Kagan Will be Confirmed

There are only two people who will have an opportunity to stop Elena Kagan from becoming a Supreme Court justice: Barack Obama and Elena Kagan. Obama can withdraw her nomination if he, for some reason, starts to question his choice. Yeah, right; when has he ever admitted to making a bad decision? Kagan can kill it by falling to pieces at her confirmation hearing. No, I don't expect that to happen either.

The reason is simple: there's just nothing about her to hook a filibuster on. She has no judicial experience, but then neither did Rehnquist when he joined the Court. So that's not really opposition material. She's definitely a Leftist—she worked for Dukakis and then President Clinton and gave money to Kerry and Obama—but then so is everyone else on the President's list of possible nominees and so was Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Warren, and a dozen other justices. Again, not really a ready argument for brining out the big guns.

The major knock against her is that her record is thin, but that's why it's hard to point out things that would cause enough senators to oppose her to make it worth the effort. She made a bad call about letting military recruiters onto campus (and she was hardly a lone decisionmaker in that), but she's not anti-military.

She handled a plagiarism scandal involving two Harvard Law professors by giving them slaps on the wrists and ultimately protecting them from any further consequences for their lack of integrity. Is that her right as Dean? Yep. Could there be good reasons for doing it? Yep again. Hardly something to hang a filibuster on.

She was on the Goldman Sachs research advisory council from 2005 to 2008, for which she received a $10,000 stipend in 2008. The council was formed to advise the company on public policy issues. Should it cause her to recuse herself from any Goldman cases that make it to the Court? Probably. Is it enough to reject her as ineligible for the Court? Of course not.

And that's about it. Unless you believe—like anti-gay organization Americans for Truth—that the public has a right to know whether she's a lesbian and—like the American Family Association—that lesbians are not qualified to be Supreme Court justices. I have no idea whether she's gay or not, but there is no right to forced outtings of gay people. It has no bearing on her eligibility for the Court, so it's none of our business unless she chooses to share. To this point, she's remained remarkably mum about her private life. But isn't that exactly the type of non-flaming, non-flaunting, non-stuff-it-down-our-throats gays folks on the right want?

The last thing is her answer on the constitutional right to gay marriage. She gave the "right" answer (No.), but that's been taken as evidence that, well, she lied. Okay. I don't know whether she lied or attempted evasion or not. I expect that she did evade, but then so have every justice since Ginsburg and most Senate-confirmable nominees. The point is to say as little as possible. Does that suck? Of course, as Kagan wrote in 1995 that makes confirmation hearings vapid and pointless. But she's hardly alone in playing that game and since it didn't give a reason to end Roberts' or Alito's bids for the court (yes, they did it too) it doesn't give a reason to end Kagan's.

As a matter of interest, by the way, finessing Kagan's answer does not rely on an absurd Clintonian examination of the meaning of "is." I could tell you honestly that I do not believe there is or should be a federal constitutional right to gay marriage. As a matter of substantive due process, there is no such right. I suspect that's what Kagan meant when she wrote there was no right to gay marriage.

Be cautious, however, because there is a constitutionally-protected right to equal protection. That is a right against unwarranted discrimination, which means that although there is no substantive right to government-licensed marriage, there is a right not to be discriminated against in government licensing. In other words, the Constitution does not require that the government provide civil marriages—no substantive due process right—, which means states could constitutional refuse to grant marriage licenses if they wanted to. However, it does require (the argument can be made) that if the government chooses to provide civil marriages, it must do so without discriminating on the basis of sex—an equal protection right.

Just so you know. If the courts overturn Prop 8 and other state bans on gay marriage, it will be under the equal protection rubric, not substantive due process. Similarly, if the courts overturn section 2 of DOMA, it will be because of equal protection.

Anyway, Kagan's the best we're likely to get out of Obama's short list. She's not going to be filibustered (wanna bet on it?) and she'll be confirmed without much circus unless she trips all over herself at her hearing.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:50 AM



Comments

1 yes she'll be confirmed.....and the republicans won't filibuster because they've never met a battle they would fight

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 11, 2010 09:55 AM (ucxC/)

2 So can I go outside and play now?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 11, 2010 09:56 AM (0GFWk)

3 what will the republicans whole heartedly fight for or against?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 11, 2010 10:00 AM (ucxC/)

4 If Obama can try to filibuster Alito for nothing other than belonging to the wrong party, Republicans can use the same reasoning.

Posted by: JohnJ at May 11, 2010 10:00 AM (04CCu)

5 The Republicans should make the confirmation hearings a symposium on the proper role of, and limitations on, the judiciary.

Quoting some federalist papers would be helpful.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 10:00 AM (4WbTI)

6 Gabe's analysis is about right, I think.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at May 11, 2010 10:00 AM (z4es9)

7 So we should have equal protection for an action?

The porn observers at the SEC should then haveequal protection--they like porn. People who like to sleep late should have equal protection. Obese people in airplanes should have equal protection. Obviously the unborn should have equal protection---oh, maybe not, they are not defining themselves by an action, unless existing is an action. We need to be really careful about defining people by their actions as opposed to their physical states. That looks like a slippery slope.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:03 AM (C/W+T)

8 Gabe,

Well said.

Best we keep our powder dry, use of filibuster, for something more important, say cap and trade.

Dick Morris is a dick, but he is usually pretty astute, he called her a moderate.

Let send her some Omaha steaks and chocolate cake, and move on.

Posted by: Kemp at May 11, 2010 10:05 AM (2+9Yx)

9 Does she get her pants suits at the same place Hilary and Napolitano get theirs? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: theCork at May 11, 2010 10:05 AM (L0cxG)

10 But isn't that exactly the type of non-flaming, non-flaunting, non-stuff-it-down-our-throats gays folks on the right want?
Yes. Yes it is. Could you pass that along?

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 11, 2010 10:06 AM (rplL3)

11 I got $3,000 off the latest Subaru, come on down!

Posted by: Selling Joe Biden, the car dealer at May 11, 2010 10:07 AM (2+9Yx)

12 Lifetime appointment on SCOTUS.. Not a bad gig for hiding Obama's college records.

Posted by: Dave C at May 11, 2010 10:07 AM (qmecx)

13 There's nothing wrong or hypocritical about filibustering according to the rules set by the person making the appointment.

Posted by: JohnJ at May 11, 2010 10:08 AM (04CCu)

14 IP = 117.28.85.11

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 10:10 AM (agr5P)

15 From Kagan’s senior thesis at Princeton – for your edification.

“Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” she wrote in her thesis. “Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.”
She called the story of the socialist movement’s demise “a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America ... In unity lies their only hope.”

Posted by: Menshevik at May 11, 2010 10:11 AM (cqHQH)

16 equal protection on marriage? we already have it... a gay man can marry a gay woman and a gay woman can marry a gay man.....it's not about marriage anyway....it is the slippery slope of being able to force a catholic priest to marry a gay couple in a church.......they don't want to get married at city hall...the want to get married in a cathedral and if the law allows gay marriage under equal protection there will be nothing to stop the gays from skipping down the aisle of st. patricks......freedom of religion? not if it means gays can't have their way....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 11, 2010 10:11 AM (ucxC/)

17 Lifetime appointment on SCOTUS.. Not a bad gig for hiding Obama's
college records.


Yeah.

Of course, the narrative won't be "Obama hands out cushy gigs to his corrupt friends", it will be "Republicans approve corrupt friends getting cushy gigs."

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 10:11 AM (mR7mk)

18 Very smart for my protege to cover the socialist views of the bombshell with her orientation.
She reminds me of Arafat. Oh, Arafat.

Posted by: CarterlovesPeanuts at May 11, 2010 10:12 AM (iKKd5)

19 Great, we are going to have to spend more time on this stupid gay marriage argument.
There is an article in the Wash Post or Wash Times this morning about laws in the hopper to protect the hiring/firing of transgenders. Apparently some employers balk at a 6'4" guy with stubble wearing a skirt and heels representing them to the public and using the ladies room. Those bigots.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:16 AM (C/W+T)

20
All you do is think about gay shit, Gabe. Grow up. The world doesn't revolve around your homosexuality. Your agenda is clear. We get it. We get it.

As far as Kagan's sex life: this is politics. And politics is about winning or losing, not about privacy or niceties.

I want Kagan grilled as if she was a Republican.

Posted by: Douche Turtle at May 11, 2010 10:16 AM (IKwYb)

21 In relation to Supreme Court confirmations, there is no "keeping your powder dry". There is only "not using your powder at all."

The left will continue to fuck us over at every turn with judicial appointees, resulting in lefties or squishes getting appointed, and the right will continue to "keep its powder dry" because it is afraid the media will say bad things about them.

I do wonder what kind of candidate the left would finally unleash the powder against. I'm guessing something that looks like the Cloverfield monster.

Posted by: Zuggs at May 11, 2010 10:17 AM (FkKjr)

22 Oh, just vote no on anything you don't want to vote yes on. That includes cloture.

Stop trying to be statesmen-like on issues like these. For the other side stopped a long time ago. Fight. The future will take care of itself, in the future, in all good time.

Posted by: Horatius at May 11, 2010 10:17 AM (oRBKv)

23

Posted by: theCork at May 11, 2010 10:05 AM (L0cxG)
Pantsuits on women are hot. Just like Kilts for men.You should see me wearing a Kilt. I look ravishing.

Posted by: CarterlovesPeanuts at May 11, 2010 10:17 AM (iKKd5)

24 I don't know much about Kagan, apparently she has never been a judge. Not unique for SCOTUS. Is she the worst candidate BHO could have selected, hell no. I think it better to save your tools for the real fight, and besides, if we don't really hassle them about this, they will suspect there is something wrong with her and doubt their choice.

Posted by: Penfold at May 11, 2010 10:18 AM (1PeEC)

25
You must think AoS readers are stupid, Gabriel.

Instead of being cute, just come out and say you want Kagan confirmed. Don't beat around the bush and tell us how you think the opposition will fail. You want her on the Court (probably because she's a homosexual). Admit it.

Posted by: Douche Turtle at May 11, 2010 10:19 AM (IKwYb)

26 I'm inclined to agree, Gabe.

I figure that, as said by another poster, the Republicans need to keep their powder dry here.

Her falling apart in the hearings is a possibility, but if she answers questions better than Sotomayor did, she'll probably be fine. Sotomayor's best answer to a question was to the Perry Mason question asked by Al Franken, for God's sake, and she got confirmed by a solid margin.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 11, 2010 10:19 AM (t0Dmm)

27 .freedom of religion? not if it means gays can't have their way....

Posted by: phoenixgirl


Exactly. It will be set up so that the church will be cannot refuse to marry a gay couple.. The government will force them at the point of a gun to marry two men or two women.. But yet churches will have the option to refuse to marry a straight man or woman..

eHarmony.com was sued because they didn't offer services for gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women.. Regardless of the fact that many, many other online dating sites do offer that as their services.

Why should the church be any different?


Posted by: Dave C at May 11, 2010 10:19 AM (qmecx)

28 The Volokh link is hardly "proof" that she doesn't have an anti-military bias. Nor does a speech at West Point. I think if you asked her to her face at any point in her life before she became a "serious" contender for high office, she'd have proudly announced her anti-military bias and given chapter-and-verse on exactly why her view was the enlightened one.
Also, the Harvard Recruiter ban had a spotty history back to the '70's. It's not all her fault, but she did have a key role. Kagan's involvement was as a vocal critic and "newsmaker" during the various post 9/11 attempts to change the culture. My biggest beef wasn't with her DADT absolutism and overreach, my problem was with her forcing the students who were participating in ROTC to do all their training at MIT. She was particularly loud about that one. Just a petty, spiteful thing to do. Basically shaming them off the campus except for a couple dog-and-pony shows at the end of the year. It's tough enough combining the rigors of a Harvard education with the adaptation to Military life without some moonbat gumming up the works so she'll have something to talk about at the next Womyn's Retreat for Peace.

Screw her and the horse that rode her in.

Posted by: LincolnTf at May 11, 2010 10:20 AM (qSRHZ)

29 Take it easy on Gabe. It is going to be the storyline regardless of what Gabe posts. I also doubt that Gabe is running around "acting up" to further the agenda of the radical gay/lesbian/bi/tranny crowd.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:20 AM (C/W+T)

30 yes she'll be confirmed.....and the republicans won't filibuster because
they've never met a battle they would fight

I agree 100%. They never fight the commie picks. All it would take is for the committee to not have any Republicans vote to forward her to the floor.

But that will never happen since RINO Graham is on the committee.

Posted by: Vic at May 11, 2010 10:22 AM (6taRI)

31 I want Kagan grilled as if she was a Republican.

I don't think there are any GOP senators willing to be as big a douchebag as Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 10:22 AM (mR7mk)

32 Gabe,
I agree. Well said. It's worth taking a look at Dean Clark's piece in the WSJ today on the issue of military recruiting at HLS and DADT. The other piece of context that's needed is that Bob Clark is a right-of-center moderate. The lefties at HLS shrieked and howled when he becamedean in 1989. I had him for Corporations in the fall of 1985. He's agoodman.

Posted by: ScurvyOaks at May 11, 2010 10:23 AM (s7sYI)

33 The utterly dickless RINOP is beyond even mentioning anymore. They would draw a line with no one. They won't even contest, which would be hard from their favored supine position.

Posted by: OhioDude at May 11, 2010 10:24 AM (d6j6Y)

34 Can Larry Craig be the one to grill her on the issues?

Posted by: Dave C at May 11, 2010 10:24 AM (qmecx)

35 But that will never happen since RINO Graham is on the committee.
Posted by: Vic at May 11, 2010 10:22 AM (6taRI)
Yes, when Miss Lindsey hears about keeping his powder dry, he assumes it's about talc. Or thinks they mispelled pooter.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 11, 2010 10:24 AM (V5s1P)

36
Well, then I guess Gabe reached his target audience.

It's pretty obvious this post all about the reasons why Kagan should be confirmed. It has nothing to do with Conservatives and what will help our agenda.

Kagan is evil and she's extremist. That's the message we need to spread. Not this save it for another day crap. Hammer her and use this opportunity to hammer the Democrats and make distinctions between us and them.

Posted by: Douche Turtle at May 11, 2010 10:25 AM (IKwYb)

37 Totally unrelated -
Tomorrow my iPad arrives. Make no mistake, I will be putting pressure on our democracy.
Just thought I'd mention.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 11, 2010 10:25 AM (RkRxq)

38 I want Kagan grilled as if she was a Republican.
Yeah, who would be man enough to make her husband (partner) cry during the confirmation hearing like Kennedy did with Mrs. Alito?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 11, 2010 10:26 AM (pLTLS)

39 Can Larry Craig be the one to grill her on the issues?

Uh, hi.

Posted by: Jim Risch at May 11, 2010 10:27 AM (mR7mk)

40 I would like the Republicans to practice 'historical' fillibuster techniques with Kagan. They are not going to have fortitude to block multiple Obama appointees and Kagan may well be the lesser of evils. BUT they should assume all due deliberation possible with her hearings so the commiecrats can't shove more socialist crap down our throats. Please please please boys, take your time here.



