Welcome to PatsFans.com

Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Senate confirms Kagan as 112th justice - Yahoo! News

    The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

    Just one Democrat — centrist Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska — crossed party lines to oppose Kagan.

    A handful of mostly moderate Republicans broke with their party to back her: Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham, retiring Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar.
  2. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +386 / 0 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Meh...yet another in a long line of justices that couldn't care less about the Constitution.
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I think she'll be a good justice in the tradition of those justices who look at the Constitution as something that must be interpreted in light of current realities. To say she couldn't care less about our Constitution tells me that you are ignoring fundamental issues about how our nation evolved. There have always been justices who interpreted our Constitution in light of current realities and in fact they have not always been liberal.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2010
  4. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    They haven't cared for years...more of maintaining the status quo than making strides to uphold the ideals.
  5. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    26,770
    Likes Received:
    424
    Ratings:
    +1,108 / 25 / -46

    No Jersey Selected

    Congratulations go out to Shrek. You've come a long way from the Western London swamp.
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,061
    Likes Received:
    114
    Ratings:
    +198 / 7 / -23

    The righties got their depends in a bunch this AM in the blogosphere.. the sky is falling.
  7. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey


    Nah, she can't be left than the Justice she's replacing (Stevens). It's just replacing one with another with no ideological shift. Had this happened now and President Obama replaced one of the conservative justices ( Alito,Scalia, Thomas, Roberts) with someone of Kagan's ideological persuasion, then there would be an uproar. As it would have, had it happened two years ago and if President Bush had nominated someone to replace Justice Stevens....
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2010
  8. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    As much as I hate this pick and hate the way she has treated the military and our justice system, elections have consequences.
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,061
    Likes Received:
    114
    Ratings:
    +198 / 7 / -23

    Another hyperbolic statement, that has no real meaning except in the blogosphere.. she did not mistreat the military.. and did not mistreat our justice system.
  10. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Kicking out the military recruiters at Harvard was not mistreatment? I saw the testimony against her. And by rewording key evidence for policy? I think you're just letting this go because she's on "your side."
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,061
    Likes Received:
    114
    Ratings:
    +198 / 7 / -23

    Not really she explained why she did it, ROTC recruiters were kicked out of many places.. does not mean she hates the military..

    A more balanced argument..

    Robert C. Clark: Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened - WSJ.com

  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    As universal marriga rights comes to the steps of the USSC, this confirmation has to really irritate the Big Government conservatives.
  13. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,887
    Likes Received:
    101
    Ratings:
    +159 / 2 / -2

    Was the military discriminating?
  14. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Actually Harvard and Ms. Kagan were hypocritical. They could have stuck to their principles and denied the military recruiters IF they were willing to give up Federal funds ( Solomon Amendment).
    They wanted to have it both ways, the Federal funding and the right to deny the military the right to recruit on campus. When they found out they couldn't do both, they reluctantly let the military back on campus. If they wanted to take a stand, all they had to do was turn down the Federal funding and then they would not have been bound by the conditions set forth by the government....THey chose not to.....
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,887
    Likes Received:
    101
    Ratings:
    +159 / 2 / -2


    That's not principled, but I don't see how it's hypocritical... or how it's "mistreatment" of the military (khayos's words, not yours).
  16. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  17. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey


    IMHO, when they play the virtue card " We oppose the military recruiting on campus" but allow it when they realize that they will lose all those Federal dollars, in my mind that's hypocritical. As you said, it is certainly not a principled position. That would have been to tell the Feds, " keep your money, the military is still not allowed to recruit on campus". Harvard is rich enough that they could have taken a stand without risking the failure of the entire university.
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,061
    Likes Received:
    114
    Ratings:
    +198 / 7 / -23

    The reality is that money talks.. all the rest is BS.
  19. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Bingo, we have a winner and on that, we agree.........
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,887
    Likes Received:
    101
    Ratings:
    +159 / 2 / -2

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>