There are several nut jobs on the Court already, just none of the left-wing variety.
Take on Kagan?
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
There are several nut jobs on the Court already, just none of the left-wing variety.
I would appreciate it if we stopped adding justices that believe that the Executive Branch should be a monarchy with "advise and consent" from the other branches....
However, she's a blank. She's barely written three papers on law, she worked for a Justice (Thurgood Marshall), was Harvard Law's Dean of Law, and now serves the Administration as their attorney in the office of Solicitor General. We just don't know much about her opinions other than what she has actually covered (like the executive power)....
However, she's a blank. She's barely written three papers on law, she worked for a Justice (Thurgood Marshall), was Harvard Law's Dean of Law, and now serves the Administration as their attorney in the office of Solicitor General. We just don't know much about her opinions other than what she has actually covered (like the executive power)....
You base this on what? You have no idea how she stands on most of your issues. Although I did hear her speak of Social Justice in her acceptance speech.
What about her makes you think she belive the EB should be a monarchy?>
She's openly pro-lefist agenda, how does that make her a "blank page"?
How so?
It isn't really a big deal as far as qualifications are concerned, except to those people that want to oppose her for other reasons (i.e. she might be teh gay).
It is a big deal as far as trying to figure out what her judicial philosophy is because people who have served as judges have a long track record so you can figure out what their beliefs are (for instance, Sotomayor authored 380 judicial opinions while on the appeals court). With no judicial experience there is no track record.
evince
Truthmatters
Tell us why its OK for a justice to lean right but not OK for them to lean left?
Decisions are lacking whereby people can understand how she rules and if she is capable of removing herself from the decision and ruling on law. She doesn't have a record as a judge, nor has she been discoursing on the subject of judicial decisions.
She's a blank page.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
very little is known about her...obama most likely knows the most, he has worked with her and obviously interviewed her for the nomination. i have little trust of obama and this pick could actually be a bold move on his part. if virtually nothing is known about her views and she sails through the confirmation hearings giving as 'much' (read little) at roberts, she could be a far left pick....we won't truly know her views until she takes the bench and makes decisions....
i also don't see expanding executive power to be solely a right leaning issue, the left loves this power as well....so, imo, that does not make me believe she leans left or right because of her stance on executive power
i also don't see expanding executive power to be solely a right leaning issue, the left loves this power as well....so, imo, that does not make me believe she leans left or right because of her stance on executive power
SmarterthanYou
rebel
This. She's a government lawyer. she will not be a representative of the people on the bench, she'll be a proactive element in furthering government power. She must not be apppointed.
She seems to be a reflection of Obama, actually. No experience in the direction of the office she is up for.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i disagree. i don't believe one had to be a judge in order to be a qualified judge. making rulings based on the law and the constitution can be done without having ever been a judge. imo, there are pleny of career judges, especially in the federal court system, who have no business being there despite years of experience....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
why don't you asnwer your question...we all know you don't like right leanign judges....you're being just a tad hypocritical