. So, we are to believe constructionist = activist? How did the Founders not anticipate Purpleguy?

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 8:02PM

My point, sir, is that there are no constructionists. It's completely in the eye of the beholder. The Roberts Court confirms it every time it rules.

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 8:24PM

Of course there are constructionists - or the term would not be in use! [I applaud you for your shortest response to-date.]

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 9:25PM

Name 2 that have made no compromise in their positions over time....

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:41PM

I suggest Jesus Christ - he was nailed to a cross rather than recant his beliefs. In your case, I will be happy to provide a cross, hammer and nails so that you can clearly demonstrate your iron commitment to ultimate truths.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:26AM

Leave it to you to debase the Lord's name to make a petty political point. The true feelings of a conservative on display. Shameful.

Jackie| 7.2.10 @ 5:50PM

Lets interpret God's 10 commandments onto the supreme court floor . Then, American laws will make sense again

DaveS| 7.2.10 @ 7:12PM

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia. That didn't take long.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 10:45PM

The Founders did anticipate Purpleguy - they saw him coming from one hundred miles out. Purpleguy is an idiot and nowhere near as clever as he imagines he is. The Founders did not want lunatics taking over the country and ruining them, so they set up a system of checks and balances and consitutional restraints to limit the damage Purpleguy and his stupid friends can do. The Purpleguys want to remove these constraints so they can run wild and let it all hang out - like teenagers getting the key to the liqour cabinet. Their favourite technique is to change the rules and appoint their own umpires, so that is where all the ruckus about the Supreme Court comes in.

You can bet your last dollar that Purpleguy will empty the liquor cabinet, blame you for the hangover, expect you to clean up the mess and to go down to the mall and bring back a load of booze to replace the stuff that he drank. Strangely, he fails to understand that this idea has no appeal to anybody except himself. The guy really is a moron.

Fortunately there are elections every two years and the Purpleguys are likely to find out that the party is over and the cabinet is locked once again. Better luck next time, Purpleguy. Like you said, elections have consequences, so you have to like it.

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 11:31PM

Thank God for the Founding Fathers!

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 12:14AM

Amen.

Jackie| 7.2.10 @ 8:51AM

The far left is destroying our founding fathers dream of a wonderful God loving society .They have been trying to toss our beliefs out since the 1960's. Time to speak up and take it back . These people are making a mess of our Constitution

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:28AM

Oh, yes, that's why they provided for separation of church and state... they wanted the government run by a bunch of clerics.

Seriously, they wanted religion as far away from government as possible. They weren't afraid of government, but they were afraid of religion.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:31AM

Works both ways Snuggles, so yes I do like it. When you look at what people are feeling, they are upset with government, Democrat AND Republican - upset because the government isn't doing what they want, not because they don't like government - so I wouldn't be so sure that y'all are going to win much of anything in the fall beyond the normal mid-term changes.

theduke| 7.1.10 @ 1:53PM

The only way to look at this: if liberals and progressives want to nominate mediocrities to the Supreme Court, let them. Apart from it being Obama's prerogative, they can only do so much damage in the long term before history has its way with them. (Sorry if that induces any unpleasant visualizations in the reader's mind.) The only liberal on the court with a modicum of sense is Breyer. The others are so steeped in cliched and easily refuted thinking that it would be comical if it wasn't that they weren't pronouncing judgments in the nations highest court. Stevens' opinion in Heller was laughably flawed. The Kelo case outraged a sizable portion of the electorate and may have been the inspiration for Souter's retirement.

That said, it's absolutely necessary to work to assure Obama is not re-elected. If this bunch of liberals ever gets to be part of a majority on the court, it will be sad day in our nation's history.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:13PM

So who would you like to run more in 2012 - Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? just asking ...

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:42PM

None of the above

theduke| 7.1.10 @ 9:53PM

Newt Gingrich

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:24AM

Yes, please, oh, please...

Jon B. Cain| 7.1.10 @ 1:59PM

This was written one year ago when I was fearful of the coming destruction that the Obama win would bring, never did I believe it would be like this....if we don't stop them now, we'll forever be known as the generation who lost the country......

July 4, 2009

As the 4th of July, 1826, approached, Thomas Jefferson lay wasting away in his bed at Monticello. His physical being was not cooperating with his brilliant mind, and he knew his time was short. Our beloved Founding Father had tried with all his might, and to the last ounce of his being, to remain alive until this sacred day.

His last earthly triumph was to survive until the 50th anniversary of the day he and his fellow revolutionaries announced our independence from the economic tyranny and the oppressive government of England.....he was a patriot to the bone, and he loved this country to the death. All those around him feared he would not make it to that blessed day and that he would not fulfill his wish, for his body was failing and he was very weak.

It was nearly one o'clock on that summer afternoon, 4th of July, 1826, one of the greatest men ever to walk the Earth, had expired. Surrounded by many friends and family, Jefferson clutched a bible, several books of Greek tragedy, manuscripts of Socrates, remnants of other great thinkers of history, and accounts of other successful civilizations that had rose to greatness, then collapsed in failure. He had learned much from their history. Jefferson vowed not to make the same mistakes of Rome or Greece, his brilliant, written architecture & verbal designs would see to that indeed. Jefferson was not an extremely pious man, but he knew the importance of God and felt the role He played in the forging of any successful republic. He relied on Him at this hour, as he did during other tribulations before this day.

