Skip to comments.
Sen. Coburn: Kagan 'Ignorant' of Constitutional Principles; 'I Wouldn't Rule Out a Filibuster'
ABCNews.com ^
| 06/30/2010
| Rick Klein
Posted on 06/30/2010 1:15:57 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: surroundedbyblue
Im still waiting for Candidate Toomey to put out a statement about her. He supported Sonya Sotomayor & I have serious reservations about voting for him. Knowing that this woman is such a pro-abortion pig AND a judicial activist, I really would love to see Toomey redeem himself by calling her out on it. I wont hold my breath though.CALL Toomey, and tell his office exactly that.
21
posted on
06/30/2010 1:27:38 PM PDT
by
SCalGal
(Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
To: Red Badger
Her answer in response to a commerce clause question indicated that there is NOTHING that it doesn’t cover,
and nothing that the gov’t should be restricted from doing or requiring.
22
posted on
06/30/2010 1:27:49 PM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: OldDeckHand
Some on talk radio have “given up the ship” saying that basically nominees sail through.
Except the GOP turned down Bush’s Miers nomination and the Democrats turned down Bork.
We DON’T have to give her any “grace”.
23
posted on
06/30/2010 1:28:29 PM PDT
by
a fool in paradise
(I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
To: OldDeckHand
Sen. Coburn: Kagan 'Ignorant' of Constitutional Principles
I don't believe Kagan is 'Ignorant' at all. I believe that she, like the rest of the liberal wing of the SCOTUS, believe that you can re-interprete the constitution to meet a social or political end.
This means that she is not that interested in determining or studying what the framers originally had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Her main interest is to make it mean what she and her elite cohorts want it to mean.
To: OldDeckHand
Sen. Coburn: Kagan 'Ignorant' of Constitutional Principles; 'I Wouldn't Rule Out a Filibuster'Uh-huh. I'd love to see it, but I'm not holding my breath. The 'Pubbies will cave on her like they always have.
To: OldDeckHand
The key to her defeat in this matter is to raise hell with each senator, compelling them to think twice about voting to end a filibuster should that occur. The dems don’t likely have the votes to end one without a repub to side with them. Hopefully, Lindsey Graham will call in sick on the day of the vote.
26
posted on
06/30/2010 1:29:44 PM PDT
by
oneolcop
(Lead, Follow or Get the Hell Out of the Way!)
To: NeoCaveman
Is she going to continue to stutter like Porky Pig if she gets confirmed?
27
posted on
06/30/2010 1:30:22 PM PDT
by
a fool in paradise
(I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
To: NeoCaveman
'Kagan is objectively unqualified." By that standard, so was Harriet Meiers, who parenthetically had FAR more practical (and accomplished) legal experience than Kagan. But, wiser and more practical conservative legal minds prevailed. It wasn't a liberal challenge to Meiers that sunk her, it came from the intellectual right.
If there was the same kind of intellectual honesty on the left, people would be revolting about Kagan, who clearly doesn't possess the subject-matter expertise to sit on the country's most revered Court.
To: OldDeckHand
Kagan, anti-military and pro-terrorist. Could it be clearer?
Obama Administration Enables Saudi Princes to Escape Accountability for Mat. Support 9/11 Attacks
WASHINGTON, June 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the day that President
Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11
Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration
would enable five of the king's closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in
financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In response
to the administration's action, the 9/11 families released allegations made in 2002 of the
Saudi royal family's sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have
been ignored by the Obama Administration.
On May 29, the president's top lawyer before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena
Kagan, filed a brief arguing that it would be "unwarranted" for the Supreme Court to
even hear cases brought by the 9/11 families charging that five Saudi princes knowingly
and intentionally provided financial support to al Qaeda waging war on America. By
urging the high court to not review lower court decisions dismissing these cases, the
Obama Administration took the side of
the Saudi princes over thousands of family members and survivors of the 9/11 attacks
seeking justice and accountability in U.S. courts.