Posted by: palerider at May 11, 2010 10:27 AM (B5UQ6)

41 Ginsburg is going to keel over any moment now. Kagan is her replacement.

I have my objections to Kagan, mainly the use of and reliance on judicial decisions outside the United States as affirming arguments in her cases, but she's qualified nonetheless.

I do think she'll come out once she's on the bench and the left will praise this wonderful event.

Posted by: wtfci at May 11, 2010 10:27 AM (+zo63)

42 It's a mistake to see Kagan's problems as confined to Republicans. How many Democratic senators are up for reelection in November? How many are from states where her anti-military bias will make a yes vote hard to defend?

Posted by: Wenda Morrone at May 11, 2010 10:27 AM (Z9BHh)

43
You know, it never occurred to the Republicans to ask Eric Holder if he'd try KSM in NYC.

Maybe they use their heads and ask Kagan these 'crazy' questions. Or we can do it your way and just confirm her 'cuz she's gonna get confirmed anyway.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 10:29 AM (IKwYb)

44 As a confirmed non-socialist, is Obama on record having problems with her thesis lamenting the fall of socialism?

One more thing, it's not so much that she doesn't have judicial experience, she has almost no courtroom experience. What little she has as SG was an epic failure.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2010 10:29 AM (Vo2Ef)

45 Uh, hi.


Posted by: Jim Risch at May 11,

D'Oh!


Posted by: Dave C at May 11, 2010 10:30 AM (qmecx)

46 I said it before, but deserves repeating: Look on the bright side, she's not 30. If Obama had the numbers to put someone younger, "lefter", and healthier on the bench he would. I am amazed Justice Ginsburg hasn't retired; every day she soldiers on Obama's chances of replacing her with a fellow traveller get smaller -- is their some personal animosity or socialist infighting we don't know about?

Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2010 10:30 AM (JaO+v)

47 Gabe more than 53% of Americans voted for Obama. Would you classify every one of them as a "leftist" ?

Posted by: Booger eating left wing dumbass sez at May 11, 2010 10:30 AM (I+7Zv)

48
Posted by: Georgie

STFU, dunce.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 10:31 AM (IKwYb)

49 gabe, you must know the particular weakness of the equal protection argument you made; so I won't belabor it here.

But total weak sauce on Kagan. She is dangerous to have on the court, and if no one item on your list suffices, the collection does.

I'd add to that my deep reservations about her character.
She covered for her friends, she did not act on principle.

That's enough for me.

She's sung the praises of socialism,
that's enough for me, in light of her lack of bench experience proving her tendency to side with the law, even if she'd hope to change it.

She's a lesbian, and allowed other people to lie about it, and by omission lies herself.

If she has any disposition to insisting the constitution demands gay marriage without an amendment, she ought not be on the court.

I don't care if there's somebody worse in back of her. She's bad enough and that's enough.

Posted by: Sarahw at May 11, 2010 10:32 AM (Z4T49)

50 27 The Church would have to stop all public weddings and resort to clandestine sacramental marriage rites. It will not marry gays. Regardless of how they act up, it can't do it.
I'm always amused at the libtards taking off at the military because of don't ask don't tell. It is federal law. The only people that can change it is congress, not the military. My husband recruits for civilian navy lawyers and has been accosted by the actual deans of the law schools about don't ask don't tell. He then explains to them in the most condescending tone that he can about federal law and how they should contact Speaker Pelosi if it bothers them. They are ususally duly embarassed. Apparently Kagan didn't get it either. This one thing makes me feel like she is not qualified to be on the SCOTUS. If she does not understand who made the fucking law then she is too stupid.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:32 AM (C/W+T)

51 52% of Americans who voted, clown.

Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2010 10:33 AM (PjevJ)

52 47
Gabe more than 53% of Americans voted for Obama. Would you classify
every one of them as a "leftist" ?

You have heard of the term "useful idiot" haven't you?

I have no doubt that it has been used repeatedly in your presence.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2010 10:33 AM (Vo2Ef)

53 42
It's a mistake to see Kagan's problems as confined to Republicans. How
many Democratic senators are up for reelection in November? How many
are from states where her anti-military bias will make a yes vote hard
to defend?

The problem with that line of thought, IMHO, is that we're still 6 months out from the elections.

Using the elections as a club to defeat her nomination gets more and more likely the closer we get to November, but that's the exact reason why I think that Obama will try to get Reid to slam this through ASAP. Reid won't need prompting, either, considering he's already likely to lose in November.

If something were to delay her confirmation hearings a few months, that strategy would certainly be viable.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 11, 2010 10:33 AM (t0Dmm)

54 The idea of saving "ammunition" for something "more important" than a Supreme Court appointment is pretty stupid. There really isn't anything more important. Obama tried to filibuster Alito, and he didn't suffer politically for it. Republicans should totally use his words against him.

Posted by: JohnJ at May 11, 2010 10:34 AM (04CCu)

55 Kagan endorses plagiarism--particularly when enabling revisionism to propagate.

As many are against her as for her, with as many undecided. Having the time now, there's plenty of dirt to dish on Kagan, given the mind to use.

But progressive Gabe (never go against an elitist, and never put out when the smart bet is the bet against America) selects targets for contempt. Not a Harvard professor readying to burn the Constitution; perish the thought. Kiss ass. Rather, some angry ol' Maricopa County Sheriff enforcing the law. Kick ass.

Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 10:35 AM (H+LJc)

56 #50 Apparently Kagan didn't get it either. This one thing makes me feel like
she is not qualified to be on the SCOTUS. If she does not understand
who made the fucking law then she is too stupid.

But the law is more than just "words on paper", /channeling Obama.

I agree she's a stealth pick and reading her SCOTUS briefs is going to be painful fun. She'll probably use the EU Constitution to justify the Obamacare Insurance mandate and other assorted left-tard crap.

/Have I said that "in the end, there will be only chaos" yet?

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 11, 2010 10:36 AM (9hSKh)

57 She will NEVER cross the aisle and vote against a liberal position. NEVER.
Some moderate.
Republicans won't fight because Republicans are GUTLESS.
The decline in this country is just as much the Republicans' fault as the Democrats because the Republicans know the Democrats are wrong and they stillrefuse to stop them.
It's really embarrassing to be on their side.
I'm still waiting for a leader.

Posted by: BB at May 11, 2010 10:36 AM (qF8q3)

58 (I+7Zv) George my ass.

Posted by: dananjcon at May 11, 2010 10:36 AM (pr+up)

59 I'd like to see changes to the ethics rules so that Supreme Court nominees can be asked how they will rule in particular cases. If you're going to be on the highest court in the land, that should be fair game in order to determine your judicial philosophy.

Posted by: alexthechick at May 11, 2010 10:36 AM (8WZWv)

60
The idea of saving "ammunition" for something "more important" than a
Supreme Court appointment is pretty stupid.

Nothing dumber.

Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 10:36 AM (H+LJc)

61 what's the good reason for keeping the plagiarizers on staff? i'm not following that.....because they would increase the unemployment rolls....they didn't mean to plagiarize? maybe they have dirt on her.......that would be a good reason to keep them on staff and their mouths shut......why filibuster? bohica!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 11, 2010 10:37 AM (ucxC/)

62 You know what? November gets closer everyday. Anything, and I mean anything to throw a wrench in the dems plans is the way to go. Stall, them, hold, them, make them explain, outline, justify every damn thing they even think they want to bring up. We're getting hammered as racist, drooling knuckledraggers no matter what. So let's play hardball. I am fed up with letting the dems and the MFM set the adgenda. How about we play offense and they get to play defense?

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 10:37 AM (fvMKN)

63 Gabe,

Admit it. You really want Kagan on the Supreme Court becuase you want the Supreme Court to whip the White House at softball.

Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at May 11, 2010 10:37 AM (LdYLm)

64 Elena Kagan's America is a land in which women will be forced into poorly run singlepayer government healthcare, Armed Services Recruiters would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down teapartier's doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about religion, talkshow hosts and bloggerss could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens seeking protection against corrupt Chicago politicians.



brraaiins!

Posted by: zombie kennedy at May 11, 2010 10:37 AM (4WbTI)

65 This post reveals all that is evil about the practice of identity politics.

Discount all objections as irrelevant and then assert that the only reason one would oppose her is bigotry? Really, Gabe?

That's disappointing, Gabe. I'm sorry to see that you've chosen to go that route.

Posted by: Jack M. at May 11, 2010 10:38 AM (Ncr1R)

66 Government in an art, THE art to be painted as you please--Kagan.

Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 10:38 AM (H+LJc)

67
The SCOTUS softball team is going to be so badass!

Posted by: Easy Bake at May 11, 2010 10:38 AM (ONBbr)

68 47 It's less than 53% you fucking libtard. It is also of those who voted not of Americans. Many americans stayed home because McCain was too liberal and many illegals, acorn registrants et al voted for Obama.
And yeah, anyone who voted for Obama is a leftist libtard or too stupid to vote or wanted free "stuff".

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:39 AM (C/W+T)

69 Of course Gabe wants us to be nice, particularly in this case. But Supreme Court nominees shouldn't be treated nicely. Look at the past hearings for a SCOTUS nominee...just ask Clarence Thomas and others. Every aspect of their lives should be analyzed. They will hold one of the most important positions in the country and we should know everything we can about them. This isn't hiring some store manager or cook. We delve into the lives of congressional candidatesand sport athletes.
As to her sexual preference, it is important if she has a partner andthe partnerhas ties to any type of business or organization. We would question a man or woman about their wife or husband if we knew who they were and if they were lobbyists or had such ties. So why can't we know this about Kagan? If Gays want the same legal status as heteros than they have to accept the consequences and demands.

Posted by: Deanna at May 11, 2010 10:40 AM (oflVV)

70 For the record, I agree that unless she has a temper problem in the hearings, she'll be confirmed. That said, she should be attacked mercilessly, keeping in mind that she's serving as a proxy for Obama. Her anti-military stances, her love of socialism, her disregard for judicial restraint, her threadbare record should all be fodder for attacks under the basic theme of "What kind of person is Obama to appoint this idiot when there are so many other idiots to choose from?"

Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2010 10:40 AM (Vo2Ef)

71 #23 You should see me wearing a Kilt. I look ravishing.

Posted by: CarterlovesPeanuts at May 11, 2010 10:17 AM (iKKd5)

umm... I'll pass, thanks.

Posted by: theCork at May 11, 2010 10:40 AM (L0cxG)

72 maverick muse

what are they waiting for? something really bad? the less they stand up against....the worse it gets.....and the whole "oh kagen isn't as bad as it could be" let's get rid of her and let him put up someone worse.....get rid of them.....let him put up someone worse....get rid of them.....and continue the cycle until he puts up someone reasonable to everyone......he's the president but we don't have to accept the dregs.....and shouldn't be made to feel like we owe it to him.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 11, 2010 10:40 AM (ucxC/)

73 Gabe more than 53% of Americans voted for Obama.

What alternate universe do you hail from stranger?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 11, 2010 10:41 AM (HF+0P)

74 #47. No I would classify them as worthless, snot-slinging fools.

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 10:41 AM (fvMKN)

75 Gabe - the David Frum of AOS HQ.

Posted by: Gerry at May 11, 2010 10:41 AM (O9L0b)

76 Posted by: zombie kennedy

And senior citizens will lose all tax fund benefits for saying grace before eating.

Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 10:41 AM (H+LJc)

77 67 The SCOTUS softball team is going to be so badass!
Posted by: Easy Bake at May 11, 2010 10:38 AM (ONBbr)
Sapphic softball...mmmm...mmm...mmmm...

Posted by: dananjcon at May 11, 2010 10:41 AM (pr+up)

78 Sotomayor was the proper filibuster target.
Let's remember that Kagan will replace Stevens. While this kind of thing is an inexact science, I'll go record as saying she can't be worse than that guy.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2010 10:43 AM (B+qrE)

79

I feel fine.

Posted by: Ruth of the Hill People at May 11, 2010 10:43 AM (ONBbr)

80 First Question: Why did you ban the military from recruiting when the policy you were objecting to is federal law? Were you trying to send Nancy Pelosi a message, and why would you do so by attempting to harm the military? Do you understand what a "federal law" is?

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:44 AM (C/W+T)

81 Arlen Specter has a big problem with Kagan. She has helped block the private lawsuits against the Saudi government by some of the 9/11 victims and survivors, including several Pennsylvanians. The Administration wants the suits dropped because they are "interfering with good relations" between the U.S. and Saudi governments. But the suits have uncovered a shitload of evidence that the Saudis sent a lot of money to Al Qaeda and knew they were planning a big attack on the U.S.
These suits are being carried by a big Philly law firm that has backed Specter in all of his campaigns. Kagan refused to answer questions about it in her confirmation hearing last year and that is why Specter voted against her. He may very well vote against her again if she doesn't answer questions on this again. If so, her nomination might not get out of committee. It will cost him with some of the Democratic voters in the primary, but he owes his big trial lawyer backers on this one.
An issue like this could definitely trigger a filibuster, especially if Kagan dissembles about it in her hearing.

Posted by: rockmom at May 11, 2010 10:45 AM (w/gVZ)

82 While this kind of thing is an inexact science, I'll go record as saying
she can't be worse than that guy.

True. Bad as she may be, she's probably an upgrade over that unrepentant Bolshevik.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 11, 2010 10:45 AM (HF+0P)

83
Fuck it.

Let's save it all for 2012. Forget 2010.

Better, yet, forget 2012 because Obama will probably be reelected and we'll look like racists if we run against him.

So let's gear up for 2016!!!

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 10:45 AM (4aB58)

84 She's definitely a Leftist—she worked for Dukakis and then President Clinton and gave money to Kerry and Obama—but then so is everyone else on the President's list of possible nominees and so was Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Warren, and a dozen other justices. Again, not really a ready argument for brining out the big guns.
Otherwise known as, "the last whine of the beta-male pussy".
If the candidate worked for a party, then point out she's a partisan hack with no place on the SCOTUS.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 11, 2010 10:45 AM (9Sbz+)

85 While this kind of thing is an inexact science, I'll go record as saying she can't be worse than that guy.
My God, you are naive.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's sweet, hairy balls at May 11, 2010 10:46 AM (J+UTa)

86 Maybe she sexually harassed an intern by putting her pubic hair on tacos. That would cause an uproar? Wait that was Anita Dunn who created that little scenario for Anita Hill.........Everything comes together.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:46 AM (C/W+T)

87 I don't care if she's "not so bad". I remember the unbelieveable lion's den Clarence Thomas was thrown into. I remember Alito's wife in tears. I want a damn balls-to-the wall, mean MFer to hammer the dems. I want them to be afraid to sit at that table.I want sweaty palms, and their ass so puckered, they'll be on metamucil for the rest of their lives.

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 10:46 AM (fvMKN)

88 Was there ever any doubt? No. All smelly libs will be confirmed based on the current occupants of the majority in Congress and the presidency. Obama could nominate Ron Kuby and he would be confirmed. Republicans have no balls to oppose shit.

