Report: Obama to nominate Kagan to Supreme Court

[GoSox05]

I hope she's an ultra leftist. I don't think she is, but it would be a nice surprise if she was.

[BigSqwert]

I hope she's an ultra leftist. I don't think she is, but it would be a nice surprise if she was.

Not a chance. What has Obama done that would be considered ultra leftist? (Only moderates can respond to that )

[Balta1701]

She's as far left as they come only without the paper trail. This is why she's the perfect candidate for Barry. There isn't much to vet her on, but make no mistake, Obama knows where she stands.

It worked for John Roberts.

[Balta1701]

(Only moderates can respond to that )

Great! Since I know that in reality 75% of the country agrees with everything I think, I can respond, since I'm the definition of a moderate!

 

(channeling 95% of the country)

[NorthSideSox72]

Not a chance. What has Obama done that would be considered ultra leftist? (Only moderates can respond to that )

This is really the point I was getting at. The right wing has consistently feared that Obama was some socialist far-left nut job, and they were convinced he would be - to the point that they have fooled themselves into thinking he actually has been. Meanwhile, the far left seemed to think (I am talking the general crowd here) he would be that, because they wanted him to be that.

 

Both groups are and were clearly wrong. He's been a raging moderate thus far.

 

[lostfan]

Not a chance. What has Obama done that would be considered ultra leftist? (Only moderates can respond to that )

You have to ask a bona fide dyed-in-the-wool leftist that, not even a moderate really (but yeah, like Balta said, everybody thinks they're a moderate or an "independent" e.g. the Tea Party this year)

 

But if you made a list of all the things the "left" wants and the things Obama either did, or is planning to do, how many match? Pretty much none. Don't Ask Don't Tell? Maybe? Eventually? Definitely not healthcare despite what Republicans will tell you. The war drawing down in Iraq I suppose although not at the pace they'd like. Sotomayor was seen as "acceptable" but not really what they wanted. There is a lot of "almost" or "maybe" but not much that really matches up with the wider left's goals.

[clyons]

Not a surprise, but Kagan made it out of Judiciary today. As he did with Sotomayor, Lindsey Graham crossed party lines to support confirmation. That earns respect points in my book.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/sen...dex.html?hpt=T1

[kapkomet]

Lindsay Graham is a whore. And a cheap one at that. I wonder what Joe Biden offered him last week in their "secret meeting"?

[NorthSideSox72]

Lindsay Graham is a whore. And a cheap one at that. I wonder what Joe Biden offered him last week in their "secret meeting"?

You know, you just the other day screamed about the extremism in politics being a problem. Now a guy who crosses party lines is a whore?

 

[Balta1701]

You know, you just the other day screamed about the Leftis extremism in politics being a problem. Now a Republican who crosses party lines is a whore?

Fixed.

[kapkomet]

You know, you just the other day screamed about the extremism in politics being a problem. Now a guy who crosses party lines is a whore?

 

Yes. He is a whore. Period.

[Balta1701]

An interesting note...Kagan, although centrist enough that a number of dems/libs were quite annoyed at her nomination, only managed 63 votes. And that's for replacing a liberal justice with a less liberal justice.

 

If the Republicans take 4 more seats this November, it's entirely possible that there would be no way for President Obama to nominate anyone who would survive the confirmation process as the next justice, and the long-dreamed-of Supreme Court filibuster process will begin.

 

Especially if Kennedy or one of the Scalia/Thomas pair were to be the next to go.

[Cknolls]

An interesting note...Kagan, although centrist enough that a number of dems/libs were quite annoyed at her nomination, only managed 63 votes. And that's for replacing a liberal justice with a less liberal justice.

 

If the Republicans take 4 more seats this November, it's entirely possible that there would be no way for President Obama to nominate anyone who would survive the confirmation process as the next justice, and the long-dreamed-of Supreme Court filibuster process will begin.

 

Especially if Kennedy or one of the Scalia/Thomas pair were to be the next to go.

