Posted on 05/11/2010 6:38:50 AM PDT by yoe
She has NEVER ruled on anything so how can she answer any questions put to her by those questioning her....this is business as usual by Obama-who-hates-freedom, liberty, and the United States of America for which she stands..........he, Obama continues to cheapen and dismantle a once Great Nation.
“continues to cheapen and dismantle a once Great Nation”...........not for long. After November, he will have to just sit in his office and wonder where it all went.
This is the biggest smoke screen promulgated by the LEFT.
Her writings are purely anti-American. She’s as far left as one can get.
I am sure NYers of a certain age well remember Ted Weiss. She worked for him. She also worked for LIz Holtzman....see all about her activities on the Nixon impeachment panel.
However, what I find amusing is that while we have all been indoctrinated to be more "tolerant" (and as Dear Leader and most Demo-Rats and all libs are for allowing gays in the military, gay marriage, etc.) WHY is the fact that she might be, all of a sudden appear to be something no one wants to acknowledge much less, even discussed?
If liberals were not hypocrites, they would be nothing!!!
However, she's no Friend of the Constitution and as such has no place in our Government much less sitting on the Supreme Court.
Whatever happened to nominating someone because of their judicial experience?
Conservatives should stay away from this topic and just hammer her on her bad policies and bad associations. She's much more vulnerable there.
This is what we (America) have come to? Putting bull-dyke sex deviates in a position to advance their deviant interpretations of what the Framers intent was?
Gimme a break....we don't need no more stinkin' politically-correct lawmakers OR interpreters.
Agree completely.
A lot of Supreme Court justices have not even been lawyers, let alone judges. Her lack of judicial experience would normally be a point in her favor. However law school experience more than cancels that out, imo. alos, her seeming lack of respect for the language of the Constitution.
We can't ask Ted Kennedy, so maybe Robert Bork could answer that question.
“No, really...that’s Bob Costas in drag, isn’t it?”
I was told, on this forum that it was unconstitutional to consider someone's religion when voting for president.
Ignorance abounds, even here.
0bama is being consistent with his SCOTUS nominees. Of course they are anti-constitutional Leftists. But they are also both very, very ugly.
Instead of the traditional black robe for Kagan, might I suggest a Burka. That way zero can placate his homosexual, feminist and Muslim base all at the same time.
Oy.....we can always count on this topic to bring out the ignorami.
Grow up already, people.
On the floor, whimpering in a corner. I envision legs crossed at the ankles, knees apart with elbows on them, head in hands.
Once he realizes that he won’t be re-elected, watch him carefully. He will be more dangerous than he is now. He will have nothing left to loose.
I don't care what she does in her private life. Seriously.
However, she's no Friend of the Constitution and as such has no place in our Government much less sitting on the Supreme Court.
Precisely. Further, most of us profess that we don't care what gays do in private, as long as they just shut up about it. Seems to me this "whispering" about her sexuality indicates that's exactly her approach, and these conjectures run counter to that.
Now let's have a spirited discussion of her qualifications.
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.