29
posted on
06/30/2010 1:31:42 PM PDT
by
Diogenesis
(Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
To: OldDeckHand
Her view of the law is, the law says whatever I say it says and the law says whatever I need it to say.
If we care at all about the constitution, we need to filibuster this until they withdraw her name. Not one piece of work must go forward until they send her to the curb.
30
posted on
06/30/2010 1:32:08 PM PDT
by
marron
To: OldDeckHand
Fax, call, e-mail and hammer your Senators. Now.
Kagan is a liar (falsifying the partial-birth abortion memo) (”It looks like my handwriting” under oath).
Kagan is a politically motivated abuser-of-power (military recruiters thrown off Harvard campus while she was Dean of Law School).
Kagan has never served as a judge and she has only two-years experience as a lawyer in courts.
And we’d know more if over 40,000 pages of records from the Clinton Massage Parlor Library weren’t held until just days before her confirmation hearing.
31
posted on
06/30/2010 1:32:18 PM PDT
by
fullchroma
(Bill Haslam for Governor)
To: P-Marlowe
They don't even do the real filibusters like they used to do in the old days with the senator talking for hours and hours on end.
Any suggestion of a possible filibuster is totally and utterly without meaning today unless he has the votes to back him up on it.
32
posted on
06/30/2010 1:32:22 PM PDT
by
jpl
(It's "My Big Fat Deadly Greek Riot", coming soon to a bankrupt socialist state near you.)
To: OldDeckHand
They need to filibuster and delay this thing until after November.
33
posted on
06/30/2010 1:33:17 PM PDT
by
marron
To: OldDeckHand
34
posted on
06/30/2010 1:33:29 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
("There is no more money. Period. We are BROKE." - Lurker 5/21/10)
To: OldDeckHand
35
posted on
06/30/2010 1:33:41 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
("There is no more money. Period. We are BROKE." - Lurker 5/21/10)
To: MrB
Damn FDR........................
36
posted on
06/30/2010 1:34:07 PM PDT
by
Red Badger
(No, Obama's not the Antichrist. He's just some guy in the neighborhood.............)
To: SeekAndFind
"I don't believe Kagan is 'Ignorant' at all." While I agree with the rest of your post, I take issue with this part. Please, if you get some time, go over to www.oyez.org and listen to the orals in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Kagan is an EMBARRASSMENT. She makes mistake after mistake on the simplest points of law. That performance alone should disqualify her from the bench.
To: a fool in paradise; Chieftain
why in God’s name do we not fillibuster this stupid, ignorant, and ugly to boot witch??
she is a progressive!
The administration, congress, all the leftist are doing what the F they want anyways...why are we even hesitating to make this at least a loud debacle..she MAY get nominated, but i say take down every single one of his Leftist crap nominees!
Make a scene...call her out on all her anti military, anti life actions!
To: surroundedbyblue
Shock: Sotomayor Lied In Her Confirmation To Appease Republicans
Ace
She indicated she agreed with the Heller decision, but, shock of shocks, immediately joined a dissent that denied the central finding of the Heller majority.
Gee, I wonder if Elena Kagan might do the same thing.
What document?
In Fairness... She didn’t lie so much as deliberately mislead.
Contrast that with her Senate testimony: “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.” And, “I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.”
I don’t know how hard the GOP pressed her on that; either way, she’d refuse to answer.
But once burned, twice shy, or so it should be.
Kagan’s statements about “understanding” opinions should be taken as deliberately misleading.
Posted by Ace at 01:57 PM New Comments Thingy
39
posted on
06/30/2010 1:35:11 PM PDT
by
roses of sharon
(I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
To: OldDeckHand
where she was the least published attorney to ever become dean of Harvard Law.”
Yet she was nominated by the person who never wrote a single thing & was the head of the Harvard Law Review-—Barry himself.
What an incestous group they all are.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson