Take on Kagan?

Socrtease said:
YOu are an obtuse dolt. Rehnquist had ZERO judicial experience. I have never once heard you complain about what a shitty justice or chief justice he was because of it.
Click to expand...
That was quite a while ago, shit licker. I thought we'd progressed since then.
 
Southern Man said:
That was quite a while ago, shit licker. I thought we'd progressed since then.
Click to expand...
No fucking moron, you just avoided the question hoping it would go away so you would not have to admit that you liked Rehnquist and him not ever being a jurist made no difference in how you felt he did as a Justice. I didn't agree with him, but he was a good justice and a very good Chief Justice. One of the top 3 or 4 ever.
 
Socrtease said:
No fucking moron, you just avoided the question hoping it would go away so you would not have to admit that you liked Rehnquist and him not ever being a jurist made no difference in how you felt he did as a Justice. I didn't agree with him, but he was a good justice and a very good Chief Justice. One of the top 3 or 4 ever.
Click to expand...
Except, bung breath, that this administration was supposed to be the smartest, with hope and change and stuff. Doesn't that require experience?
 
Southern Man said:
Except, bung breath, that this administration was supposed to be the smartest, with hope and change and stuff. Doesn't that require experience?
Click to expand...
Or maybe they're smart enough to see true potential regardless of a track record. And it certainly would be a change on the normal way of running things.
 
Big Gay Al said:
Or maybe they're smart enough to see true potential regardless of a track record. And it certainly would be a change on the normal way of running things.
Click to expand...
Good point. Obama had zero executive experience and look how well he's done usurping the Constitution.
 
Is this the type of decisions we want of a SC Justice?

While Dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan threw military recruiters off campus on the grounds of opposing the law prohibiting open homosexuals from serving in the military. "This action causes me deep distress," Kagen wrote. "I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." It is a "profound wrong - a moral injustice of the first order." Her decision was essentially overturned by the Supreme Court on a unanimous 8-0 vote...[Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association]
Click to expand...
 
Yurt said:
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
Click to expand...


Since you asked for it, Below is a link to a decent piece by a conservative legal commentator regarding Elena Kagan, the scholar. Here is the conclusion:

So Kagan, it seems to me, is a successful scholar whose interests have extended beyond scholarship, to government service and to educational institution-building. As a result, she hasn’t written as much as she would have had she only been interested in scholarship (though I suspect that her time in the Clinton Administration helped her produce her administrative law articles). But that reflects the breadth of her interests, and not any intellectual limitations.
Click to expand...

http://volokh.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-as-scholar/
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes. Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

While I agree with her comments and also believe the DADT policy is wrong, it is just as wrong to ban the military from recruiting just because you don't like their policy. She did not have the right to do so and was forced to back down because of it. Now, had she been on the bench and this been a case of discrimination and/or equal protection then I think she could rule the policy Unconstitutional.... but in no way should she (or anyone) be allowed to fight discrimination with.... discrimination.

To be clear, I do not think this particular issue is anywhere near enough to warrant blocking her confirmation.
 
Superfreak said:
Perhaps.

While I agree with her comments and also believe the DADT policy is wrong, it is just as wrong to ban the military from recruiting just because you don't like their policy. She did not have the right to do so and was forced to back down because of it. Now, had she been on the bench and this been a case of discrimination and/or equal protection then I think she could rule the policy Unconstitutional.... but in no way should she (or anyone) be allowed to fight discrimination with.... discrimination.

To be clear, I do not think this particular issue is anywhere near enough to warrant blocking her confirmation.
Click to expand...


First of all, she was enforcing existing Harvard Law School policy, nothing more. It was policy in place before she even became the Dean.

Second, as Dean of a private institution she did indeed have the right to prevent employers with discriminatory hiring practices from being invited to the school for recruiting purposes. Of course, she did so at the risk of losing federal funding under the Solomon Amendment, but private institutions like Harvard Law School are under no obligation to invite the military on to their campus for recruitment purposes.