About 600 miles North at Quincy, Massachusetts, John Adams lay in his death bed as well, awaiting his faithful departure from Earth. Two days prior, Mr. Adams showed no signs of the fate to befall him. Surrounded by family and friends, and other notables, John Adams died only a few hours the latter of Mr. Jefferson, and also on the 4th of July 1826.
The last words uttered out of his struggling lips were the words, “Thomas Jefferson still survives", and then Mr. Adams fell silent forever.

Jefferson and his fellow Founders forged a new document, a blueprint to design a better, stronger, more perfect union that would stand the temptations of men and their relentless quests for power. However, even the Founders may not have foreseen what was to come, or could have conceived such maniacal stresses to our countries’ foundations. These present tests to the Declaration of Independence and to the United States Constitution have not yet succumb Her to the ravages of Man’s greed, thus far. Jefferson and Adams, perhaps from beyond the grave, holds out hope that their magnificent designs will not fail its intended purpose and our Framers’ foundations will remain intact. This fate remains with us.

These great men help found this nation and suffered greatly for it. But they knew the cause was just and the mission noble, for they understood that without freedom of the individual, tyranny and misery would forever rule men's souls. Even the most ardent Atheist could not ignore this magnificent, triple coincidence, and what I believe to be one of Divine providence. Two men, entwined in history and destiny, to both pass on that fateful day, within hours of one another, and for Adams to know Jefferson’s fate so immediately, was incredible indeed.

Long live the United States of America, not as our contemporaries may try and transform Her into, but long live the America our Founding Fathers entrusted all of us to protect and preserve at all costs. This country was not created for man’s pleasure to bastardize, or change into his own vision, or to have the audacity to believe it needs to be corrected in any manner whatever. This country is the greatest gift to mankind and the best hope for the world to prosper in peace and the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Jon B. Cain
Delaware, Ohio, USA

Dave Smith| 7.1.10 @ 2:45PM

A truly excellent post. And moving.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 4:04PM

"long live the America our Founding Fathers entrusted all of us to protect and preserve at all costs." - I'd love to see y'all TRY to live in their world... without your blackberries, cars, cell phones, internet, TV, air conditioning and thousands of other comforts we take for granted. Evolution of the Constitution toward a more perfect union, is not the same as correcting the Constitution, as if it was a bad thing.

The Founder provided a Constitution to protect freedom and the rights of the people - and so it has. The Bill of Rights was argued about, but not because the Founders argued that the rights enshrined in the BOR were incorrect in some way, but because by writing them down and incorporating them into the Constitution, some were afraid that later generations would see them as THE only rights protected and owned by the people. On the other hand, some argued that if they didn't include them, they would not have the weight of the Constitution to protect them. Madison vs Jefferson were the main debaters. Jefferson won, and the BOR was made part of the Constitution.

So you see, when an "activist" Justice can find support for a human right that isn't specifically stated, they are just exercising one side of the argument that started at our Founding. And, nowadays, that means a liberal OR a conservative Justice. If you doubt me, show me where the word "individual" is ever written in the Constitution with regard to "the right to bear arms" ..., a conservative position? Then, again, the "right to privacy" you won't find either, a liberal cause.

Thomas Jefferson once said he thought the Constitution would have to change every 19 years .... and so it has.

All you types that think the literal meaning of the Constitution is not interpreted over time by all political sides, don't know your history, nor what you are talking about. Refute me if you think you can, but if you just engage in name-calling, you will simply betray your stupidity and lack of knowledge.

Ryan| 7.1.10 @ 4:18PM

The individual nature of the 2nd amendment is essentially in two words - "the people." Using the 10th as clarification, and also seeing that there's no good historical refutation...I'm trying to find a way that it can be concluded that it ISN'T an individual right.

Individuals owned guns in the late 1700s, and that right was rarely, if ever, properly disputed in the courts until later.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 5:04PM

The only dead, white guys you admire, PurpleJackass, are Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:44PM

Something you do quite well, I can't help noticing

Mimi| 7.1.10 @ 4:11PM

Jon B. Cain....What a Beautiful Post...It should be sent to the Senate. Yes sir ...It is our present day calling..." The Fate Does Belong and Remain For Us "

dw| 7.1.10 @ 2:17PM

What is one of the object lessons to be ingrained from the One? Lying is a prime tool for success. Never mind what we try to teach our children about truth and honesty and the American way. Citizenship is now a matter of faith, Kagen is a constitutionalist, we have no oil reserves, he does not bribe candidites to get out of races, he never heard Wright utter racist views from the pulpit or G'damn the U.S., he will have no lobbyist in his administration, he will televise the health care debates, he will be a unifier not a divider, he will create jobs, he's not a communist, his will be an open administration, he will not dubiously enrich himself, he..(add lie here)......lie,lie, lie, lie.....
Kagan will do all she can to alter constitutional standards towards a socialist utopia per the Obamination vision and anyone that does not understand that is a raving leftist or a moronic under achiever. We are swimming in the evidence and about to go down for a third time.
Truely this guys ability to lie is epic but it speaks even louder to the epic ability of those who would believe his lies. Scary is the so called msm's neglect at objective investagative "journalism" in letting all these lies stand unchallenged.