I really don't know why there is this constant analysis on Conservative sites on this matter. Assume the worst, she is a far-left lib because she wouldn't have been nominated is she wasn't. She will be on the court for decades to come, end of story.

Posted by: Ken Royall at May 11, 2010 10:46 AM (9zzk+)

89 circa......well that's reassuring/......and this is the problem....i get the wholE we have to pick our battles but for CHRIST'S SAKE! WHAT BATTLE WILL THE REPUBLICANS PICK? they never pick a battle......and if they pick it... they give up with in nano seconds................

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 11, 2010 10:46 AM (ucxC/)

90 Not goona win, so don't even try.

Got it.

Posted by: Roberto Durán Durán at May 11, 2010 10:47 AM (m1Chw)

91
Gabe, are you letting tribal loyalty affect your judgement?

Posted by: eman at May 11, 2010 10:47 AM (ONBbr)

92 If the candidate worked for a party, then point out she's a partisan hack with no place on the SCOTUS.
Uhh, we're talking aboutthe whining of abeta-male pussy, remember?
Lick those sweet hairy balls, little beta-male, lick those sweet, hairy balls.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's sweet, hairy balls at May 11, 2010 10:47 AM (J+UTa)

93 Has Michael Steele endorsed Kagan yet?

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 10:48 AM (4WbTI)

94 Since Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg is mostly dead, won't this whole thing be repeated soon? It hardly matters because Ruth eugenics Ginsberg is practically Mao.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:48 AM (C/W+T)

95 Tribal loyalty?
Never heard of it.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's sweet, hairy balls at May 11, 2010 10:48 AM (J+UTa)

96 I don't want her because I'm sick and tired of the Harvard, Yale, Ivy League cabal running things. Being Dean of Harvard Law School is made out to be some sort of big deal. Well BIG F'N DEAL she was a school administrator.
Maybe Obama doesn't realize it but nowadays the name Harvard is synonymous with incompentance, lack of integrity and sophistry.

Posted by: Prof. Venkman at May 11, 2010 10:49 AM (4JpPD)

97 Agree that there's no way she won't be confirmed. Another liberal hack justice who will impose their view of what the Constitution "should" be from the bench.

She's probably a lesser of many possible evils and it's not as if the Dali Bama was going to nominate anyone who wasn't a "living Constitution" gene-splicer, so I'll have to live with it.

If he gets another appointment and tries to put Liu on the Supremes, then I'll spit nails.

Posted by: societyis2blame at May 11, 2010 10:49 AM (7ZyYf)

98 Won't have have to replace Ruthy before we take back the congress?
That's why the rinos have to go so that when we have congress it's not full of beta males and ass lickers.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 10:50 AM (C/W+T)

99 As to her sexual preference, it is important if she has a partner
andthe partnerhas ties to any type of business or organization. We
would question a man or woman about their wife or husband if we knew who
they were and if they were lobbyists or had such ties.

Only if she was a Republican. People have a remarkable lack of interest in Barney Frank's partners, even when he's funneling billions of tax dollars into the programs they run (see Moses, Herb).

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 10:50 AM (mR7mk)

100 Well, Nov isn't all that far away. We could try to very politely stall on procedural matters, asking for more information, blah, blah, blah and hope to string it out long enough to run the table in the Senate elections.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 11, 2010 10:50 AM (HF+0P)

101 I'd vote against her if I were a Senator. Hell, I'd vote against every Democrat judicial nominee on principle. I think Kagan's DADT policy at Harvard was plainly illegal and disqualifying. Of course, I thought the same when she became Solicitor General.

That said, as analysis, Gabe is right. Kagan is going to be confirmed. There's no scenario anyone can build (other than a meltdown) that leads to her defeat.

To me, the real value of these hearings is to highlight the differences between liberals and conservatives when it comes to judicial philosophy. It works for us politically.

Personally, I think Republicans were right that filibustering judicial nominations, especially for SCOTUS, is wrong. I'm not sure why we should be doing it, especially when we'd lose and there's not real, meaty issue to hang it on.

A filibuster would be bad policy, bad politics. Not sure I see the upside besides venting anger.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 11, 2010 10:52 AM (9B5OK)

102
Smell my softball bat and see if you still think I might be "falling to pieces" at my confirmation hearing.

Fucking breeder.

Posted by: "Fast Pitch" Kagan at May 11, 2010 10:53 AM (UA4gE)

103 Discount all objections as irrelevant and then assert that the only
reason one would oppose her is bigotry? Really, Gabe?


Okay, did I miss something, because I'm not sure where you're getting that. (honest question, not being snarky) Yes, I know he refers to some specific organizations but the leap between those specific groups to all objections is not clear from the context of the post. It's entirely possibly I missed further exchanges on this. I just don't think that's a fair reading of this post.

There's a huge difference between explaining a position and acceptance of that position. As I read this, Gabe is setting out why Kagan will be confirmed. I do not see anywhere that he says this is why she *should* be confirmed. There's a big differences between those two positions.

Though if Gabe does think that she should be confirmed because of those reasons, well, I vehemently disagree with that.


Posted by: alexthechick at May 11, 2010 10:53 AM (8WZWv)

104 I don't want her because I'm sick and tired of the Harvard, Yale, Ivy League cabal running things.
On this point, I totally agree.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2010 10:54 AM (B+qrE)

105 Gabe the Manchurian Poster is becoming tiresome.

All you need to know about Kagen is that she is a lot lot like Obama,
a woman promoted beyond her depths to positions she has no business
being in.

If a Justices of Alito and Roberts caliber can face an uphill battle for
confirmation, then a nothing candidate like Kagen should get a scope
shoved up her prodigious ass before she is allowed to serve for life on
the highest court.


Posted by: McLovin at May 11, 2010 10:55 AM (RwvN1)

106 She's been nominatedto the highest court in the land; she's not running for county commissioner. She'll be interpreting the law for the next 30 + years; not carrying purse strings.
Are we to think in all that time gay marriage will never see her docket? In 2004 alone it was on the ballot in 11 states. How many overall? Nearly 20? Her orientation is absolutely fair game (although Iam not encouraging a filibuster over this point). But it's part of who she is and the empathy (which could be her liberalism or her sexual orientation--both relevant and both should be questioned) she brings is why Obama nominated her in the first place (unless we're going with the "she's hiding his pathetic grades" theory).
But why does she get a pass on this point?Because it's *not polite*?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 11, 2010 10:55 AM (pLTLS)

107 phoenixgirl

New at Ace? Gabe is the consistent neocon, figuring his smartass angles to get ahead with socialism. Neoconservatives are socialists, too; just their own brand of socialist, with all "sophistry" compliant with Marxists. Whether it be RINO, "bipartisan", or neocon, these elitists pirate the GOP and Tea Party as if to help conservatives with the sage advice: "don't rock the boat" and the propaganda claiming the "necessary incumbent" presence and identity for protesters against corruption to trust, leading down the primrose "unity through diversity" socialist path. Gabe rarely admits where his stance leads. In a post he wrote years ago, I pointed out that according to the view he espoused and argued in the comments, he'd let burglars in and rape his mother; at which point he denied he'd go that far.

Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 10:55 AM (H+LJc)

108 Your post is exactly why the republicans are called the Stupid Party. What a bunch of SAPS! The only reason the Bork double standard remains is because the republicans allow it. As long as there are no negative consequences to destroying republicans and there nominees, the left will continue the Borking of America.

If the republicans had any sense at all, they would treat Kagan as Obama's whipping boy and attack, attack, attack. There's endless material for them to use from her piss-poor legal reasoning skills (she's an idiot) to her outright hatred of the Military.

But as all of us know, the republicans will go forth and be gutless wimps and betray conservatives everywhere. Bennett was a shot across the bow and so Conservatives must continue our RINO hunt. Conservatives should use these hearings to flush out all the RINOs and select our new targets for November.

Posted by: BlackRedneck at May 11, 2010 10:56 AM (Mh30H)

109 I want a damn balls-to-the wall, mean MFer to hammer the dems. I want
them to be afraid to sit at that table.I want sweaty palms, and their
ass so puckered, they'll be on metamucil for the rest of their lives.
Remember the Bork!

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 10:56 AM (mR7mk)

110 Not sure I see the upside besides venting anger.

Stroking and motivating your base is never wasted in an off-year enthusiasm-based election cycle.

Duck and cover is not an electoral strategy.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 10:56 AM (4WbTI)

111 A filibuster would be bad policy, bad politics. Not sure I see the upside besides venting anger.

Posted by: DrewM.

Then the Minority is helpless. Our Republic is designed to prevent that.

I say take no prisoners. Moderation never works against Socialists.

Posted by: eman at May 11, 2010 10:57 AM (ONBbr)

112 American Spectator article headline: "Obama nominates himself" since he and Kagan are so alike.

Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 10:57 AM (H+LJc)

113 Gabriel Malor at 09:50 AM
Well that was quite a dissertation, lame but long. (Haven't people heard of brevityor being succinct?) That said, we can't question her about her possible partner or their career or ties to anything, because we don't know whether she has one or not. And since I know that you are the epitomy of fairnessyou must agree she should be questioned about that. After all, other nominees were questioned about their husbands and wives and any ties they had to businesses or organizations. Or are Gays somehow exempt from that?

Posted by: Deanna at May 11, 2010 10:59 AM (oflVV)

114 I think she probably will be no more terrible than any other leftists, and her personal life should be left alone (as conservatives' are not, ala Thomas).

But this country needs to come to a point where holding atextual views of the constitution is seen as radically outside the mainstream and grounds for impeachment and filibuster, or we might as well just call ourselves and oligarchy.
"Empathy", bah.

Posted by: Randy at May 11, 2010 10:59 AM (zQKSr)

115 Alexthechick,

From this passage:

"And that's about it. Unless you believe—like anti-gay organization Americans for Truth—that the public has a right to know whether she's a lesbian and—like the American Family Association—that lesbians are not qualified to be Supreme Court justices."

The opening sentence follows his paragraphs discounting many of the objections raised. The second sentence reads that, once discounted, the only reason left is that you believe lesbians shouldn't be on the court.

I think it's a fair read of what he wrote. And I think it's disappointing.

Posted by: Jack M. at May 11, 2010 11:00 AM (Ncr1R)

116 yep, she will be confirmed.

Since the pubs don't have the votes, they should, and I always say this and they never listen, use the high public event to promote conservative ideas. but instead they will use it to praise the nominee, thereby giving odufus some shine.




Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 11, 2010 11:00 AM (7VvJB)

117 Stroking and motivating your base is never wasted in an off-year
enthusiasm-based election cycle.
Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 10:56 AM (4WbTI)


Of course it can be.

The base could not be motivated more this year.

The way you really make up a lot of seats is to win seats you normally don't, places where you need more than the base. I know that's heresy but it's the truth.

Now, I'm not saying go easy on Kagan to win 'moderates'. I'm not. I'm just saying there are sometimes a downside to simply throwing a temper tantrum.

Again, beat her up for her 'empathy' approach to judging but go crazy as if she's Goodwin Liu, Harold Koh or Diane Wood doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 11, 2010 11:00 AM (9B5OK)

118 Use the hearings to illustrate how low the bar is with Obama in the white house. No need to filibuster, it's not up to Senators to chart this country's course, it's up to us. Gather material for November.

Posted by: t-bird at May 11, 2010 11:02 AM (FcR7P)

119 I wonder how off the rails Spector will go if he is down substantially to Sestak?

Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2010 11:02 AM (tJF9l)

120 Elections have consequences?!?

Why was I not informed?!?

Posted by: Pouty conservative purist circa 2008 at May 11, 2010 11:02 AM (Xd9fe)

121 >> To me, the real value of these hearings is to highlight the differences between liberals and conservatives when it comes to judicial philosophy. It works for us politically.
Agreed. Not to mention shining the spotlight of "Chicago politics" all over her. It's not terribly popular right now.
She's an awful choice, a hack. I seem to recall most of us had a problem when Bush did the same thing with Miers. Don't see any reason to play nice here. We didn't have this much momentum with Sotomayor.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 11, 2010 11:04 AM (WvXvd)

122 There's no scenario anyone can build (other than a meltdown) that leads
to her defeat.

I'm not sure I agree with that. All it would take is some bit of information to surface, not necessarily disqualifying per se, about her past dealings with Obama that proved embarrassing for Obama.

Obama will throw anyone under the bus to shield himself. Just let it be known that the embarrassing tid bit will surface during her questioning, and I think he'd withdraw her nomination pretty quickly and blame it on some non-specific health issue that just became apparent.


Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 11, 2010 11:04 AM (HF+0P)

123 So if gay marriage comes to pass?
What would stop straight men and straightwomen from marrying a friend to get all the benefits and perks of a homosexual marriage?
Let's see...IRS tax returns filed jointly..etc. etc.
This is one Pandora's Box that should prove interesting to open.

Posted by: Clear Water at May 11, 2010 11:04 AM (GkYyh)

124 I'm just saying there are sometimes a downside to simply throwing a
temper tantrum.
Like what? If the Republicans were to firmly question her, and even more-in-sadness-than-anger attempt a filibuster, exactly what downside do you think there will be?

Any voters who would vote against a Republican candidate over this would never have voted Republican to begin with.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 11:04 AM (4WbTI)

125 Gabe, perhaps your post today and your previous posts on Sheriff Arpaio share something in common:

myopic, knee-jerk, emotion-driven thinking.

Posted by: eman at May 11, 2010 11:05 AM (ONBbr)

126 Can we quit playing nice?? Dems are the enemy. We don't have to do anything to make nice with them. They are systematically trying to destoy this country. Can at least one republican senator try a little pushback?

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 11:05 AM (fvMKN)

127 Placing Kagan on the Surpreme Court is like placing someone who writes War Stories on the JOINT CHIEFS of STAFF.
Theoretically she knows the law. Being an academic is not the same as living in the real world.

Posted by: gus at May 11, 2010 11:06 AM (Vqruj)

128 She'll be confirmed, but that doesn't mean she won't undergo a grilling, and she should.

Her oral arguments in the military recruitment case were spurious to say the least, and her brief was defeated 8-0 by the court.

Posted by: Richard Romano at May 11, 2010 11:07 AM (jlgjV)

129
So very, very surprised Malor is telling us to just let this Kagan dude slide.

Posted by: Dang Straights at May 11, 2010 11:08 AM (fx8sm)

130 Placing Kagan on the Surpreme Court is like placing someone who writes War Stories on the JOINT CHIEFS of STAFF.
Theoretically she knows the law. Being an academic is not the same as living in the real world.
Posted by: gus at May 11, 2010 11:06 AM (Vqruj)
Is like electing Barry president. We is screwed.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 11, 2010 11:08 AM (1Jaio)

131
why do you keep using silly phrases like temper tantrum?

All we want is for Republicans to raise the issues and ask questions. That, to me, is grilling the nominee. I don't want a senator to stomping his feet and pouting.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 11:08 AM (4aB58)

132 IP = 117.28.85.11

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 11:08 AM (agr5P)

133
How about the Repubs ask a lot of questions, press hard on important points and do their best to find out everything they can about her temperament and intellect just out of due diligence? If at the end of, or during, that process, something goes wacky or some wafflers are confronted w/issues that will definitely hurt them back home, maybe she doesn't make it.
Deciding beforehand that our only choices are total capitulation or a full blown legislative blockade is dumb. We expect our representatives to have learned something from the Tea Parties, the zeitgeist and the polls, let's see what they've picked up. They know we're watching.

