Take on Kagan?

Which again changes nothing about my point. It appears that this nomination is a reflection of the current Executive and underqualified for the position compared to other more exemplary nominations for the same job.

That is just silly... Simply because she has yet to be a judge? I can see the argument a bit more with regards to the president, who has to react in a crisis, but to be a justice of the S. Ct.!

Do you belive Renquist was a good CHIEF JUDGE?
 
what articles? like i said....to my knowledge...being a dean or a professor does not a scholar make

if you have knowledge otherwise, don't be a prick, just give the knowledge...good lord, forbig someone have an opinion about her when so little is know...hence my caveats which you of course missed due to your poor reading comprehension skills


No, I caught the caveats. They didn't help. You basically said "I don't know anything about her but based on the nothing I know about her here's what I think." That, in my opinion, is stupid.
 
again...what articles

further, since you're a lawyer you should know that even if she wrote a note as editor, that hardly qualifies someone to be named a scholar...

A scholar is someone who is well educated not necessarly someone who has written a lot.

I was on my schools law journal and I will tell you, it takes a lot of writing even though I was never published, I wrote a lot.....
 
That is just silly... Simply because she has yet to be a judge? I can see the argument a bit more with regards to the president, who has to react in a crisis, but to be a justice of the S. Ct.!

Do you belive Renquist was a good CHIEF JUDGE?
Again. It isn't that she has never been a judge. Catch up.
 
No, I caught the caveats. They didn't help. You basically said "I don't know anything about her but based on the nothing I know about her here's what I think." That, in my opinion, is stupid.

if you actually understood caveats, you would realize i based my opinion on YOUR link which said she has hardly written anything....so, again, based on YOUR link (to my knowledge) she hasn't written much, thus i don't see how she can be considered a scholar

what is further stupifying about your stance is that you fail to provide any articles despite being asked....thus, you are basing YOUR opinion on as much information as i am....either link up or shut up nigel
 
Which again changes nothing about my point. It appears that this nomination is a reflection of the current Executive and underqualified for the position compared to other more exemplary nominations for the same job from the past.


This is pretty standard fare from you and yours: (1) find out some experience the nominee lacks; (2) declare it a necessary qualification, (3) declare the nominee underqualified.
 
A scholar is someone who is well educated not necessarly someone who has written a lot.

I was on my schools law journal and I will tell you, it takes a lot of writing even though I was never published, I wrote a lot.....
The evidence of scholarship is in the publishing. I know of no professor (and I know many, all my in-laws are college professors, their friends, etc.) who isn't required to publish in order to gain tenure, except (apparently) Obama and Kagan.
 
I actually don't care that she hasn't been a judge. I am more interested in her philosophy on "Social Justice" and other things that we do not know about. I would prefer a stronger political record so that people know what they are getting rather than a huge question mark.

This whole thing reminds me a bit of Harriet Myers.

HArriet Meyers was never intelegent enough to have been editor of Harvard Law Review.
 
The evidence of scholarship is in the publishing. I know of no professor (and I know many, all my in-laws are college professors, their friends, etc.) who isn't required to publish in order to gain tenure, except (apparently) Obama and Kagan.

So, you are saying she may be a scholar, but you dont know because she has not published enough so you dont have the evidence?
 
if you actually understood caveats, you would realize i based my opinion on YOUR link which said she has hardly written anything....so, again, based on YOUR link (to my knowledge) she hasn't written much, thus i don't see how she can be considered a scholar

what is further stupifying about your stance is that you fail to provide any articles despite being asked....thus, you are basing YOUR opinion on as much information as i am....either link up or shut up nigel


Actually, I'm not claiming she is a scholar. I'm merely rebutting your statement that she hasn't written anything. She has. You can do your own leg work to track down her stuff.

And in case you were curious, she is currently United States Solicitor General. The Solicitor General writes a lot about the Constitution and much of it is publicly available. Now, maybe you take the position that writing briefs on constitutional law issues for consideration before the Supreme Court does not qualify as "scholarship," but I think that's a pretty stupid position to take.
 
Writings by Kagan...

■"Office of the White House Counsel" in Mark Green and Michele Jolin, eds., Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President (Basic Books 2009).

■"Foreword" in Daniel Hamilton and Alfred Brophy, eds., Transformations in American Legal History: Essays in Honor of Professor Morton J. Horwitz (Harvard 2009).
[See PDF of questionnaire for list.]

In addition to these more formal publications, I write a "From the Dean" Column in each issue of the Harvard Law Bulletin, which is Harvard Law School's alumni magazine. These columns are as follows: Fall 2008, "Two Campaigns"; Summer 2008, "A Changing Climate of Environment"; Winter 2008, "A Curriculum Without Borders"; Summer 2007, "Con Law Takes Center Stage"; Spring 2007, "Corporate Governance in the new Global Economy"; Fall 2006, "Connecting to Practice"; Summer 2006, "Asian Journeys"; Spring 2006, "View from Chambers"; Fall 2005, "Negotiation, Advanced"; Summer 2005, "Criminal Law in Flux"; Spring 2005, "A Call to Public Service"; Fall 2004, "Law on the Front Lines."
 
schol·ar   /ˈskɒlər/ Show Spelled[skol-er] Show IPA
–noun
1.a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
2.a student; pupil.
3.a student who has been awarded a scholarship.
 
Kagan should have quick path to Supreme Court

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html

Above is a link to some of her positions as reported by the tabloid NY Times. Thoughts? I don't know much about her, but a cursory look at the above makes her seem pretty moderate. Though since the above came from the Times, the validity of the piece is obviously taken with a grain of salt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100510/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_confirmation_3
 
Wow, just wow. Im impressed.

What? Just wow? That's all I get? I finally do something to impress you, and I get four words from you? How about.... "Wow Dixie, that's a very fair and pragmatic viewpoint to hold, you're really not the crazy extremist I thought you were!" or.... "Wow Dixie, I thought you'd follow in lockstep with Rush on this, and I was wrong, you really did show me that, and I'm impressed!" or this... "Wow Dix, your principles of constitutional executive power really DO matter to you, it's NOT all about towing a party line, I was totally wrong about that and I apologize... you fucking rule, dude!"

Nope, alls I get is a "just Wow!" :cof1:
 
She's openly pro-lefist agenda, how does that make her a "blank page"?

You'll have to forgive poor Id, she's got to go get her talking points from Rush Sean and Glen before she can answer you.

Poor gutless coward doesn't have one single thought of her own bouncing round that tiny brain of hers...
 
Back
Top