Oregonian| 7.1.10 @ 2:19PM

Diane Feinstein told Kagan that she was "a model for women."

Can anyone explain any part of that reasoning for me?

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 2:43PM

At least it was not a Kagan 'l'etat, c'est moi' moment. The answer is 'no' and Feinstein needs to get her ears and eyes fixed.

Dave Smith| 7.1.10 @ 3:32PM

"Diane Feinstein told Kagan that she was "a model for women."

Yes. circa 1964. the East German Olympic Shot Put squad.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 10:22PM

'Diane Feinstein' and 'reason' are words that can not be used in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive.

Al| 7.1.10 @ 2:35PM

Everything that's happened since Pelosi has taken control of our House has led to Nov '10 elections. The Republican Party has done little or nothing to deserve being in this position. Kagan is a big piece that fits into the Obama puzzle. Between now and November we must come together as a party or we are finish. The end won't be pretty. Republican must do something other than appear on Fox. They have to take the hard questions and show leadership. They have to fight back instead of being such wimps. Get into the fight and get dirty time is running out.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 3:50PM

Put Rand Paul and Sharron Angle in the front lines ... the world will come to your side ... hahahahaha... Ban Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, Alcohol, Fluoride, EPA, Education Dept ... yeah, soon as you are ready to live peacefully in a black neighborhood, take care of your live-in grandparents, never drink, get your kids dentures, home-school them, and never drive that dirty gas-guzzling polluting vehicle of yours, then maybe ... but until then - not so much.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:47PM

I was generous when I called you incoherent. I should have said deranged.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:14AM

Hurts don't it, when your leaders are buffoons?

Tim*| 7.1.10 @ 11:04PM

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Paul picking up 49% support to Conway’s 42%. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and six percent (6%) more are undecided.
With the exception of immediately after his primary win, Paul has received between 46% and 50% support in match-ups with Conway since January. During the same period, Conway has earned between 34% and 41% of the vote. The Democrat has never led in matchups between the two candidates.

Tim*| 7.1.10 @ 11:09PM

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada shows Angle earning 48% support, while Reid, the state’s longtime Democratic senator, picks up 41% of the vote. Eight percent (8%) like some other candidate in the race, while just two percent (2%) are undecided.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:21AM

Sure, your snapshot of the moment still has them ahead in both cases. However, may I call your attention to the fact that at one point Rand Paul was 25% ahead of his rivals in the Democratic Party. 25 -> 7% is quite a drop - wouldn't even you say? Add to that that the 2 Democrats together got more votes than the Republicans, doesn't bode too well for Paul.

Now as for ditzoid Sharron Angle. Reid stood at 33% not long ago, so at 41% he's made an 8 point jump.

As we get closer to election, and people are paying closer attention, the scrutiny on the positions of Paul and Angle will become even more widely known. The Democrats may not overcome these slim leads, but I wouldn't bet my house on them losing.

Now, it's also true that both Paul and Angle are in relative hiding from the press - other than friendly sites like Fixed News and the like conservative-friendlys. That also doesn't bode well for either one come the fall.

But whatever happens, the 2 of them are quite entertaining ... reminds me of the interviews of Sarah Palin with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson - Can YOU see Russia from your house? Then, you're a foreign policy expert!

John II| 7.1.10 @ 2:39PM

What's all this whoop about Kagan being a nice person? If she's nice, so is Ursula, the Disney sea-witch.

Come to think of it, she looks and intermittently sounds like Ursula too. And don't give me any drip-talk about being "ad hominem." In human life, form follows function as surely as in architecture, except it works in reverse. Think and act in a certain way for years and years, and pretty soon you look and sound like what you are.

Professor Kagan, like Mao before her, is obviously among the chubbiest of modern revolutionaries. She IS Ursula!

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 2:46PM

I compliment your punctuation. She's and angry rejected woman like her sponsor is an angry man.

Arlinda | 7.1.10 @ 4:53PM

Nothing in the Obama regime is what it appears to be. Even to identify a man as a man and a woman as a woman could be misleading.

The bi-sexual Obama has a penchant for slender bi-sexual men who love the Whitehouse but hate the country ie Emanual and Holder and obese lesbians ie Sotomayor and Kagan who love Scotus but hate straight white men especially fire fighters and the military.

Skinny metros, fat lesbians, gay men and white self loathers are not qualified to hold office just because they walk and talk and crawl on their bellies like reptiles for a black president who isn't black but bi-racial.

We'd better be veryyyyyyyy careful. For the next 20 or 30 years our Supreme Court will have to endure two very angry lesbians who despise white males with a particular vengeance.

Fat and skinny took an axe
And gave Washington 40 whacks
When they saw what they had done
They gave the nation 41

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 5:54PM

You're a very angry, sick woman whose internal guilt about sexual matters isn't difficult to figure out.