 

 

Kennedy already said he will wait for an R to get elected before he retires. Ginsgurg is next, so no shift there. The big battle comes if/when Obama is re-elected.

[Balta1701]

Kennedy already said he will wait for an R to get elected before he retires. Ginsgurg is next, so no shift there. The big battle comes if/when Obama is re-elected.

There could easily be not enough Democrats to overcome a filibuster on a replacement for Ginsburg.

 

And Scalia and Kennedy are 74 years old.

[Rex Kickass]

Lindsay Graham is a whore. And a cheap one at that. I wonder what Joe Biden offered him last week in their "secret meeting"?

 

Or he could realize that his duty as a Senator is to advise and consent for nominations to the judiciary. Unless something super horrible comes out, there's really never a reason to vote against a nominee.

 

Sad to see that a Senator who does his job the way its intended is now just a "whore." I guess you could call him that for a lot of reasons, but choosing to confirm someone who has different ideological beliefs as you because that person would be competent is not one of those reasons.

[Balta1701]

Or he could realize that his duty as a Senator is to advise and consent for nominations to the judiciary. Unless something super horrible comes out, there's really never a reason to vote against a nominee.

At this point that flows just as equally both ways. I believe the current President supported the Alito Filibuster, did he not?

[Rex Kickass]

At this point that flows just as equally both ways. I believe the current President supported the Alito Filibuster, did he not?

 

Correct. But you could make an argument that Alito has a specific record and a specific track record on decisions that can be viewed as troubling, not just in regards to ideological differences - but in regards to basic concerns of civil liberties. The ACLU, for example, opposed his nomination for this very reason. Something they didn't do for anyone else besides Robert Bork, a deeply flawed nomination to the supreme court.

 

In the case of Alito, there was a shred of a legitimate argument to be made about voting against this person. In the case of Kagan, its something very different. "Well I think she'll be liberal," is not a valid reason to block an appointment that you don't get to make.

 

I don't necessarily agree with the motivation behind the Kerry filibuster - because the truth of the matter is that elections have consequences. And the election of the President means that he gets to appoint his choices to his appointments. Unless there is some serious concern about the good of the country, there's no reason to not support the appointments.

[southsider2k5]

Correct. But you could make an argument that Alito has a specific record and a specific track record on decisions that can be viewed as troubling, not just in regards to ideological differences - but in regards to basic concerns of civil liberties. The ACLU, for example, opposed his nomination for this very reason. Something they didn't do for anyone else besides Robert Bork, a deeply flawed nomination to the supreme court.

 

In the case of Alito, there was a shred of a legitimate argument to be made about voting against this person. In the case of Kagan, its something very different. "Well I think she'll be liberal," is not a valid reason to block an appointment that you don't get to make.

 

I don't necessarily agree with the motivation behind the Kerry filibuster - because the truth of the matter is that elections have consequences. And the election of the President means that he gets to appoint his choices to his appointments. Unless there is some serious concern about the good of the country, there's no reason to not support the appointments.

 

So next time the Repubs find someone with no judicial experience, the Dems won't hold it up this time?

[lostfan]

I don't care about judicial experience at all. The Supreme Court members are called "justices," not "judges." Judging (at the federal level) is just one of many, many things that can make you qualified. The phony focus on it is recent and only because it's the easiest way to track someone's political beliefs.

[Balta1701]

Aren't we long since past the point of pretending that being one of the top legal minds is a key qualification for the Court? An average legal mind but intense party loyalty has long since taken over.

[kapkomet]

Be honest - is Sotomayyyyyyyyor or Kagan an "average legal mind"?

[Balta1701]

Be honest - is Sotomayyyyyyyyor or Kagan an "average legal mind"?

Beats the Hell out of me.

[kapkomet]

Alllrighty then.

[Soxy]

Alllrighty then.

 

Don't know about Sotomayer. By all accounts Kagan is some kind of genius though or to use a pejorative she's an intellectual.

[bmags]

usually people that become dean of harvard law school are absolutely dumb as hell. Alito on the other hand, brilliant.