Third, the idea that it isn't appropriate to fight discrimination with "discrimination" is fucking stupid. If instead of the military this involved an organization that discriminated on the basis of race, the idea that Harvard Law School did something improper by not allowing a racist organization from being invited to its campus to recruit its student would be absurd. The fact that it is the military discriminating against gay people doesn't change that.
 
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Thats all I need to hear.
 
NigelTufnel said:
First of all, she was enforcing existing Harvard Law School policy, nothing more. It was policy in place before she even became the Dean.

Second, as Dean of a private institution she did indeed have the right to prevent employers with discriminatory hiring practices from being invited to the school for recruiting purposes. Of course, she did so at the risk of losing federal funding under the Solomon Amendment, but private institutions like Harvard Law School are under no obligation to invite the military on to their campus for recruitment purposes.

Third, the idea that it isn't appropriate to fight discrimination with "discrimination" is fucking stupid. If instead of the military this involved an organization that discriminated on the basis of race, the idea that Harvard Law School did something improper by not allowing a racist organization from being invited to its campus to recruit its student would be absurd. The fact that it is the military discriminating against gay people doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

First, just because a policy exists, doesn't make it right. Which kind of goes to the heart of the matter.

Second, yes... when they ARE accepting federal funding they ARE under an obligation to allow the military on campus for recruiting purposes. Had she given up that funding, THEN she would have been justified in her position. As a lawyer and scholar, she should have KNOWN this very simply fact. Yet she went ahead with the ban and then was forced to back down.

Third, as long as the US government ALLOWS for this discrimination, then your options are to not accept money from the federal government and thus free yourself from the obligation under Solomon OR you can accept the government money, accept the military recruiters and try and fight to have the law/policy changed.

Fighting discrimination with discrimination does not solve a fucking thing. While you may not want to believe it is discrimination, it is. All that does is perpetuate animosity.
 
Mike Mitrosky said:
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Thats all I need to hear.
Click to expand...


If all you need to hear is World Nut Daily's version of reality, you'll be making an ass of yourself more often than not.
 
Superfreak said:
First, just because a policy exists, doesn't make it right. Which kind of goes to the heart of the matter.
Click to expand...

So, she should have worked to change Harvard's policy barring discriminatory employers from recruiting on campus?

Superfreak said:
Second, yes... when they ARE accepting federal funding they ARE under an obligation to allow the military on campus for recruiting purposes. Had she given up that funding, THEN she would have been justified in her position. As a lawyer and scholar, she should have KNOWN this very simply fact. Yet she went ahead with the ban and then was forced to back down.
Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of the issue that was litigated because it wasn't entirely clear. Simply because the federal law was upheld doesn't mean it was a "simple fact." This ain't Monday and you ain't no quarterback.

By way of background, the Solomon Amendment was changed in 2001. Before the change, individual schools that received no federal funds (such as Harvard Law School) at a university that did receive federal funds (such as Harvard University) were permitted to bar military recruiters from the particular school that did not receive federal funds. The law was changed in 2001 requiring all schools of a university receiving federal funds to permit military recruiters on campus. Schools that did not receive federal funds at universities that did challenged the law. They lost.

Third, as long as the US government ALLOWS for this discrimination, then your options are to not accept money from the federal government and thus free yourself from the obligation under Solomon OR you can accept the government money, accept the military recruiters and try and fight to have the law/policy changed.
Click to expand...

See above. The issue isn't as simple as you would have it.

Fighting discrimination with discrimination does not solve a fucking thing. While you may not want to believe it is discrimination, it is. All that does is perpetuate animosity.
Click to expand...

You're digging in here for no good reason. Again, if the KKK were barred from recruiting on campus you wouldn't bat an eye but because it is the military and gays you think differently.
 
WinterBorn said:
I guess that would depend on whether or not she actually said that or not.
Click to expand...


I'll be you dollars to donuts that she never wrote the statement in bold. First, it is World Nut Daily. Second, there is no link. Third, it isn't a direct quote. Fourth, it's World Nut Daily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top