Vollowitz lives| 7.1.10 @ 10:07PM

In the words of our youth. That is so gay, RCV. Tell about your pretend kids again.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 2:48PM

The KAGAN, as Solicitor General, argued for book banning in front of SCOTUS. She said Congress could ban political pamphlets and books.

She is unfit to be a county commissioner or sit on a town council, let alone be a Supreme Court justice.

Also, the KAGAN tried to claim, in her testimony, that when she banned military recruiters from Havard Law School, recruitment went up. So, in reality, she helped the military.

This would be like Adolph Eichmann claiming, during his Israeli trial, that the nazi persecution of the Jews had helped create the state of Israel.

Yes, it would be exactly like that.

DaveS| 7.1.10 @ 5:21PM

Stupid is as stupid argues, I agree.

Northern Rebel| 7.1.10 @ 3:18PM

I don't know what everyone is so worried about.

She can't possibly legislate from the bench as a legal progressive, because she doesn't know what one is!

SHE SAID SO!

Can you be charged with perjury, during your confirmation hearing?

William W. Wexler| 7.1.10 @ 3:42PM

I hope she shits all over the far right wing agenda of ruling every time for corporations over actual people.

It would be funny if any of the right wing fantasy accusations were true; if that was the case, liberals would be jumping for joy. As it is we're thinking that there were lots of better choices to make the Supreme Court represent the people's law.

But that won't happen until another appointment. We can always hope Scalia carbo-loads.

-Wexler

PS to the persons who are undoubtedly going to post shit under my name, Jesus told me that you're cunts and that you should shut the fuck up. You can't go higher than that.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 4:00PM

Are you related to that scumbag Bob Wexler, democrat, from Florida?

You sure do echo his stupidity.

William W. Wexler| 7.1.10 @ 4:09PM

Related to Bob Wexler? Nope.

Are you related to the shaving injury on your wife's ginormous, worn-out pussy? You sure do post like a queef.

John II| 7.1.10 @ 5:49PM

Professor Wexler talks in the way that Professor Kagan thinks (and probably also talks among her girl friends).

JimE| 7.1.10 @ 10:28PM

Wexler, still sodomizing young , crippled ,retarded boys to build your self esteem?

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 3:44PM

"What, exactly, does "intent" mean? Anything Thurgoodian justices want it to mean" - and apparently to any conservative justice that chooses to define it. The word activist when applied to the Supreme Court used to mean liberals promoting the rights of those not fortunate to be white or wealthy. Now, it means if you're conservative, get what you want from Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy.

Basically, you got Alito and Roberts and we've got Kagan and Sotomayor. So shut up and enjoy the fireworks. You ain't any better than us, boys and girls.

John II| 7.1.10 @ 5:20PM

Au contraire, Purp: Alito and Roberts are intelligent and reflective and distinguished. Kagan and Sotomayor, in Aristotle's phrase, are fat-souled.

A couple of truly chubby revolutionaries.

Purpleguy| 7.1.10 @ 7:59PM

The American Bar Association doesn't agree with your characterizations... I'll take their knowledge and judgement in this situation over your obvious biased and bigoted opinion.

Nick| 7.1.10 @ 8:16PM

The A.B.A.?

You mean the American Bolshevik Association, PurpleJackass?

John II| 7.1.10 @ 9:45PM

The American Bar Association? Ho-ho, hee-hee, hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-haw-haw-haw!

That doesn't even qualify as an argumentum ad verecundiam, Purp. Hee-hee, haw-haw. But thanks for the laugh.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:12AM

Not sure why you think it's funny, since that ABA blessing dispels all thought of lack of qualifications for a prospective Supreme Court Justice. Whether YOU like it or not, agree with it or not, or think it's funny - it puts the stamp of approval on her, and gives cover to all who vote for her. Too bad, so sad - for you.

Christopher Holland| 7.1.10 @ 9:50PM

If we aint better than you then the performance bar is definitely set far too low by you. We certainly could not be worse. Let us be thankful for small mercies

jrjr| 7.1.10 @ 4:14PM

Obama and Michelle -- are your obesity police going to do anything about the upcoming over-pudgy Justice? But of course, hopefully we will only see her in a long black robe when confirmed.

michigander_sandusky| 7.1.10 @ 4:34PM

Just finished reading "The Real George Washington." He was a man who understood who really rules the universe and grants rights to mankind (God). And, he understood everything did not revolve around himself; he was a true servant-leader. I don't see anyone on the political scene like that today. Until we find such people our country is doomed to mediocrity at best, self-destruction at worst.

William W. Wexler| 7.1.10 @ 5:09PM

If George Washington was alive today he'd be an atheist. He'd see from what happened in just a couple of short centuries as evidence that there is no intelligence behind the universe; it's random.

Look at the GOP, they're a perfect example of random noise from the cosmos. Sound and fury signifying nothing, nothing but grabbasticism and bullshit about religions they don't understand or practice but still think it would be a good idea to cram it down everyone's throat.