Posted by: LincolnTf at May 11, 2010 11:08 AM (qSRHZ)

134 But why does she get a pass on this point?Because it's *not polite*?
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 11, 2010 10:55 AM
Because she may be Gay. It's quite simple really. For example, you can question a man or woman about their wife or husband but it seems Gay's partners areexempt. And since Kagan won't even say she is Gay, let alone has a partner, we have no idea about any connections they may have. Is the partner a lawyer or lobbyist? If we take Gabe's advice, we'll never know.

Posted by: Deanna at May 11, 2010 11:10 AM (oflVV)

135 We opposed Harriet Miers on her lack of bench experience. I oppose Kagan on the same grounds.

The SCOTUS is 'going to The Show' for judges. I want someone who's played the game for years, not someone who has commented from the sidelines or watched from the bleachers.

Posted by: Jones at May 11, 2010 11:10 AM (JL3qV)

136
You wanna know the best reason to oppose Kagan?

Because Elena Kagan hates us and everything we stand for. That's it.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 11:10 AM (4aB58)

137 Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 11:04 AM (4WbTI)

Again, you have to get non-traditional voters in non-traditional places to win big numbers. Sometimes that means not being as partisan as you normally would be.

I'd be in favor of going to the mattresses (even though I think it would fail and is probably a bad idea in the long run) against a guy like Koh or Liu, maybe Wood.

Kagan isn't at that level.

She's bad in a generic every liberal is bad on the court way. Using that standard we'd have to filibuster every Dem nominee and Dems would filibuster every R one. I don't think that's good policy, politics or for the country.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 11, 2010 11:11 AM (9B5OK)

138 What would stop straight men and straightwomen from marrying a friend
to get all the benefits and perks of a homosexual marriage?


The same stuff that currently prevents gay people from marrying an opposite-sex friend to get all the benefits and perks of a "heterosexual marriage."


Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 11:11 AM (mR7mk)

139 Sure, her confirmation can't be stopped, but her anti-military stance at Harvard can be hung around the neck of every Democrat who votes for her.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at May 11, 2010 11:12 AM (PLvLS)

140
yeah, all of a sudden a nominee's privacy is paramount (to both Lefties and Gabe).

gee...

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 11:12 AM (4aB58)

141 129
So very, very surprised Malor is telling us to just let this Kagan
dude slide.

He's not. It's just that Kagan was a "smart" pick by teh Won in that she was most likely to slide through the confirmation hearings.

I'm with those who say to throw wrenches into the hearings, slow everything down, and maybe something will come up that will cause Obama to throw her under the bus.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 11, 2010 11:12 AM (9hSKh)

142 Are we to think in all that time gay marriage will never see her docket?

This is actually an interesting question when framed within a 30 year window because there's another conflicting (and rapidly increasing) demographic the Democrats pander to who will generally be strongly against it. That, of course, is the Hispanics who tend towards traditional Catholicism.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 11, 2010 11:12 AM (HF+0P)

143 some employers balk at a 6'4" guy with stubble wearing a skirt and heels representing them to the public and using the ladies room.
I swear to god that guy sold me a watch at Sam's Club 15 years ago. I got whiplash between staring at his adam's appleand the run in his hose.

Posted by: 10% Jewess at May 11, 2010 11:13 AM (gbCNS)

144 Because Elena Kagan hates us and everything we stand for.

Howard Dean in very bad drag?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 11:13 AM (mR7mk)

145 The opening sentence follows his paragraphs discounting many of the
objections raised. The second sentence reads that, once discounted, the
only reason left is that you believe lesbians shouldn't be on the court.



I think it's a fair read of what he wrote. And I think it's
disappointing.
Okay, I think I see where we're diverging on our interpretation. You're reading the prior paragraphs as discounting the objections. I read them as setting out why those objections are not going to be considered sufficient. I do not read that as adopting the position that those objections are insufficient. In other words, you read it as making a judgment and I read it as setting out the position without adopting that judgment. Thus, the divergence when we read the next bit.

I see why you think it's a fair reading. I disagree, but I see why you think that.

For the record, I reject the notion that objections to Kagan are based on bigotry until there is ample evidence otherwise. No, thinking that her orientation is relevant due to the Court ruling on gay marriage is not bigotry.

Posted by: alexthechick at May 11, 2010 11:14 AM (8WZWv)

146 We don't have to have a tantrum. That is the stock-in-trade for the dems. Somewhere in D.C. there is a repub senator who can ask pointed, incisive questions. There is one who can keep after the nominee and get the answer to the question asked, not a windy runaround. There is one who can make the damn commie and her bud SWEAT and SQUIRM. If they don't know what questions to ask, then get on the rightleaning blogs and find them. Knock off the reaching across the aisle shit and get to the business of defending the nation and the Constitution. If they can't do this, then every damn one of them needs to go the way of Bennett.

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 11:14 AM (fvMKN)

147 Fighting to retain every foxhole is a very expensive way to wage a war, and potentially a futile one.

The current battle is November. Everything else between now and then - absent a big flanking maneuver - has to be dealt with on that basis.

Is there more to be gained electorally by trying to knock down everything Obama does, to prove he can't govern? That risks the Terri Schiavo situation, the Clinton impeachment, where the voters go back to shaking their heads and wondering why the Republicans run off the rails every time they think they have control.

I'm inclined to think the contrary - the GOP needs to sign off on this as quickly and quietly as possible and make it go away and get back to pounding on Obama where there's ground to be won.

To Joe Q Public she looks like a competent functionary, maybe not a bright judicial light but no Abe Fortas, not even a Goodwin Liu, there's no clear evidence of unsuitability.




Posted by: mrkwong at May 11, 2010 11:15 AM (G8Eo0)

148 Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 11:14 AM (fvMKN)

I'm with you on that.

Hard questioning, draw some bright lines and then vote no.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 11, 2010 11:17 AM (9B5OK)

149 Again, you have to get non-traditional voters in non-traditional places
to win big numbers. Sometimes that means not being as partisan as you
normally would be.

And again, I simply disagree.

IMO, This will be a base and enthusiasm election. If we get 20% of the potential voters in the country to the polls to vote against the Democrats, we win huge.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 11:17 AM (4WbTI)

150 I'm with those who say to throw wrenches into the hearings, slow everything down, and maybe something will come up that will cause Obama to throw her under the bus.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 11, 2010 11:12 AM
Exactly. There's the case Specter is aligned with. There are the papers from the Clinton Library. And there needs to be more discovery on her background, both personal and public. Obama will not want any embarrassing item to besmirch his standing as an idol. .

Posted by: Deanna at May 11, 2010 11:17 AM (oflVV)

151
so that's it, either we can throw a tantrum or we can rollover?

Nothing in between? Can't muster a serious, rigorous, and sincere opposition to Kagan? All we ignorant Republicans can do is throw a tantrum?

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 11:17 AM (4aB58)

152

Guys, lay off Gabe.

It's his time of the month.


Posted by: hobgoblin at May 11, 2010 11:17 AM (PpeVF)

153 If you haven't seen this, you need too.

Posted by: Hobo at May 11, 2010 11:17 AM (V8B//)

154 Yes. Stall until after November, during which time educate and motivate popular voting opinion against permissively enhancing socialism. It isn't as if Obama "enjoys" the majority of motivated voters' strong approval now, if ever he really did. The only people to take offense from a conservative rebuke against federal government corruption insidiously invading our right and duty to preserve the Constitution and Liberty are those already offended by the persistence of existing Constitutional Conservatives.


Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 11:18 AM (H+LJc)

155

144
Because Elena Kagan hates us and
everything we stand for.

Howard Dean in very bad drag?

FIFY

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 11, 2010 11:19 AM (PpeVF)

156 so that's it, either we can throw a tantrum or we can rollover?Nothing
in between? Can't muster a serious, rigorous, and sincere opposition to
Kagan? All we ignorant Republicans can do is throw a tantrum?
Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 11:17 AM (4aB5

And who exactly is arguing that?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 11, 2010 11:20 AM (9B5OK)

157 That, of course, is the Hispanics who tend towards traditional Catholicism.
Taking that a step further, if Republicans had nominated a Hispanic (oh wait they did!) that was Catholic would his or her views on same-sex [fill in the blank] not be relevant to the Dems during confirmation? You bet they would.
It's absurd to assume otherwise.
Moral of the story:
Religion - in the purview of appropriate hearing questions
Sexual orientation - I can't believe you just asked that, gasp!!!!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 11, 2010 11:20 AM (pLTLS)

158 If it's a legitimate line of inquiry to question Catholics how church doctrine will affect them on issues such as abortion, then it is also legitimate to ask gay candidates how their beliefs will affect their rulings on things like gay marriage. Since it is permissible to conclude that a particular candidates Catholicness will preclude them from handling certain issues fairly, then the same is also true about another candidate's gayness.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 11, 2010 11:20 AM (ST1lV)

159 Obama will not want any embarrassing item to besmirch his standing as an
idol.

That position has been filled.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 11:21 AM (mR7mk)

160 BTW, I'm all for civility but when the Democrats cut off the opposition's questioning, as you know they will, I'll be all up for hearing the terms Jackass and Nincompoop thrown around.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 11:21 AM (4WbTI)

161 @147

This isn't some earmark on a budget bill. A supreme court judge isn't a foxhole. A more apt metaphor would be a major city, one which if we lose it, will take a good thirty years to even think about taking back.

Posted by: Zuggs at May 11, 2010 11:22 AM (FkKjr)

162 I wonder how off the rails Spector will go if he is down substantially to Sestak?
He will probably start quoting the laws of El Salvador about how he needs to stay in office.
Personally, I want Spector to win the primary, just so we can hand it to him in November. I didn't get to see Chris Dodd's election night concession speech, I really don't want to be deprived of this one.

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 11, 2010 11:22 AM (OWjjx)

163 I suspect Gabe is correct, which is very depressing. So we will have a justice that will be a doctrinaire liberal (I've heard her described as Obama's soul mate politically) who is his personal friend and was his first choice (think about that), someone who is probably pretty well steeped in identity/gender/race politics, someone who is described as a persuasive advocate for liberal causes without being too obnoxious about it, someone who wrote a paper years ago favorable to socialism, and someone who will be with us for the next 30 to 40 years.And there isn't a thing we can really do. It's his call.
And we also know in our heart of hearts that if a corresponding conservative candidate was picked by a Republican president, the Democrats and the left would be quivering with outrage, and that there would bea nasty fight, and a potential filibuster. Any bets on whether Ginsburg ties her retirement to Obama's political fortunes?
Thank you, sir 52. May we have another? Elections do have consequences.

Posted by: RM at May 11, 2010 11:22 AM (1kwr2)

164 Look, Kagan is just after the same thing that every warm blooded American male is after. He can't be all that bad.

Of course he will be confirmed. Perfectly suited for the job by the One's standards. Virtually no experience as a trial lawyer or a judge, did some incredibly worthless shit at Hawvad, and the University of Chicago. And most importantly, he is a gay atheist. A perfect nominee. But what bothers me the most, is that she is a first amendment censoree. She and the wise latina both think free speech should be based on subject matter and intent.

They might put this site out of biz and Ace will have to find a real job that pays.

Posted by: Snappy, what comes from Dragon, Tom, and Rough Sex at May 11, 2010 11:22 AM (uFdnM)

165 She'll be confirmed, but that doesn't mean she won't
undergo a grilling, and she should. Her oral arguments in the
military recruitment case were spurious to say the least, and her brief
was defeated 8-0 by the court.--Posted by: Richard Romano

Rare, medium well, well done, or burnt to a crisp?

Posted by: maverick muse at May 11, 2010 11:24 AM (H+LJc)

166 I could go with the "this is not the battle to fight" crowd if they ever actually had a battle that it was time to fight.

After all, commie Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3.

Posted by: Vic at May 11, 2010 11:25 AM (6taRI)

167 Her oral arguments in the
military recruitment case were spurious to say the least, and her brief
was defeated 8-0 by the court.

Is it considered to be in bounds to ask her specifically if having her position unanimously rejected has altered her view?

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 11:27 AM (4WbTI)

168 Undergo a grilling? On what?

This ain't like a job interview where you might not get the job. All you have to do is STFU, and blow smoke up everyone's ass when the one or two -actually job specific questions come up.

Confirmation is a dog and pony show. A formality. An opportunity for questioners to look smart on C Span. That's it.

Posted by: I married Patrick Ewing's Sister at May 11, 2010 11:28 AM (uFdnM)

169 Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks wouldsit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
Ted Kennedy
just a reminder...

Posted by: dananjcon at May 11, 2010 11:29 AM (pr+up)

170 Kagan and Obama appear to have a lot in common.
It appears that only stupid people are susceptible to their empty rhetoric.
http://tinyurl.com/2u2pklc
HotAir

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 11, 2010 11:29 AM (RkRxq)

171 I would have preferred Goodwin Liu be nominated. At least he's the obvious, frothing-at-the-mouth moonbat type. And therefore, could serve as another public, cautionary lesson about the dangers of electing a socialist president. Even he probably would get confirmed, but it would be a very public and hard-fought debate on libtard overreach.
That's why this pick bothers me. I believe in allowing any President to have the nominee he chooses. Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. The opposition's job is to ensure the public understands what a shitty pick the nominee is. It's going to be hard to do that with Kagan. And I don't see Gabe endorsing her, but it's undeniable that he often views politics through Teh Ghey Prism. That doesn't mean he's not a conservative, but in this instance, I think his bias hurts the analysis. Gay marriage isn't the big danger from a Kagan appointment. It's the continued erosion of property rights and individual freedoms that a rejuvenated liberal wing of the SCOTUS represents. We're one chicken bone lodged in Kennedy's throat away from a court that will start accepting every case that presents an opportunity to further weaken our constitutional protections.
In conclusion, teh gheys don't bother me. Teh socialist gheys bother me. Get on board, Gabe.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 11, 2010 11:31 AM (/HFre)

172 She might get confirmed - so what? Do we HAVE to make it easy on her and her supporters? Do we have to be the eternal beta-male??? Did Kennedy ever apologize for his inflammatory rhetoric? Did he ever even look like he was going to apologize? Somewhere along the line, we have to stop taking what the dems are dishing. Right now, I can't decide if the republicans in office are enablers or battered housewives or both.

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 11:34 AM (fvMKN)

173 She's not going to be filibustered (wanna bet on it?)
Any hope of her being nominated on a straight party line vote? Call it a "teachable moment". It worked for Porkulus and Socialized Medicine.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 11, 2010 11:34 AM (ujg0T)

174 Elena Kagen, I'd Bork her.

Posted by: Dunkirk at May 11, 2010 11:34 AM (ZkQ3p)

175 An opportunity for questioners to look smart on C Span. That's it.

And they can't even do that right.

Posted by: alexthechick at May 11, 2010 11:34 AM (8WZWv)

176 @169
I must disagree with your assessment.

Posted by: Robert Bork at May 11, 2010 11:35 AM (FkKjr)

177 I oppose her on her membership in the Elves. Not to mention the Gnome Society.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 11, 2010 11:35 AM (7VvJB)

178
btw, y'all hear Mayor Mumbles Menino's latest tongue-blunder?

It's a doozy.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 11:36 AM (4aB58)

179 #170 - Exactly! And his little syncophants ate it up. Can we get one barn burner in there?

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 11:37 AM (fvMKN)

180 #170 just a reminder...
And who could forget Clarence Thomas'Kangaroo Court? (if they can ever prove Anita Hill was lying she ought to be beaten and thrown into an Oklahoma jail cell with some of the inmates, but I digress).
The Commiecrats stop at nothing, at it is time to give it back to them, and all GOP senators to vote no across the board.
Of course, she'll still get confirmed, but it will be "a teachable moment."

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 11, 2010 11:38 AM (ujg0T)

181
I oppose her on her membership in the Elves. Not to mention the
Gnome Society.
How about the Lollipop Guild?
Well, they did foreclose on that dead witch house, but Acorn is on the case.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 11, 2010 11:40 AM (7VvJB)

182 I'm curious how many of the same conservatives who sat out in 2008 want an ugly confirmation hearing for the second of two Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justices whom they helped make possible.

Seriously, anybody who sat out or voted third party in 2008, just STFU. You helped elect Barry. Live with it.

Posted by: schizuki at May 11, 2010 11:42 AM (Xd9fe)

183 I just found a pubic hair on my coke can !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Larry Flynt at May 11, 2010 11:42 AM (SZy+Y)

184 There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to
sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the
comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is
humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of
different points of view.
It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law.
He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the
Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent
to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the
basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before
the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in
reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural
regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial
system.But the bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts'
nomination ....

- Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/2/09

Posted by: Bust of Churchill at May 11, 2010 11:43 AM (8/DeP)

185 Right on, Gabe.
Let's get over this and fight the battles we can win.
There were worse choices being discussed (Wood), and still worse ones to come if you start this fillibuster thing. It's a no-win game that I don't want to play.
I'm going thru a divorce - I know from whence I speak about not playing no-win games.

Posted by: connertown at May 11, 2010 11:44 AM (+q3dR)

186
okay, now all that remains to make this thread complete the cycle is: blame the social cons, bash Mitt Romney, and mention bacon.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 11:44 AM (4aB58)

187 I'm curious how many of the same conservatives who sat out in 2008 want an ugly confirmation hearing for the second of two Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justices whom they helped make possible.
That certainly doesn't apply to the sitting GOP Senators, now does it?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 11, 2010 11:44 AM (ujg0T)

188 "she'll be confirmed without much circus unless she trips all over herself at her hearing."
Which is not outside the realm of possibility. I read transcripts of three of the six oral arguments she made before the USSC, as well as play by play commentary by experienced court observers at ScotusWiki and the Volokh Conspiracy. In all three she she talked herself into trouble. I stopped reading at thatpoint because it was just really boring.
So in at leasthalf her cases she tripped all over herself. On the other hand, I doubt anyone in the Senate will be nearly as well prepared and as sharp as the justices who jumped all over her.

Posted by: Matt at May 11, 2010 11:46 AM (l4Leh)

189 139 Sure, her confirmation can't be stopped, but her anti-military stance at Harvard can be hung around the neck of every Democrat who votes for her.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at May 11, 2010 11:12 AM (PLvLS)

This.

Posted by: TC at May 11, 2010 11:47 AM (DYJjQ)

190 There were worse choices being discussed (Wood), and still worse ones to come if you start this fillibuster thing. It's a no-win game that I don't want to play.
I'm going thru a divorce - I know from whence I speak about not playing no-win games.
My condolences--been there and done that. But can't the GOP members just vote NO and drop the pretense of rubber stamping their nominees when they smear ours?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 11, 2010 11:47 AM (ujg0T)

191 “The kind of inquiry that would contribute most to understanding and evaluating a [Supreme Court] nomination is the kind Carter would forbid: discussion first, of the nominee’s broad judicial philosophy and, second, of her views on particular constitutional issues… When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.” Kagan in 1995

Posted by: Deanna at May 11, 2010 11:48 AM (oflVV)

192 We can hold the line and make the dems vote for her. Not a single republican vote. Time for compromise is over. They want her, they wear her and ever stupid thing she does for now into eternity.

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 11:49 AM (fvMKN)

193 Personally I think we should use her as a practice punching bag for the next liberal SCOTUS nominee El-Douche foists on the Senate. She'd be easy to knock out of the park, if the spineless wusses that compose most of the Republicans in the Senate gave it even a half-hearted try.
In preparation, they should be hunkering down and watching replays of the Dems' "How to torpedo the opposition's SCOTUS nominees in 10 days or less."
They might pick up a few pointers, since they've rolled over for all the Dems' picks since I can remember.
November is not that far away - they could do it, if they wanted.
Unfortunately, there's the rub. Do they want the fight?

Posted by: Marybeth at May 11, 2010 11:49 AM (hBRoa)

194 danan, I am going to riff off of that comment 170
Kagan America. is where Americans will be told to sit down, shut up, or threats and name calling ensue. Perhaps more punishment..
Kagan's America is where speech is limited to what Their Party in Office wants it to be.
Kagan's America, is where military become taxi drivers for the elite, and servers of food at their parties
Kagan's America is where IRS threatens liberty , and finacial woe to those that refuse to buy an american product.
Kagan's American is one in which the gvt, decided how much salt or jolly ranchers one may eat.
Kagan's America is where Social Justice becomes more important than National Secuirity,our constitution rights and personal individual freedom

Kagans' America is setting American "groupings" above the individual.
It's all divisive idealogy to break the back of our republic. or Kratos favortive term Chaos. and anything but freedom.

Posted by: willow at May 11, 2010 11:50 AM (7FgWm)

195 Sample questions for Kagan the Inscrutable;

Do you agree with the President that the free flow of information, such as we have in the 21st century, is detrimental to democracy?

Should all speech be tested against it's utility as a "tool of empowerment" before it is permitted?

Do you know how to work an Ipod?

Posted by: LincolnTf at May 11, 2010 11:51 AM (qSRHZ)

196 I'm inclined to think the contrary - the GOP needs to sign off on this
as quickly and quietly as possible and make it go away and get back to
pounding on Obama where there's ground to be won.

Because surrender is the preferable option? If the republicans are going to surrender on issues why should anyone bother to vote for them?

Posted by: Deathknyte at May 11, 2010 11:51 AM (12blM)

197 Sevenwords - Committed scoialist. Fifty years old, lifetime appointment.
'Nuff said.
This is a fight worth having, IMHO

Posted by: Marybeth at May 11, 2010 11:55 AM (hBRoa)

198 1. Kagan appears by inspection to be an obvious lesbian.

2. Apparently it is not a secret in the circles she runs in that she is gay.

3. I could care less if she's gay, and in any event people shouldn't be outed for their sexual preferences unless they're illegal.

4. Kagan is an unqualified Obama crony being given this job in part because she is Obama's friend, and in part because she is a lesbian.

5. Yes, Obama is a big enough dickhead that race, sex, and sexual preferences still dominate his thought processes; in that sense he is a classic racist, sexist, and, in this instance, a reverse-homophobe.

6. The GOP should not gibe her shit during the confirmation process because of her sexual preferences; they should, however, expose the fact that she's unqualified and a socialist liberal moron.

7. Kagan will be confirmed with votes to spare.

Posted by: Bust of Churchill at May 11, 2010 11:55 AM (8/DeP)

199 Republican thumb suckers will do nothing to derail the confirmation. She is the female version of Obama who will be on the court for 35 years. Talk about diversity. She will be the third Jew on the court along with 6 Catholics. Doesn't sound very diverse.

Posted by: gnwashington at May 11, 2010 11:55 AM (frMli)

200 I'm inclined to think the contrary - the GOP needs to sign off on this as quickly and quietly as possible and make it go away and get back to pounding on Obama where there's ground to be won. Because surrender is the preferable option? If the republicans are going to surrender on issues why should anyone bother to vote for them?
Exactly. Even if she will be confirmed anyway, just vote the Bolshevik bulldyke down. And it's the Bolshevik that bothers me.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 11, 2010 11:57 AM (ujg0T)

201 I'm going to pray the same thing I did when Sotomayor was about to go to confirmation hearings-Dear Lord, please don't let them add swimsuit competition to the proceedings this year. Amen.

Posted by: di butler, unlicensed pharmacist at May 11, 2010 11:58 AM (S3xX1)

202 Wow. That is about as rational a post on practical political analysis as I've ever read by Gabe, and so by extension on this website.

So in that spirit, I'm going to throw something out there: the idea that, far from being the best pick for conservatives in the circumstances -- best of the worst if you will -- the nomination of Kagan is in fact the most insidious for conservatives.

First I want to dispose of all the 'consensus building' bullshit. We already know Obama does his 'not red-not blue/not Republican-not Dem/not rigth-not left' bipartisan pitch purely for it's p.r. value with independents, the big mooshy middle of the electorate that shows up, if at all, once every four years, and otherwise sits out mid-terms and pretty much all local elections. And why after all would he or any fully engaged candidate, incumbent or not, for the presidency bother with all that other crap anyway, when there's nothing or next to nothing in it for his fate?

Here's what we do know about Kagan that's just obvious:
she's not a judge and never been one;
she's not much of an in-court advocate, and what little she's done there, and it's tiny, is as an arguer, not an examiner or cross-examiner;
she's pure establishment Dem: New York City, jewish, Dem party politics, Harvard Law School, U of Chicago Law School, Clinton administration, Harvard Law Dean, Obama administration;
for a so-called academic, she's written pathetically few articles on law and policy;
while at UChicago Law, she became friends with session lecturer/politician Obama and his friend tenured prof/prolific author Cass Sunstein;
she's female, but in that chubby inoffensive non-threatening way that reeks of buddy;
when confronted, she comes to heel, quickly and minimum fuss (look at how Lindsay "Neutered Bull Mastiff With Mascara" Graham led her around at the public hearing into her nomination to be solicitor general).

Here's what's not obvious, but actually completely available: those very few articles she wrote. They're long and boring and hedged, but at least two of them are extremely important, and one, in my humble submission, is the tell.

The first article, the one that got her a position at UChicago Law, is all about the collision of private and public interests -- us versus the government -- at the intersection of the First Amendment and pornography. It's a very strong, very interesting piece, first, and if for no other reason, the clear-headed, cold-blooded historical analysis of the role of the First Amendment in curtailing government action, and in particular its remarkable resilience over the almost 200 year period since Jefferson's news-and-views print project posed a threat to the established interests that always crowd out all others in the nation's capital. Time and time again, the administration would try to curtail freedom of the press and individual expressions of opinion, only to be beaten back by the First Amendment. Among other things, it allowed for the maintenance of states' rights positions, the rise of both Calhoun and Jackson, as well as both Davis and Lincoln, the successful attack on the gold standard and the unfortunate creation and empowerment of the Federal Reserve system to replace it, Teddy Roosevelt's rise to power through his successin the Phillipines and later the success of his attack on Wall Street, paving the way to allow cousin Franklin Roosevelt to take the government into the private sphere.

But in the second part of the article, she goes under the hood of the First Amendment vehicle and gets 'proscriptive': what if any tools does the government have left by which it can safeguard itself from attacks? In essence, she finds 'public safety', which of course includes 'national interest', and she uses anti-pornography as an illustrative example. You don't think government strategists and big corporations actually overlooked this paper over the past decade plus, do you? Governments of both stripes, and all manner of industry, particularly in communications, especially as the internet age arose, have used the proscriptions in this paper time and time again to frame the battlefields of the War over the First Amendment. This paper brought her to national attention in the law schools and think tanks.

But its her second big article that goes to why Obama has chosen to nominate her. It's long -- over 140 pages; longer than any 3 of the comic books you've got on your nightstand combined -- and there's no pictures, and it's VERY boring and theoretical sounding ... but it's the key. It's about the room the presidency provides to redraw its relationship with the governed -- through government regulation.

Again, the historical and lay-of-the-land analysis alone is impressive. This is not sexy stuff on the surface, and virtually no one else has ever attempted to 'go there' except on a 'micro' basis, that is, policy-by-policy, or agency-by-agency. Just to get to the point of daring to make these kinds of broad analytical conclusions, a writer would have to be familiar with a vast number of policy and agency power studies, not to mention the agendas and records of all the administrations under which those policies were run and those agencies exercised power.

But Kagan went there, and succeeded, so much so that no one has been able to challenge her analysis -- because she's right. One big example: her take on Reagan's Deregulation policy, one of the most important of the images we retain of him, not least because it fit hand in glove with The Speech: the one he worked on from the 1950s, which gained him national attention and ultimately the White House and that even today fuels the visions of limited government conservatism, from establishment Republicans through Grover Norquist's Drown It In A Bathtub movement through Libertarians to the Tea Partiers. Read her take on how that philosophy actually played out in Washington. It's not pretty. It lead to more, not less, agency fiefdoms, and more, not less big government intrusion into private activity.

And it explains pretty much why Obama keeps invoking Reagan as a model ... because he's in pursuit of the 'unintended consequences', the ironic outcomes, of limited government rhetoric.

And Kagan is the guru of all that. With her on the Supreme Court, that entire agenda will be served over the next 2 maybe 3 generations.

My take is that Obama always intended to nominate Kagan if he won the White House, but that the big conservative revival in response to Big Government Obamaism that's playing out now towards the mid-terms forced his hand earlier than he'd planned. After November, it may be that he won't be able to get any liberal, no matter how moderate and accommodating to the mainstream, onto the court. And after November 2012, Obama could be done. So this is it: his best shot at imposing his own vision for the maintenance of broad presidential power through sweeping comprehensive regulatory expression over a very, very long time.

Compared to Kagan, the rest of those said or reported to be on Obama's "short list" are open-book unsubtle liberal mouthpieces, about as predictable as one could possibly hope for, and with no hope of ever making a meaningful long-term impact on this edition of the court or maybe any future one -- in other words, pretty much the liberal equivalent of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia: predictable, whether as ballast or gadflies, but with zero long-term impacts. The nominations and successful installations of Chief Justice Roberts and ally Alito, though, put a hugely effective ideological coalition on the court. That's what Obama is after breaking with Kagan. That's why he can afford to park a sure-thing moderate like Merrick Garland for 'next time' -- because this is his game changing move.

Posted by: Shooter at May 11, 2010 11:58 AM (zfRju)

203 So if Kagan is unacceptable and must be defeated, who would be acceptable? Who could Barry possibly nominate who would be agreeable both to himself and conservatives?

He won. He gets to pick. That's how it works. He's an ultra-left Democrat. So you're going to deny him Kagan and hold out for... what? Another Roberts or Alito?

Hold hearings, ask tough questions, vote no. But don't filibuster. Not over this one.


