Has anyone here (other than I) read this these papers that WND cites out of context? If so, why no comments on the actual statements and writings of Elena Kagan?
For example, why are people not commenting how, in the "motive-hunting" line, Professor Kagan was writing about how the SCOTUS had acted since United States v. O'Brien 391 US367, 383 (1968), not saying how she thought they should have acted.
If nothing else, World Nut Daily is amusing. It occasionally pulls the blind squirrel trick, but along with that, it acts with either disregard for the truth or flat-out willful misrepresentation.
Gondring,
Thanks for taking the time to post on this thread. Your post seems to suggest that you SUPPORT the nomination of Ms. Kagan to the SCOTUS. However, if you oppose Ms. Kagan and your intent was to ONLY ensure that everyone including WND writers make sure that they quote everything IN CONTEXT that I can understand that... there is so much concern over Ms. Kagan’s positions on so many issues that I can’t support her nomination to the SCOTUS.... in the intrest of “full disclosure” I would probably not be happy with ANY nominee that is not an ideological clone of Justice Scalia :)
Enterprise,
Thanks for your post and links contributing to this thread !
Now drop and give me 10 :) I CAN’T HEAAAR YOOOOU !!! j/k
David
BTW Gondring,
If Paul Revere was a FReeper in good standing we would listen to him :)
David