-Wexler

John II| 7.1.10 @ 5:24PM

If George Washington were alive today, he'd wash your mouth out with saddle-soap. But thanks anyhow for displaying your Lefty soul in your potty-talk: mean, juvenile, and imbecile. That's the Left to a tee.

Marc Jeric| 7.1.10 @ 5:11PM

If I had been born a woman, and as ugly as La Ginburgh, La Sotomayor, or La Kagan - I would also have become a marxist and probably a lesbian.

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 5:35PM

Wowzer, Mr. Jeric!

beth| 7.2.10 @ 8:42AM

Marc Jeric I love it I agree. Lesbians never understood relationships between a man and a woman. They just play the part ,and call it real

Bill| 7.1.10 @ 5:34PM

The more obvious the clowns on the Supreme Court (and there have been as many of them as there have been legal giants), the easier it is for the people and the states to ignore their rulings, something that occurs from time to time with the more outrageous rulings the Supreme Court has passed down.

John Cole| 7.1.10 @ 6:55PM

She is a Progressive lawyer who believe the Constitution is a living document; not as confused as the President but deffinetly in the Overton club.

OneAngryWhite Woman| 7.1.10 @ 7:33PM

She has an agenda - to help bho transform America into their version of utopia, which means taking money from whitey and giving it to ---themselves. . Like her hero she will lie (not speaking the truth) , she will never answer a direct question with a direct, honest answer. I absolutely despise people that will not tell the truth to your face. If they believe so much in what they are doing and planning to do, then they should have the courage of their convictions. Obviously, they have no convictions nor do they possess courage. Each and every one of them are cowards.

Diogenes| 7.1.10 @ 7:36PM

If the gelding Republican senators aren't able to get a good old fashioned filibuster together, to keep this incompetent anti-American off SCOTUS, I think that it will be highly detrimental to the Nov. election efforts.

And, really now, are Chairman ObaMao's SCOTUS appointees reconcilable with Madame ObaMao's Great Leap Forward against Abject Obesity?

Muriel| 7.1.10 @ 8:43PM

Note the comment: "would have sunk a nomine in the past. Now no one even seems to care."
Readers' comments above are witty and amusing, but also sad in their undertone of hopelessness for USA. This hopelessness is detected in young and old alike. Complaining to rep or senator may not even give you the courtesy of a reply, and if you do get one, it's far from satisfactory. But do
write, if only to remind them:
THAT VOTE WILL COST YOU IN NOVEMBER
The administration is full of pathetic excuses.
The status of America when Statue of Liberty was rec'd, was sparsley populated, unlike today's unjustified imports and disgraceful lack of deportations, together with policies that are clearly against the interest of America: Outsourcing and Insourcing to name just two.
PRO AMERICANS in office can do plenty to change all that, including the wording to make policies that protect American industry, while
encouraging trade laws that are FAIR and not
ridiculously lopsided. Yes. The November Vote is a carrot dangled before you.....if our cards are played right (sure we'll make some mistakes) but
we can be effective enough to turn the tide. It is not unsophisticated to be patriotic. See this New World Order for what it is: the diminishing of the power of America. This is a dire mistake. Dire.
A diminished America will be a DIMINISHED WORLD. You can't make the world richer by making America POOR. You'll see a few new corrupt millionaires, but "spreading the wealth" is a COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST ATTITUDE AND IT HAS FAILED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. WHO IN THE WORLD IS SO STUPID AS TO ARGUE WITH SUCCESS? The proof of the pudding is in the eating: no country in the world has been as successful as the government
of America as outlined in our Constitution. Show your pride: hand on heart during Nat'l Anthem. Respect Old Glory. She flies for you. People around you will fall in step. Every initiative, large and there is none too small, is needed to
TAKE BACK AMERICA.

John II| 7.1.10 @ 9:37PM

"WHO IN THE WORLD IS SO STUPID AS TO ARGUE WITH SUCCESS?"

Perhaps no one. Perhaps we're not dealing precisely with stupidity, but rather with evil.

Just take a deep breath, everyone, and think about it. What could possibly motivate the chubzie-ubzie Kagan to lie on an affidavit in order to promote "partial-birth abortion"--i.e., the grisly murder of a child emerging from the womb?

Just think about it! That's EVIL, in case you need to be reminded. She's evil; Sotomayor's evil; Obama's evil; Biden's evil; fill-in-the-blank among lefty Democrats: THEY'RE EVIL!

Edwin Feulner had it exactly right when he was trying to explain the American two-party political system to a visiting Russian. There are two major parties: The Stupid Party, and The Evil Party.

The stupidity is mostly on display in the (mainstream) Republican response to the evil.

So stop calling liberal-left Democrats stupid, even when they are. They are evil. It's the Republicans and the ordinary Democrats (if any are left) who are stupid.

full mooner| 7.1.10 @ 10:49PM

Seemingly innocuous? Maybe. But she looks like she could bench press a Volkswagen. Pretty is as pretty does.