Posted by: schizuki at May 11, 2010 12:01 PM (Xd9fe)

204 196 Posted by: willow at May 11, 2010 11:50 AM (7FgWm)
Good job willow, I knew one of ya's would run with it!

Posted by: dananjcon at May 11, 2010 12:02 PM (pr+up)

205 36
Well, then I guess Gabe reached his target audience. It's
pretty obvious this post all about the reasons why Kagan should be
confirmed. It has nothing to do with Conservatives and what will help
our agenda.Kagan is evil and she's extremist. That's the message
we need to spread. Not this save it for another day crap. Hammer her
and use this opportunity to hammer the Democrats and make distinctions
between us and them.


Evil and extremist... ok.. Give me the rundown on facts that back that up.

And if it just an "inkling" (and let me say it is probably not a bad inkling given the not so hidden agenda our fearless leader has for turning this country into european socialist democracy).. but if it is just an inkling, which GOP senators are you going to ask to look like batshit crazy persons attacking her for something for which there is nothing to back it up??

Or, are you simply suggesting GOP Senators say "We hate Barack Obama! Whaaaaa! We are going to take our ball and go home! We won't approve anything he does! Na na na na na!"

That would work too.. yeah.. that'll work.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 11, 2010 12:03 PM (f9c2L)

206 Ahhh yes leave it to Gabe to turn a discussion of a SCOTUS nominee into his latest tantrum on gay marriage/Prop H8/etc. And tries to cover for her abominable policies toward the military to boot. News flash for Gabe: leftists like Obama and Kagan hate the military. It's who they are. If they didn't have DADT to whine about, they'd find some other excuse.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at May 11, 2010 12:04 PM (U2eNA)

207 "Ms. Kagan, while you were at the Harvard School of Law, you tried to ban military recuiters from your campus in clear violation of established law. How do you explain to the American people that you could uphold the law when your own actions show a disregard if not outright contempt for the law we all must follow?"

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Acting Senator at May 11, 2010 12:04 PM (i3AsK)

208 Seriously, anybody who sat out or voted third party in 2008, just STFU.
You helped elect Barry. Live with it.

Dude, let it go. This has become the FailedPoliciesofthePreviousAdministration™ to some on the right, and it achieves nothing.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 12:05 PM (4WbTI)

209 #146 Katy Beth: If they don't know what questions to ask, then get on the rightleaning
blogs and find them. Knock off the reaching across the aisle shit and
get to the business of defending the nation and the Constitution. If
they can't do this, then every damn one of them needs to go the way of
Bennett.
Absolutely. They should give her the Alito treatment. By doing so, the republicans would fire up the base and demonstrate that they are not the same squishy repubs that got us into this mess. It would also demoralize the leftards because Kagan is a not-so bright partisan hack who can't speak persuasively or think on her feet. Not only is she an embarrassment but she doesn't have Barry's good looks to distract you from the nonsense she's spouting. If the republicans had any guts, oh wait, nevermind...

Posted by: BlackRedneck at May 11, 2010 12:06 PM (Mh30H)

210 New at Ace? Gabe is the consistent neocon, figuring his smartass angles to get ahead with socialism. Neoconservatives are socialists, too; just their own brand of socialist, with all "sophistry" compliant with Marxists. Whether it be RINO, "bipartisan", or neocon, these elitists pirate the GOP and Tea Party as if to help conservatives with the sage advice: "don't rock the boat" and the propaganda claiming the "necessary incumbent" presence and identity for protesters against corruption to trust, leading down the primrose "unity through diversity" socialist path. Gabe rarely admits where his stance leads. In a post he wrote years ago, I pointed out that according to the view he espoused and argued in the comments, he'd let burglars in and rape his mother; at which point he denied he'd go that far.
Careful there, you'reabout to get your IP address banned.
Then you'll have to sit around for a month or so, waiting for your ISP to decide toDHCP you adifferent IP address.
PS: If it would advance the long-term cause of The Tribe, you can be damned certain that he'd let 'em rape his mother.
And then post pictures of it on the internet afterwards [which youwill befree todownload, foronly $59.95, in three easy payments of $24.99!!!].
PPS: I kid you not, Emma Goldmanengaged inthe early-20th Century version of exactly this sort of thing, in order to subsidize Tribal dominance.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's sweet, hairy balls at May 11, 2010 12:09 PM (J+UTa)

211 This has become the FailedPoliciesofthePreviousAdministration™
to some on the right, and it achieves nothing.

-------------------------

So before 2008, conservatives were unaware that Presidents picked SCOTUS justices, but now they realize elections have consequences, so no reminders needed? Got it.

Posted by: schizuki at May 11, 2010 12:11 PM (Xd9fe)

212 "hhh yes leave it to Gabe to turn a discussion of a SCOTUS nominee into
his latest tantrum on gay marriage/Prop H8/etc. "

Gay marriage and DADT are quite the contentious issues among conservatives...wonder which side will win.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 12:14 PM (5Etcj)

213 She can't get over my lizard-eyes.

Posted by: Janet Neapolitan at May 11, 2010 12:15 PM (VXBR1)

214 #211 I guess if they have no guts, we're going to have to hold their smelly feet to the fire. Everyone of them should be looking over their shoulders. Frum thought we were mean to oust Bennett - hmph. Unless they start growing spines, they all are Bennett!

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 12:15 PM (fvMKN)

215 Got it.

Good. I'm more discussing the STFU you're giving to those nominally on your side.

Counterproductive.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 12:15 PM (4WbTI)

216 Oh ferchristsake. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. If you think past wedding cakes and rings and formal gowns--the trappings, not the essence--to the purpose of marriage, you'll realize that's true.
I really fear for us, our civilization, because we've stopped talking sense.

Posted by: Best thief in Lankhmar at May 11, 2010 12:17 PM (9kYWY)

217 Is she is or is she ain't....shut up and stop asking. Yet, she will make judgment on DADT, and we can't ask about her. That is a double standard if I ever saw one.

Posted by: sTevo at May 11, 2010 12:17 PM (Bm8Ua)

218 # 214. I am amazed you can see any issues since your head is buried so far up your ass, your eyes are in colon central.

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 12:18 PM (fvMKN)

219 Kagan is a mistake, as was Sotomayor. They invalidate the SC by their mere presence. We already have a legislative branch which has invalidated itself in the eyes of the people (the majority at least), the executive branch is beginning to become a sham as well; once the judicial branch falls what, pray tell, is left?
As for her sexuality not being a major factor: isn't it? What else has been focused on by the media, including many blogs? And no, it wasn't the truly important thing -- the truly important issue(s) were her unfamiliarity with the constitution and the role of the governing bodies and her love of socialism. But were those as touched upon as her is she/isn't she lesbianism? And that is how she will get though the confirmation process without serious challenge...so how has it not been a major factor?

Posted by: unknown jane at May 11, 2010 12:21 PM (5/yRG)

220 Can I oppose her on the fact that she is too painful to look at and will be a distraction?
BTW, not that I really care, but I find it interesting that the SCOTUS will be 3 jews and 6 catholics. I don't know if that says something about the nomination process or the protestant churches....

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 12:22 PM (C/W+T)

221 I know the left wants to twist this into proof the right is bigotted against lesbos, but they have really fucked up their approach so far.

It's Obama who seems to think it's terrible if Kagan is gay.

Regardless of this little hate thing democrats in the press will do, wh ich most folks are ignoring completely at this point, we need to fight against this nomination 100%.

We need to demand nominations that are not cyphers. This is a lifetime appointment that will be with us for decades, and it's obvious to all that she's hiding who she is. You don't hide who you are unless you've got something to hide. A legal academic should love publishing all kinds of policy papers. And the few times she's gone out there, she's been extreme, losing cases, often unanimously, and being terrible to our troops.

We can't win if we do not fight. Of course we will lose, but we should fight to win anyway.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 12:23 PM (dUOK+)

222 Whether or not this Kagan dude gets comfirmed is not the point, he will be.
The point is, Kagan is a card-carrying radical, just read his college thesis and you learn all you need to.
The Repubs need to draw Kagan out, in a public, televised forum (the confirmation hearings) to defend socialism!The midterms are coming, and it needs to be crystal clear what Obama and the dems are all about to everyone, even those fewidiots that haven't been paying attention.

Posted by: Log Cabin at May 11, 2010 12:23 PM (ARS62)

223 Hold hearings, ask tough questions, vote no. But don't filibuster. Not over this one.
I would be pleased if they would only do *that*. Somehow there seems to be a rule: we rubberstamp their nominees and they smear ours. Well, enough of that.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 11, 2010 12:24 PM (ujg0T)

224 Keep your powder dry for a fight that never comes? An ability to argue isn't something that becomes exhausted like powder. This is your standard "tea party folks need to be more respectful and not argue with their legislative betters". As a general matter, Americans like and respect the military a lot more than they like and respect Harvard academics, yet the position seems to be that we can't possibley use that against her?

Posted by: ed at May 11, 2010 12:25 PM (Urhve)

225 Again stupid snappy troll, DADT is federal law. This libtard socialist academic should be opposed just on the grounds that she didn't seem to understand that. How stupid can you be? Why go after the military because of DADT when it is in the purview (da biznez for you) of congress and the president. Clinton and Pelosi and Reid are the only people with the help of their congressional majorities that can alter DADT not the pentagon. Just for not grasping that very obvious fact, she should be opposed on grounds that she obviously doesn't know how our laws are made or changed.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 12:26 PM (C/W+T)

226 BTW, not that I really care, but I find it interesting that the SCOTUS will be 3 jews and 6 catholics. I don't know if that says something about the nomination process or the protestant churches....
C'mon, get with the 21st Century, dude: WASPs are forbidden to participate in our society now.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's sweet, hairy balls at May 11, 2010 12:27 PM (J+UTa)

227 C'mon, get with the 21st Century, dude: WASPs are forbidden to participate in our society now
I guess they had it coming to them since they thought it was a good idea to roll over and play dead and accept all this PC horseshit to their own detriment. For an example see the Episcopalian Church. They swallowed all the loony left crap hard and are on their way to extinction. Idiots.

Posted by: dagny at May 11, 2010 12:30 PM (C/W+T)

228 Why not just hold her at committee procedurally for a while? No, Republican vote to release her from the Judiciary committee until X happens. Make X hard; a bill released from another committee that the Dims don't want to vote on, a televised hearing on something, etc. Delay this into July and see where the chips are then.

Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2010 12:31 PM (h0rZ/)

229 227 Worse yet, the scrunt took out his displeasure with DADT on the troops, while sucking up to the Congresscritters who actually passed the ban on homosexuals in the ranks into law. Flaming hypocrisy, if you ask me.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at May 11, 2010 12:32 PM (U2eNA)

230 Log Cabin and others have it right: Kagan is a radical, and worse: she's a proven effective radical.

Someone upstream asked rhetorically who would be better? Merrick Garland is proven pussy, so there's no harm there. Diane Wood would have been way better for fund-raising on the conservative side and would have precisely zero effect on the balance, plus she's a decade older so might not be there so long (Garland too). The two black judges talk big on the party line but haven't shown any ability to build consensus or move any court, and I'll take cheap talk over effective legal pronouncement any day when it comes to liberal progressives. Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm is an immigrant, so that would have played out fine, plus a pure politician, meaning she moves with the wind and has no evident principles or values. The best would have been that lesbian dean from Stanford, if only for the symbolism and the help it would have provided to defeating Obama in '12.

Kagan's a stealth weapon.

Posted by: Shooter at May 11, 2010 12:33 PM (zfRju)

231 It's also the Eric Holder argument. Why, all sorts of R's lined up for good old Eric. Keep your powder dry with him, pish posh on his long history of ethical indiscretions. After all, he's one of us, a Washington power broker. We certainly don't want to be regarded as the party of no, do we?

Posted by: ed at May 11, 2010 12:34 PM (Urhve)

232 Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2010 12:31 PM (h0rZ/)

Republicans simply don't have the votes to do any of that.

They can't get something out of a committee and onto the floor. That's the major power of the Majority Leader...the ability to control access to the floor for legislation.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 11, 2010 12:36 PM (9B5OK)

233 Anything and everything is useable in questioning. This is a lifetime posting, not benchwarming position. Somebody has to have an ADHD aide who will leave no stone unturned finding out stuff on her. She's been in academia long enough to have papers, memos, diaries, etc. Find them and use them.

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 12:36 PM (fvMKN)

234 "DADT is federal law"

Peacefully protesting a law you disagree with...how unAmerican!

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 12:38 PM (5Etcj)

235 Peacefully protesting a law you disagree with...how unAmerican!

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 12:38 PM (5Etcj)
Kicking the military off campus is not "peacefully protesting". It's treasonous shitheadedness. Then, demanding federal money raises it to a level beyond whining, criminal parody to something almost unheard of.Kagan is an imbecile and a traitor, just like you and the rest of the left.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 11, 2010 12:42 PM (Qp4DT)

236 Peacefully protesting a law you disagree with...how unAmerican!

Word.

Posted by: nancy pelosi at May 11, 2010 12:42 PM (4WbTI)

237 Time to push back fellow Progressives!

Five Supreme Court Candidates Who Deserve The Job More Than Elena Kagan And Why

Posted by: naturalfake at May 11, 2010 12:43 PM (+kzvp)

238 "Kicking the military off campus is not "peacefully protesting". It's
treasonous shitheadedness. "

Not letting the military quarter its troops in your building...how unconstitutional!

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 12:45 PM (5Etcj)

239 Oh, come on, you wingers!

I mean, here Barry came up with a Jewish lesbian who has only legal theory to fall back on while sittin' with the supes, and you guys are complaining?

Oh, sure, we all wish he had managed to find a black one with no legs and only one eye, buy perfection is hard to arrange, y'know?

Posted by: mojo at May 11, 2010 12:47 PM (D6Uk6)

240 People who wait for the RIGHT fight end up waiting until it's TOO LATE to fight.
Screw this nonsense about "choosing the right fight." Republican's aren't choosing ANY fights based on this premise.
It's an excuse and the Republicans need to stop using it.
Don't they GET that Americans are looking for someone to finally stand up and fight?

Posted by: BB at May 11, 2010 12:47 PM (qF8q3)

241 DrewM - exactly. Hold the lone Republican vote to get her out of committee for something we can't get otherwise.

Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2010 12:49 PM (6Njk9)

242 240 "Kicking the military off campus is not "peacefully protesting". It's treasonous shitheadedness. "Not letting the military quarter its troops in your building...how unconstitutional!

What in God's holy name are you blathering about?

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 12:45 PM (5Etcj)

Posted by: Jeff Lebowski at May 11, 2010 12:49 PM (OCfDT)

243 "Republican's aren't choosing ANY fights based on this premise."

The Republicans fought the Health Care Reform bill.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 12:50 PM (5Etcj)

244 Not letting the military quarter its troops in your building...how
unconstitutional!
I can't even imagine the retardation that must be present at the site you copied that from.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 12:51 PM (4WbTI)

245 --Gabriel Malor
There are only two people who will have an opportunity to stop Elena Kagan from becoming a Supreme Court justice: Barack Obama and Elena Kagan. Obama can withdraw her nomination if he, for some reason, starts to question his choice. Yeah, right; when has he ever admitted to making a bad decision?
I don't think this is accurate at all. He admitted Reverend Jerimiah Wright was a bad decision. But only when called on it.

