Posted on 06/29/2010 10:53:25 AM PDT by Federalist Patriot
Here is video of Sen. Jeff Sessions this morning at the end of his questioning of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan, saying to her that he was “taken aback” by her attempts to dodge the truth about how she prevented military recruiters from conducting their work at the Harvard Law School when she was Dean there, because she was trying to make a political statement against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
“I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks, because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those – the military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States Government of loss of Federal Funds. This is what happened!”
It is what happened. And President Obama should never have nominated someone to sit on the Supreme Court who treated our military in this way. If she would act against the military to advance her political and social views, don’t you think she will use her position on the Supreme Court to do the same?
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
well then Orrin, dont’t you and other “leaders” and “senior” Republican members think it would be a good idea to get all RINOS in line to stay fast and vote no. Without Mr. Byrd, you are at 59, short of the 60 needed to get through confirmation. Remember what happened to your colleague Mr. Bennett: Your “review” is coming up in 2012.
Every single Supreme Court nominee is. They had many boards with Alito and Roberts before the Senate Hearings. Did you not know this?
1000? LOL...most won’t bother using six so why would they need 1000?
On top of that, I’m convinced that many freepers would race to see who could throw Henry Bowman under the bus first.
That is why you gotta concentrate on cases that have already been decided. You tell the nominee that you want only yes or no answers and that you will cut them off if they quibble or equivocate. Such as:
Given the writing of the Constitution at the time, was Dred Scott v. Sandford decided correctly?
Wong Kim Ark v. United States declared Ark to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Given that Ark's parents were legally within the United States at the time of his birth, would it now be proper to re-visit Ark [given much the same facts] if a plaintiff's parents are illegal?
If the previous answer is no, does Ark cover it under stare decisis?
Wong Kim Ark v. United States declared Ark to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Given that, would it now be proper to re-visit Ark [vis-a-vis natural-born citizenship] if a candidate for POTUS had dual citizenship at the time of his birth?
If the previous answer is no, does Ark cover it under stare decisis?
Was Kelo v. New London [eminent domain case] correctly decided???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.