Margie| 7.1.10 @ 11:27PM

You mean Ed Feulner from the Heritage foundation? Awesome guy, not stupid, either. Is he the one that started that whole thing? Ah well he is right and I hate to admit it but yes it's true. Our party is stupid in a dumb sheep kind of way. Not that that's good, no but it isn't evil, exactly right! I have this book about sheep. It's called "A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23." It is one of the most beautiful little books I've ever had the pleasure to read. By a man of course who knew everything one could possibly know about sheep. You might like it, John II. In fact I know you would. You can get it on Amazon cheap. Anyhow for example did you know that sheep can only see as far as 3 feet in front of themselves? It's true. And also that if they happen to fall over they can't get back up without the help of the Shepherd? And that only a perverse sheep will attempt to jump over the threshold to try and escape out of the sheepfold? Well, of course in the Bible (Jn. 10), God explains how we are like sheep and He is the Good Shepherd and the man who wrote the book is also a Christian and so that is why it is especially interesting too.

OK I really digressed. But I liked Muriel's post VERY much and I think Muriel is a Patriot and I thank her very much for what she said and agree with her that we shouldn't give up or complain too much and that we should all get involved in little (or big) ways that we can because it is up to us after all, right?

Great thoughts, Muriel. And John II. Together we will defeat the Communists.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 12:03AM

Since you're digressing, Margie, your sheep stories remind me that when my daughter was 10 or 11, we took a family vacation to a sheep farm outside of Melbourne, Australia. My daughter's favorite memory of the trip is getting up early in the morning with Jim Wilson, the farmer, and driving through the fields on his motorcycle, looking for 4 legs sticking up in the air -- it was close to lambing time, and the pregnant ewes would fall and needed to be righted in the morning.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 9:22AM

RCV,

That's really neat. I bet your daughter picked up a fondness for sheep after that visit. :^) I would've loved it, myself. Just curious, if you don't mind me asking~ are you an Aussie? If so, G'day!

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 11:19AM

No, Irish-American. But I love Australia and her people, who have an indominatable spirit to them and are as strong an American ally as you will find around the world.

John II| 7.2.10 @ 1:06AM

"You mean Ed Feulner from the Heritage foundation? Awesome guy, not stupid, either. Is he the one that started that whole thing?"

Yes--not exactly "the one," but he was instrumental in starting Heritage in 1973, and took over as president in 1977, as I recall. Impressive guy. Except, well, I hate to say this, Marge, but he's an RC, know-what-I-mean? Educated by the Jesuits back when American Jesuits were still patriotic.

Never realized how apt the sheep metaphor is in Jesus' parable. Thanks.

It's a tricky metaphor, though. One could turn it around and suggest that the slim plurality of Americanos who support Professor Kagan's nomination to the SCOTUS are behaving like sheep.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 9:18AM

I joined heritage back in the early 90's when I started listening to Rush. My membership has since lapsed, but I used to send in my meager contributions to them because I really thought they were just fantastic. Still do. Anyhow, Ed Feulner used to send me a letter every time. It was a little too personalized it seemed to be just a typical form letter. I used to write a little note in w/ my contrib. to him. Great guy like I said. Excellent organization for the conservative cause. And re him being a Catholic. Well, by the Grace of God, I'm not only color blind, but Religion blind too. I don't look at that. If God looks at the heart, so must I. A great American is a great American.

You're right about those supporting Kagan being like sheep. It's definitely a herd mentality. With Christians, God doesn't want us to stay sheep, but to become sons and daughters. But the sheep nature in and of itself is human nature. After all, He did make us to follow Him. :^)

Osamas Pajamas| 7.2.10 @ 12:18AM

Kagan on the armed private citizen? Know Kagan by her omissions, what she clearly could say --- but won't. She could declare her allegiance to the inalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.

Among these inalienable rights is the absolute right of self-defense --- by armed, deadly force --- against any violators of the foregoing rights. Dictators prefer to strike against unarmed victims. It is the intent of the Second Amendment to make sure that any would-be dictators in America will very quickly find themselves looking at the business end of the privately-owned weapons of hundreds of millions of Americans. Get it?

Yosemeti Sam| 7.2.10 @ 1:43AM

Um - not one Republican had the guts to ask Kagan what she knows about that Mao Zoo Dung White House Christmas tree ornament.

Seeing she's so tight with BHO in ideological suit.

kenny komodo| 7.2.10 @ 2:35AM

It's obvious that Clown Kagan has been well and thoroughly coached to say the right things, to assume the correct mannerism, to use the appropriate facial expressions when called for and to be basically just a Barry puppet. For some reason when I picture Kagan on the court I see her dressed in a clown costume complete with clown face paint and a huge red bulbous nose. She might also be carrying a horn, the type that the Marx Brother Zeppo or Harpo used to carry. And white gloves. Now excuse me I think I'm going to be sick.

carlos ortega| 7.2.10 @ 8:09AM

Wow! I read through most of these. a lot of words. Purpelguy is gay, for sure, a dirty liberal fag. A lot of the other comments were here and there, the fact that nobama nominated her pretty much insures that she gets the job. The fact that she is a joke and a homo really does not matter, nobama nominated her and that's that. I can only hope that the Grand Old Party quits sitting on it's hands and deals with this crap. The real problem is the american people, things had to get this bad before they would get out of the chair, turn off the cd player and look at DC and the madhouse that it has become. ? is there any hope for us the ' people'? America was not founded on the backs of weak men, ? are there any strong men left outside of the military ? I wonder. We allowed George Soros and his ilk to get their hands on the national treasury and they bankrupted the country, real fast, nobama jammed all of his socialist agenda in as fast as he could before the truth that he is a empty suit came out. I hope that the ' tea pary ' people set up a 3rd party, we sure need one. Purpleguy, sorry to pull your cover, you really need to come out of the closet. Carlos

beth| 7.2.10 @ 8:34AM

Elena is not right for the bench. The constitution doesn't need another" spin" of the writings. It" IS" what "IS" written. Leave it alone liberals Not a good idea to have her way of thinking to fix it

matt matuszewski| 7.2.10 @ 9:55AM

Ms Kagan is atypical of the smug, self-satisfied and self rightous leftests that can, with a straight face, tell everyone that day is night and red is red, white and blue. They think that if they call crap a rose, everyone will accept it, just as the "drive by" media does. Hopefully they are only preaching to the converted, as most people know, if it stinks, "it aint no rose"!

Rod Davis| 7.2.10 @ 12:26PM

We are learning from one of the best teachers: John Boehner! He never ceases to amaze me with his ability to lie with a somber-looking tone.

Rod Davis| 7.2.10 @ 12:05PM

"Yes, she is "likable enough," to borrow Barack Obama's phrase about Hillary Clinton, but that won't make her any less destructive on the Supreme Court. If anything, it will make her more so."

I have one thing to say... take a strong look at the Chief Justice of this Supreme Court and his latest opinion handed down to 'we, the people'.

You and I both are going to hate him for the rest of our lives because he made it possible for big business to donate (bribe) our elected officials legally, in that they can now donate 'any' amount of money to the candidates that they want to win elections.

Kagan is outfoxing the hunters trying to find anything that will allow them to have an issue with her candidacy for a seat on the Court. They are frustrated because they have yet to shake her off of her game - Kagan 10 Senate 0!

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 12:05PM

RCV,

What?
Did you run out of Catechism quotes already?

You can't trip me up, but feel free to try, in vain, again.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 5:24PM

Nick - I didn't "run out of catechism quotes." There's no sense in discussing Church teachings with you because its clear you don't take them seriously. From your postings, I see no evidence of a Christian bone in your body. Christ taught us about love, about caring for the sick, the weak and not judging other people. You, in contrast, are filled with hate, with venom and with the very self-righteousness He spoke most vociferously about.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 6:01PM

RCV,

Care to back up your libelous statements with some actual examples and quotes?

Also, you are a typical liberal hypocrite.
You admonished me for being the arbiter of who is, and is not, Catholic (which I didn't do.) And now you are the decider of who is Christian and who is not. Hypocrite.

Your comment is a cop-out. You can't make an argument, so you call names and question my faith. I thought you were one of the few reasonable liberals out there. I was wrong.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 7:20PM

Nick - You are right, and I was wrong. I apologize for judging you, and calling you names. I did so out of frustration because, ironically, I get tired of the childish namecalling on this site. I promise to try to stick to rational argument in the future.

Have a happy Fourth.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 7:53PM

RCV,

I accept your apology.

My jabs at you are meant in jest. I only attack people when I have first been attacked.

Happy Independence Day to you and your family.

I leave you with this:
"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." - Pope Pius XI (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 120)

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 7:59PM

As neither a "good Catholic" (at least, Roman -- I was once so, but am now Anglo-Catholic) nor a "true socialist", I feel untouched by Pius's words. While not on the same subject, I leave you with these from Jefferson: "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. "

Nick| 7.3.10 @ 3:25PM

RCV,

The main point I was making, with Pope Pius XI's quote, was that Christianity and socialism are polar opposites, and can never be reconciled.

Even if you don't recognize the Pope's authority, his arguments can't be dismissed out of hand, or his predecessors.

Here is a sample of what the Popes have said about socialism over the past 150 years:

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/ca.....alism.html

Also, Jefferson's quote, at first reading, smacked of pride, which is the foremost of the seven deadly sins. But, then I read the letter that the quote came from, and ascertained that Jefferson was explaining how he was neither a Federalist, nor an Anti-Federalist.

In my past, I would have considered myself a free-thinker. Then I came to realize there was much I did not know or comprehend. After that epiphany, whenever I would come across something perplexing, I would try to figure it out myself. If I couldn't, I would ask the Holy Spirit to show me the truth. This has always worked, even if it took a few years in some cases.

Anyone who thinks they can figure out all the answers on their own is arrogant, and on a fool's errand. I know this first-hand, only too well.