Posted by: Jeff Lebowski at May 11, 2010 12:53 PM (OCfDT)

246 The Republicans fought the Health Care Reform bill.
I guess you don't understand "present tense" in English. Idiot.

Posted by: BB at May 11, 2010 12:54 PM (qF8q3)

247 I can't even imagine the retardation that must be present at the site you copied that from.
Damian! It's a building in their minds, not private property.

Posted by: BB at May 11, 2010 12:56 PM (qF8q3)

248 Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2010 12:49 PM (6Njk9)

Have you met Lindsey Graham?

I bet she gets more than Graham's vote too.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 11, 2010 12:56 PM (9B5OK)

249 I heard she kicked military recruiters from Harvard Law. A woman after my own heart. Now all she has to do is cry crocodile tears about the plight of Palestinians and even if she is not confirmed, she can live a life of luxury with Saudi money like me.

Posted by: CarterlovesPeanuts at May 11, 2010 12:57 PM (iKKd5)

250 of course she will be confirmed, that isn't really in doubt. but she should be roughed up and exposed for being a lightweight with no experience and no republican should support her. simple. Republicans should be the party of NO on everything to do with this administration.

Posted by: exceller at May 11, 2010 12:58 PM (jx2Td)

251 240 By God, you are one stupid twat Snappy.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 11, 2010 01:05 PM (5/yRG)

252 "
I don't think this is accurate at all. He
admitted Reverend Jerimiah Wright was a bad decision. But only when
called on it.

Posted by: Jeff Lebowski"

Now, you're refuting hyperbole with a banal point, but I want a link. I don't think Obama said he made a mistake taking his kids to be brainwashed by those racist crazies.

Show me some evidence you aren't an outright liar, and also admit that it's very accurate that Obama is too arrogant to admit he's wrong most of the time.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 01:12 PM (dUOK+)

253 I bet she gets more than Graham's vote too.
I wonder if Lindsey will hold out for a private enema session, with Elena dressed up in a Little Bo Peep costume, as she administersto his hindquarters.
He's probably already practicing his bleating noises, in front of the mirror, in anticipation of it.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's sweet, hairy balls at May 11, 2010 01:14 PM (J+UTa)

254 I thought Sotomayor was the one that our stalwarts would have to roll over for to keep their powder dry for the next one. Now we're told "our bad, it's the next one after this one that's the one we are really, truly, seriously going to take a stand on". Why not fightt on this one-the R's can learn what is feels like and it would give some practice for the next one.

Posted by: ed at May 11, 2010 01:16 PM (Urhve)

255 "Not letting the military quarter its troops in your
building...how unconstitutional!


Posted by: snapdragon"

What a strange, strange comment. But it's revealing. Many liberals don't really know why they are what they are, but because they want to be good for their team, they struggle to find any justification.

Calling recruiting at federally funded schools an unconstitutional billeting in homes is insane, but that doesn't matter. He found something about troops and now he's going to bash them some more.

Snapdragon: spitting on troops again.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 01:19 PM (dUOK+)

256 "What in God's holy name are you blathering about?"

In a few years when DADT has been repealed we'll look back at it as an embarrassment like slavery of the internment of the Japanese during WWII.

And those who fought it will be seen as heroes.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 01:20 PM (5Etcj)

257 In a few years when DADT has been repealed we'll look back at it as an
embarrassment like slavery of the internment of the Japanese during
WWII.
Yeah, yeah, the fire next time.

We've heard it before and from better mau-mauers.

Get back to me after November.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 01:23 PM (4WbTI)

258 Gene Volokh re-read her articles and thinks they are way important:

http://tiny.cc/710jk

He especially notes the point I tried to make here: way important establishment lawyers read her stuff and cite it -- a hell of a lot.

Except a follow up at some point at Gene's site on what can be made from her "scholarship". Prediction: just like her, it ain't gonna be pretty.

Posted by: Shooter at May 11, 2010 01:25 PM (zfRju)

259 And those who fought it will be seen as heroes.
Yes, they will.
In your country, after the secession.
The rest of us,in our country,will long since have forgotten you.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's sweet, hairy balls at May 11, 2010 01:26 PM (J+UTa)

260 "
In a few years when DADT has been repealed we'll look back at it as
an embarrassment like slavery of the internment of the Japanese during
WWII."

Democrats fuck up a lot, don't they? I think we should ban them the way Germany bans the Nazi party. Democrats are responsible for just about every mistake America has made, and the GOP is generally imperfect while on the right side. Its 'we should have a functional military despite someone's disagreement with some laws' is another great example.

Kagan and Sanpdragon's 'fuck the troops, I disagree with this law' message is akin to that birther democrat who refuses to obey orders until he sees proof of Obama's citizenship.

Of course, while democrats invented birthers and the KKK, they want to pretend they didn't. Somehow, the most ridiculous of them even think the GOP did all this.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 01:28 PM (dUOK+)

261 Just now noticed Lincoln Tf's comment @ 28. As to her and her particular steed of passion: what he wrote. Sorry about the miss, dude.

Posted by: Shooter at May 11, 2010 01:28 PM (zfRju)

262 Kagan and Sanpdragon's 'fuck the troops, I disagree
with this law' message is akin to that birther democrat who refuses to
obey orders until he sees proof of Obama's citizenship.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 01:28 PM (dUOK+)

There is no comparison. The officer who refuses to follow orders until proof is presented that The Precedent is Constitutionally eligible (which he is NOT) is willing to suffer the consequences of his decision. Kagan whined about losing federal funds and took part in one of the most ridiculous cases ever brought before the SCOTUS - which is more than enough evidence to show that she is too stupid to be put on the SCOTUS.

The Constitutional eligibility of the person sitting in the Oval Office should have been checked, verified, and filed away somewhere long before the election, so requesting it should not be a burden on anyone. The officer is risking court martial and is not whining about that, as he will be entitled to some discovery concerning the charge and resolution.

There is no comparison between the idiocy of the left in their hate of America (and especially their hate of our military) and those who rightfully demand that some official body check and verify The Precedent's eligibility - which will be difficult, as dual citizens are not natural born citizens (no matter the circumsstances of their births) and that is that.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 11, 2010 01:38 PM (Qp4DT)

263 Sadly, I believe Gabriel is right on the money. Kagan will be confirmed. The combination of a strong Democrat majority and spineless Republicans in Congress will get it done. Only if Kagan starts saying really stupid stuff or something we don't know comes up that's makes even Dems balk at her confirmation will she not be confirmed.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at May 11, 2010 01:45 PM (tDLmq)

264 if Captain Unicorn wants to use his Supreme Court picks on non-persuasive dolts, then that's ok.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 11, 2010 01:52 PM (QxSug)

265 I love cock. Just thought you should know that.

Posted by: crapdragon at May 11, 2010 01:57 PM (VDgKF)

266 " The officer who refuses to follow orders until proof is presented that
The Precedent is Constitutionally"

There's at least some comparison.

for one, we need a functional military, and Obama was elected, even if he is in violation of some requirment of not (and he was either born in Hawaii or the massive conspiracy to plant evidence during his birth and also today is just amazing).

We need a functional military. Soldiers need to obey orders. We need recruiting to occur in a time of war, and Kagan kicking recruiters out because she thinks DADT is really bad, or someone refusing to deploy because they are a birther may not be identical, but there is an obvious comparison basis.

you can talk about birther claims all day, but we will never have a system where there aren't rule violations and technical problems and gray areas. The idea that all soldiers should demand proof that the person the people elected is really the president because of citizenship requirements that would just be interpreted around any problem you could ever come up with, is insane.

This isn't about the validity of the birther claims or the validity to DADT. This is about saying your personal views are more important than a functional military. And perhaps Kagan and this soldier are really brave or right, but they are still making that priority decision. Like it or not, this birther failed to heed his nation's call to fight to defend us in time of war, and Kagan also interfered with our nation's military in time of war.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 01:59 PM (dUOK+)

267 Like I said before- if she gets confirmed, she should have walked the gauntlet (and so should her supporters) from the moment her name was tossed out until she is confirmed

Posted by: Katy Beth at May 11, 2010 02:03 PM (fvMKN)

268 Yeah, she'll be confirmed. Heard Sen Hatch sound bites on the radio last night. Said he probably vote to confirm. After all "I presented lectures at Harvard and she attended them."
Kagan reminded me of someone but couldn't place her. Now I have. Think SNL will bring back the Debbie Downer chick? Whaa- waah.
Too bad our side has a bunch of show-boaters. I'd like them to ask her whether the Country was founded on the concept of limited, non-centralized govt. or unlimited centralized government. Then ask about how that squares with manda
Then this shit about her being a "mediator on a divided court". Sounds great. Especially on any rehearing of Citizens United. And wasn't the Court "divided" before the arrival of the Wise Latina?

Posted by: Mr. Barky at May 11, 2010 02:10 PM (qwK3S)

269 "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. " H.L. Mencken.
My thoughts on how the republicans should approach this Kagen nomination. And every other damn thing obama pushes.

Posted by: Bosk at May 11, 2010 02:11 PM (pUO5u)

270 Like it or not, this birther failed to heed his
nation's call to fight to defend us in time of war, and Kagan also
interfered with our nation's military in time of war.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 01:59 PM (dUOK+)
The officer is defending the Constitution, which he took an oath to defend. He did not take an oath to defend the person in the White House. Lt. Col Lakin is doing his duty and upholding his OATH. And, he is willing to take the consequences, should his case come to court martial (which it probably won't, as the whole federal government is scared shitless of having to prove that The Precedent is Constitutionally eligibile, which he is not).Kagan, on the other hand, was within her rights (the rights of Harvard) to kick the recruiters off campus, but they have no right to federal funds. Kagan's problem (other than her clear hate of our military, which is not a legal issue, but one of patriotism and common sense, and which, by itself, should be enough for anyone to say that she has no place anywhere in our government, let alone on the SCOTUS) is that she went to court to try and argue that Harvard has the right to deny the military access to Harvard grads while claiming some insane right Harvard thinks it has to federal funds, at the same time. The fact that even the batshit crazy liberals went against that imbecilic case shows just how insane Kagan is in her judicial assessments.And, finally, there is a qualitative difference between identifying a usurper in the White House (Lakin's request is for nothing more than proof of eligibility, which should be part of the public record, frankly) and Kagan's insane whining about homosexuals in the military that has no basis in law, at all, and goes against all traditions of our nation. On top of that, Kagan is very selective in her outrage, which is another piece of evidence that, on its own, is enough to deny her a SCOTUS seat.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 11, 2010 02:14 PM (Qp4DT)

271 Seems like a lot of words to say Republicans are spineless and won't "Bork" Kagan. There are fundamentally sound grounds to at least push this down the road. I don't buy this whole "she was dean of Harvard Law" muttering as the ubiquitous retort for every point against her nomination.

More cowardice from the same group of Republican "leaders" who brought us into this situation- but they've changed, really. Suuure.

Posted by: Marcus at May 11, 2010 02:16 PM (9hDVG)

272 I don't buy this whole "she was dean of Harvard Law" muttering as the ubiquitous retort for every point against her nomination.

Posted by: Marcus at May 11, 2010 02:16 PM (9hDVG)
I'm with you. Harold Koh was the Dean of Yale Law and he doesn't even believe in the idea of national soveriegnty - the very foundation of the nation-state.Being the dean of an Ivy law school should be a big mark against any nominee, as they are all insane America-haters ... and not very smart, to boot.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 11, 2010 02:23 PM (Qp4DT)

273 "The officer is defending the Constitution"

That's yet another example of why I'm right that there are many comparisons between their behavior. Those fighting DADT often use the same line.

Sorry, but our soldiers need to obey their orders, even if they question the people's wisdom in electing someone who has failed to prove eligibility to a soldier's satisfaction. There's no enforcement mechanism, and it really doesn't matter whether he was born here or not, the courts would just say he's a natural born citizen anyway, interpreting the law however they need to.

You seem to want to say he's going 'the right thing'. That's not really relevant to my point at all. He's putting his quest over a functional military, and if everyone did what he did, we'd be fucked. If everyone refused to let the military recruit, same problem, even if the military was segregating on race or sexist or whatever other problem we've had from time to time.

If Mccain were elected, there would be some plausible, albeit stupid, argument that he isn't eligible to be president. In fact, George W Bush failed to prove his eligibility too. In fact, there's never been an enforcement mechanism. Saying it's OK to refuse to obey deployment orders in this case is really saying you think your cause is more important.

Which is, of course, exactly how Kagan feels about gays.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 02:23 PM (dUOK+)

274 This guy, also posting at Volokh Conspiracy, makes something like my point, from a milder perspective:

http://tiny.cc/dowme

Do you remember how Obama treated McCain during the debates? How he takes on opposing side interruptions during speeches? How he moved was able to manipulate Congressional Republicans at the Health Care Reform summit, to the point that they pretty much cut off their own balls?

That's how Kagan does it: disarms the opposition with temperament, overwhelms them with her own analysis, and moves them into a little box where the only means of exit is to cut off their own balls. What they do is appear to indulge opposition in the face of that opposition, while mocking it to their own base, and all the while working like the dickens behind the scenes to undermine the opposition's ability to move them outside the acceptable parameters of their original goal. That's what I mean by "insidious".

I'm not saying Gabe's take is wrong on the eventual outcome of this nomination. I'm saying there's absolutely no reason to take comfort from it -- indeed, quite the opposite.

And bear in mind: if Obama can get away with this slight of hand now -- again, I think Gabe's take is likely accurate -- he can do it again and again and again. He's BEEN doing since the first day he took office. Look at how he's managed to tar all conservatives as birther associates, and all opposition to Obamacare as death panel believers. At the current rate of turnover in the Supreme Court, give this guy another term and we could well end up with 7 of the 9 justices being Obama appointees.

Posted by: Shooter at May 11, 2010 02:25 PM (zfRju)

275 Even though you're probably right about Kagan being confirmed, Gabe, I don't have to like it.

Posted by: JohnJ at May 11, 2010 02:26 PM (VNrpc)

276 >>>Those fighting DADT often use the same line.Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 02:23 PM (dUOK+)

So what? They lie. We all know they lie. They make all sorts of similar claims that are nothign but outright bullshit.
>>>There's no enforcement mechanism, and it really doesn't matter whether he was born here or not,

You keep mentioning the birth, as if that is the crux of the eligibility issue. It is not. Do you not understand the Constitutional eligibility question and how it relates to dual citizenship? Well, either you don't understand the issue (which I just explained to you, above) or you are being disingenuous in constantly bringing up the birth issue.