Nick| 7.3.10 @ 3:28PM

That link isn't right. Let's try this one:

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/ca.....alism.html

RCV| 7.3.10 @ 11:28PM

Although no longer a Roman Catholic, I always take seriously what the Holy Father has to say and look to him for guidance (though with no pledge of obedience) on moral issues. The quotes of various Popes on socialism are instructive -- I am no Marxist or socialist in economic outlook. But they present an incomplete picture of the Church's teachings on economic systems, which in many respects have been quite critical of unrestrained free market capitalism. Paul VI's Populorium Progressio and Benedict's recent Caritas in Veritate both contain scathing criticisms of capitalism's excesses and moral failings. It would be a mistake to ignore their wisdom as well.

Nick| 7.4.10 @ 1:08PM

RCV,

We agree.

The free-market must operate with laws against theft and fraud that are vigorously enforced.

And, material wealth is not going to help you get to Heaven. But, Christ never cursed the rich or said it was a sin to make a lot of money.

RCV| 7.4.10 @ 1:34PM

No he did not, I am relieved to agree.

Margie| 7.5.10 @ 5:44PM

Nick, RCV,

Jesus didn't curse the rich or say it's sin to make a lot of money, true. But He certainly said one thing about being rich that I can understand.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." Mt. 19:24.

~Not that it's impossible to enter the Kingdom, but that it is extremely hard.

The Bible also says that "Money answers everything." Ecc. 10:19.

We can't live without it yet having an abundance of it may be worse than having just a little of it. Think of the verse also that says, "You cannot serve God and Mammon." Mt. 6:24.

May God keep us from temptation. I beg Him for His mercy every day. Whenever I don't, I end up in big touble. He is a much better Lord than me!

prestonsbrooks| 7.2.10 @ 12:34PM

Her banality reminds me of the judges in the NAZI court system. She would have fit right in.

Jackie| 7.2.10 @ 6:00PM

Kagan is another piece of Obama's puzzle. He will have of "them" in place for a take over of this country. No freedom ,just governmnet. We should all have great concern for our United States future

DJ | 7.2.10 @ 6:02PM

"Jason" is still alive

beth| 7.2.10 @ 6:07PM

Happy Jack squirrel Kagan loves fruits and nuts in her corner

MattZ| 7.2.10 @ 10:54PM

"This outrageous treatment of the military would have sunk a nominee in the past; now almost no one seems to care. "

No, that's incorrect. Right-wing nut jobs care far too much, in fact, and they keep bleating on on and on about it, even when the appropriate response would be to just stop the ad nauseam complaining rather than ratchet up the volume.

Another meatless piece in a meatless "magazine." There's nothing here of value; it is intelligence-free reading for politcal dinosaurs.
MZ

John II| 7.2.10 @ 11:20PM

Why do you read it, then?

And let's see if I've waited long enough to get the last word in on this thread. Someday . . . SOMEDAY I'm going to get in the last word!

Radegunda| 7.3.10 @ 1:18AM

Sorry, John. Not your day.

dennis| 7.3.10 @ 1:02PM

laugh and have a good time whilst you can. it is near the day. tears shall soon follow. these are the days the prophets dreamed of

Margie| 7.3.10 @ 10:00PM

Tee hee, John II.

rhurt| 7.4.10 @ 12:05AM

Why can't the all-wise Conservative Senators go after her lack of any Judge-type experience-umm? Why do they dwell on her lying support of the Constitution, why not go after her lack of experience and ability to understand the laws as they pertain to judging cases on a Constitutional basis. List and question on each item of the list of those rights listed-so as to allow her contempt to come out and be shown for those rights.

ejhickey| 7.4.10 @ 2:48AM

I think it is great that we are going to get a Jon Lovitz lookalike on the Supreme Court.

San Rita| 7.4.10 @ 10:29PM

"Don't be surprised when the polished and polite Elena Kagan finds a constitutional right to gay marriage within the shadows and penumbras of Thurgood Marshall's Constitution"

Interesting that you should use this example. Considering I didn't hear any complaints from the right when Bush was given the presidency under the 'equal protection under the law' clause, why do you want to take 'equal protection under the law' away from gays?

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 12:16AM

I think there is indeed a decent chance that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of opening marriage to gays, but it won't be any shadow or penumbra, but under the 14th Amendment's clear mandate that every state afford all persons the "equal protection of the laws." District Court Judge Vaughn Walker will soon issue his ruling on the challenge to Prop 8 in California, and it looks to most observers who've followed the proceedings that he will make such a ruling on equal protection grounds. There's a decent chance that ruling will be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, depending on the panel that is drawn. And, this is one issue where Anthony Kennedy might be persuaded to join Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan. We'll see.

mark mitchell| 7.5.10 @ 1:30PM

Y'know, these are some of the wittiest, most trenchant comments than I've read in many moons. But how about THIS one: La Kagana is just too UGLY to be on the S.C. Bench, & we've already got ugly with Ginsburg there. But As someone posted earlier, its an INNER ugliness resulting from, I believe, her noxious collectivist philiosphical bent. She never met a totalitarian philosophy, like a salesman friend of mine who never met a BAGEL (that he didn't like, and proved it by his girth) that she didn't ADORE, vis-a-vis her writing capers about socialism. C'MON, YOU COJONE-LESS REPUBLICANS, FILIBUSTER THE HECK OUT OF THIS ONE! STOP THE KAGAN SHREW!----God bless, MARKRITE