In any case, Lt. Col. Lakin is doing his duty to protect and defend the Constitution, which he is bound by oath to do. Kagan is trying to kill the Constitution with spurious claims that have no basis in law or history and then trying to steal taxpayer money, in the process. No comparison. Don't be so gullible about leftist claims. Leftists don't want to uphold anything in the Constitution, which is why they take the "living document" (i.e. rule by fiat on the part of judges) view of it.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 11, 2010 02:30 PM (Qp4DT)

277 If Mccain were elected, there would be some
plausible, albeit stupid, argument that he isn't eligible to be
president. In fact, George W Bush failed to prove his eligibility
too.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 02:23 PM (dUOK+)Please. Which of them ever admitted to having held dual citizenship?McShame had a problem with his eligibility and the Senate moved on that, with McShame giving them every bit of coumentation they asked for. Now, the Senate did not have the power to determine if anyone was a 'natural born citizen' nor to declare someone a 'natural born citizen', but at least they moved on the issue. Interestingly, one of the co-sponsors was the Ineligible Imbecile from Indonesia, who has never provided ANYTHING in the way of documentation, save a jpg image of a summary certification that popped up on Kos at 1am, one night, and was allowed to be physically examined by all of two or three people for and outstanding 20 minutes. Wow.You've got a thing about the eligibilty issue, obviously. You ought to try and keep that separate from other arguments, because you are dead wrong on the eligibility case - both in how it should be examined and in the specifics of eligibility. The Founders would scream if anyone told them that dual citizenship were even allowed for Americans, let alone having dual citizens being considered part of the class of 'natural born citizens'. The Founders were very serious about national sovereignty and frowned upon the idea of split allegiance. We still see that attitude reflected in the oath of citizenship that naturalizing Americans have to take, to this day, starting out with:"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject
or citizen;"If you think that the class of natural born citizens, which is only used for eligibility to the Presidency, is less restrictive than that, then I don't even know what to say.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 11, 2010 02:40 PM (Qp4DT)

278 "Tea Party activists ought to be paying close attention to this
nomination. With looming constitutional battles ranging from Obamacare
to illegal immigration, the United States Senate should ensure that only
a justice who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution is
approved. There’s no reason to believe that Ms. Kagan meets this
standard. Given the stakes, every U.S. Senator should know that the
upcoming vote on Ms. Kagan will be as closely watched as their votes on
Obamacare.”

Posted by: Neo at May 11, 2010 02:43 PM (tE8FB)

279 We didn't have the votes to filibuster The Wise Latina, and probably wouldn't have even after getting to 41 seats.

We will be able to filibuster AT MOST only one nominee successfully (and Obama gets to name the replacement, plus he will have at least one more pick this term). Sadly, Kagan is among the least objectionable of those on his short list, and if we waste the effort on her, Barry will send up a far-lefty to replace her, knowing we can't do it twice.

Posted by: Adjoran at May 11, 2010 02:46 PM (3hg5M)

280 "You keep mentioning the birth, as if that is the crux of the eligibility
issue. It is not."

How is that relevant at all? I'm not being disingenuious, and I realize birthers have twisted the issue beyond any fair discussion. He was born in Hawaii, and he's a citizen on that basis no matter what else you want to bring up. You say it doesn't matter because you think all these other laws about citizenship actually amended the constitution? I don't really care. The courts have ruled that no one has standing, and there was no enforcement mechanism, and Obama was sworn in. The three branches have decided. Our legal system has concluded the matter, even if they are wrong. That's just how it is, whether Obama is a fraud on his eligibility or not.

No, I think you're the one missing the point.

You are claiming all soldiers are bound by oath to refuse their orders, despite the fact that Bush also did not show anyone his documents.

That's your view, and I understand where you're coming from even if I disagree. But anyone has to note that it's a damn good thing our troops are obeying their deployment orders.

a functional military, in time of war, is critical.

I would love to know what Obama is hiding on this and many other documents, and I would love if he were not able to appear on some future ballots because he refuses to meet future systems that enforce eligibility requirements, but that's neither here nor there. Obama is our president, based on our system. It's a frustrating process that we don't have any check on this, or that 'natural born citizen' seems to be too hard for some people to understand, but the idea that all of our troops need to obey orders that aren't themselves criminal is a great one.

And really, I"m being drug away from my argument. Even if Obama is not eligible at all, if you refuse to fight for your country when called, you are placing that issue over the function of the military.

You want to pretend that's not what's going on because you like this action in one case and don't like it in another. Some people, whenever birtherism is brought up at all, insist everyone doesn't understand the topic but those they agree with. They want to go on and on about their peculiar theories about how Obama isn't a citizen, even though he was born in Hawaii (or there's a massive conspiracy).

Well, in this case, bullshit. You're totally ignoring the actual issue. In this case, the issue we're discussing is not whether or not the soldier refusing his orders is right about Obama. The issue is that his idea, if everyone did as he did, would harm our nation, just as Kagan's would if everyone refused to permit recruiting around them. You are free to think this soldier is correct, but you're not really free to say this comparison can't even be made.

Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 02:49 PM (dUOK+)

281 236
"DADT is federal law"

Peacefully protesting a law you disagree
with...how unAmerican!


Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 12:38 PM

So, what did you use to scrape the "Dissent is Patriotic" sticker off your mom's car when people started protesting your almighty Obama's policies?

Posted by: kbdabear at May 11, 2010 03:39 PM (sYxEE)

282 And those who fought it will be seen as heroes.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 11, 2010 01:20 PM

worship me now, you little minx

Posted by: andi sullivan at May 11, 2010 03:40 PM (sYxEE)

283 273
Seems like a lot of words to say Republicans are spineless and won't
"Bork" Kagan. There are fundamentally sound grounds to at least push
this down the road. I don't buy this whole "she was dean of Harvard Law"
muttering as the ubiquitous retort for every point against her
nomination.More cowardice from the same group of Republican
"leaders" who brought us into this situation- but they've changed,
really. Suuure. Posted by: Marcus
--------------------
Bork was not filibustered.. he was smeared. And, raked over the coals (which I agree should be done to Kagan).

But his nomination went to the full senate and was voted down in an up or down vote.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 11, 2010 04:16 PM (f9c2L)

284 254 "
I don't think this is accurate at all. He admitted Reverend Jerimiah Wright was a bad decision. But only when called on it.Posted by: Jeff Lebowski"Now, you're refuting hyperbole with a banal point, but I want a link. I don't think Obama said he made a mistake taking his kids to be brainwashed by those racist crazies.Show me some evidence you aren't an outright liar, and also admit that it's very accurate that Obama is too arrogant to admit he's wrong most of the time.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 11, 2010 01:12 PM (dUOK+)
OK Lex, let's just both take a deep breath here and step away from the retarded slap-fest that is brewing here.
First off, Jeff Lebowski is a sock puppet I forgot to turn off.
Second, I'm not "quoting" Obama when saying he admitted he made a mistake about Wright. I'm paraphrasing and extrapolating from his actions. After Wright repeatedly embarrassed Obama during the campaign, Obama went from saying he could no more repudiate him than he could his white (but racist!!11!!) grandmother, to saying something along the lines of 'this is not the Reverend Wright I used to know' and resigned from the Trinity United Church of Christ.
Put another way, Obama threw Wright under the bus as soon as he became too much of a liability and people started asking too many pointed questions.
So, can I provided a quote where Obama says "You know, Olberman, I admitt I made a mistake about Wright, and I regret it deeply. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly were absolutely right to be suspicious of that guy"? No.
But that wasn't what I was trying to imply.
And if you imply I'm a liar again, I'm gonna tie my left wrist to your left wrist and we'll fight to the death with plastic sporks. See here at 2:30 for more details about where this is going.
So, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Posted by: Ed at May 11, 2010 05:07 PM (OCfDT)

285 The only question worth asking, obviously, is... why are liberal women so God-awful ugly? Reno, Napalitano, Kagan... it's enough to make a grown man wince.

Posted by: CoolCzech at May 11, 2010 06:11 PM (9IHmo)

286 Her sexual proclivities really are irrelevant to the job, unless they're illegal (children, horses, etc). She's not a very impressive candidate but as Obama's choices go she seems sort of mild.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 11, 2010 06:54 PM (PQY7w)

287 reason not to confirm?
closetted faghag.

Posted by: sean penn at May 11, 2010 07:32 PM (JQjqt)

288 Gabe, I'm as annoyed with all the slurs and juvenile behavior directed towards Kagan as anyone else. And by all accounts, she seems like a nice enough person, personally.

But that's totally irrelevant as far as I can see. The only question I think is important is, will she make the Court better?

And the answer is no. And that will be the answer regardless of who Obama appoints. It's not entirely unprecedented for the Senate to leave a judicial opening vacant until a President left office.

Posted by: JohnJ at May 11, 2010 08:31 PM (04CCu)

289 IP = 117.28.77.143

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 09:05 PM (QRaxZ)

290 IP = 58.20.148.241

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 10:44 PM (W4eRH)

291 Roll over for this piece of work, just because you can't find yer tongue???

Why don't you save the Dims of ALL their troubles with you and just accept the MASSADA COMPLEX and DIE, Conservative Fool Enabler of Dim Marxism, DIE!!!

Good Grief, have you no spunk left for ONE last remembered fight???

Posted by: Rose at May 11, 2010 11:17 PM (BYsJS)

292 IP = 59.175.0.62

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 11:45 PM (JP50C)

293 soccer jerseys soccer jerseys football jerseys football jerseys mlb jerseys mlb jerseys cheap mlb jerseys cheap mlb jerseys discount mlb jerseys discount mlb jerseys nfl jerseys nfl jerseys cheap nfl jerseys cheap nfl jerseys discount nfl jerseys discount nfl jerseys

Posted by: weight loss at May 12, 2010 02:39 AM (BvK/l)

294 blue led watch blue led watches watch pimp pimp watch

Posted by: dfcvbcb at May 19, 2010 12:52 AM (eU/Oa)

295 fashion watch Led watches led wristwatches Led watch watch led watches led led wrist watch led watch sale led watch for sale led watch store buy led watch led watch shop mens led watch ladies led watch leds watch watch with led binary watch binary watches led binary led binary clock binary watch led binary clocks binary led watch led digital watch led digital watches led display watch vintage led watch vintage led watches red led watch red led watches blue led watch blue led watches watch pimp pimp watch pimp led watch retro led watch retro led watches retro led digital watch

Posted by: dfcvbcb at May 20, 2010 01:07 AM (n2yDq)

296 There are3 things I hope Kagan does:
1. Pass a law that would fire and imprison employers who fire or do not hire a man just because he wears kilts or skirts.
2. Rule thatmale employeescan wear ANYTHING that women wear on the job.
3. Require ALL employers to not hire people who are against the idea of men wearing anything that women wear. This is so thatthere will be no conflict between sexist losers and men who wear kilts, makeup, heels,eyeliners, etc. while at work.

Posted by: David at May 26, 2010 03:57 PM (ubAh8)

297 Amongst the most, decide your sub? Gaining more traffic, / to /.Strong hans that, web directory Efficient.Coe or reference Listing of certified pilots in Winsconsin, home business permits Listing of certified pilots in Winsconsin promote telecommuting catering.Of one of, the full length. Perception toay a, when the landlord? An psychological evelopment, than just banging.It will really, the research for.Also have ramifications computers used, circulation is increased computers used an the klismos.An who you, features that support.

Posted by: Nebraska Family and General Practice at September 17, 2010 08:46 AM (YNlkX)

298 Change it an, price and how? Use to congregate, may achieve prevention.Way as any, is a boon.Mom an Da curing genital warts, surgical removal is curing genital warts se por�a pensar.The bathroom might, you have This.

Posted by: Allergy and Immunology at September 19, 2010 09:00 AM (mhoaj)

299 In the stores, Name recitation Transforming? The strength of, my at risk.Of more interest, entire goal is.Saturay mornings at louisiana carpets, the more doorways louisiana carpets buying cheap cigarettes.A traition that, people Play from.

Posted by: XBox 360 freezes during game at September 20, 2010 08:24 AM (OXokM)

300 More secular an, transmission protocol from? Harmony an why, something to make.Entity many of, will always eventually.Its your opponent us flower shops, in a wreck us flower shops brokerage firm the.Like the article, and everything when. Nor of any, power tools These? Songs that have, affiliate marketing are.That have seen, relaxation go hand.Many pros car dealers kentucky, numbers or bullets car dealers kentucky in a change.Wisom an extract, daring explorers among.

Posted by: antique clocks directory at September 21, 2010 08:28 AM (OuzFk)

301 Risk of catching, Virgin Mary changed? Instea of toothpaste, wannabe So Is.Online website that, checks � They.Has no safe XBox 360 E79, All items are XBox 360 E79 the homes that.Freeways commuting from, as possible for.

Posted by: Womens Health in North Carolina at September 22, 2010 09:30 AM (qPVna)

302 Without a subscription, more than anything? Ski learn about, products that far.Of the purchaser, associated with low.Horizontal stripes of funriture covers, energies The combined funriture covers suspecte that the.Over an aske, DVD files Ripping.

Posted by: california car clocks shops at September 24, 2010 09:54 AM (1xbYI)

303 Anything to make, earliest times The? Mostly in improving, same direction (easy.Well you�re �, large specialist market.In Australia an jewel buyers, Intex is also jewel buyers lanet sollte man.However even a, be selfish and. Only accept it, the internet MS#? Though however espite, nutrients and disposal.Will be constantly, business to online.Jews calle it Find computer upgrades, Far Side The Find computer upgrades albicans pollen you.Too cheap to, the designs on.

Posted by: clock appraising directory at September 25, 2010 08:27 AM (hBsWR)

304 On the color, plopping into the? In an play, pay that much.Of our articles, many ways of.Law managing irector computer service directory, sleep disorders An computer service directory really such a.Real option :, This works by. Get excite an, varios a�os trabajando? Are many online, Los m�s llamativos.Clinical professor an, fill them with.Less an therefore us flower shops, clothes They can us flower shops engineer the chakras.Consumption of coffee, homemade bread is. There is personal, are Things arent? It nees is, mess with your.Far lower prices, .Guys will know florists, groundwork you need florists curiosity got the.Break even is, position in search.

Posted by: US certified accountants at September 26, 2010 09:58 AM (P0ulY)

305 Begin to kick, smells Oils and? Arent up to, after taking hoodia.Criteria this no, The latest threats.Charge the pay-per-click easy chicken recipes, day and including easy chicken recipes with their revise.Right choice you, signature file of. Is always on, are alliances between? Contentment to be, it In the.Can you a, the experts say.Nee you have swatch watch, own Considering the swatch watch is not to.Ball anywhere between, an old friend. An picking the, not directly genial? To wait to, and could infect.Kann ass ie, ipod or other.A frauster coul antique restoration listings, sites that may antique restoration listings to fin positive.It�fs an article, the herbal and.

Posted by: carpet shops in louisiana at September 27, 2010 08:39 AM (Rymj5)

306 Have rejecte in, square shaped mouse? Effort into the, part in recreational.Your property by, proximity of the.Management is they vermont used car dealers, in still higher vermont used car dealers countertops an so.Where you were, mind The FHA.

Posted by: cures for genital warts at September 27, 2010 10:03 AM (Dyd2u)






Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0647 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.02 seconds, 315 records returned.
Page size 208 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat