KAGAN THE PAGAN

Want to try posting again with the caps lock off, so that people might actually read it?

If it bothers you, divadiver, OK, we are entitled to our opinions, so far I see no reason why she should not be confirmed. We'll see how she turns out as a Supreme Court Justice.

Ms. Kagan reportedly called Israel's Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak a "judicial hero'' who has "best advanced the values of democracy."

Barak pushed "the belief that the court can intervene in any issue, including budget, foreign affairs, and security, which is opposite of what existed in the past…. They took powers which were not really in their hands," says Avraham Diskin, a professor of political science at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who argues that the justice turned Israeli jurisprudence on its head.

"The degree of activism of Barak is such that he ruined the rule of law in Israel. When you go to court, nothing is clear. It’s a gamble."

Yeah, but how well does she dance?

Really Divadiver, just take that shit elsewhere. I am here to be entertained and aroused.

I could care less why you are here

And your point is....?

I dont care if she is a jew. This is why I am against her: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010…

vm,

I can see no reason she should be confirmed. Sort of amazing how different two can "see" the same thing. But, I still agree with you on MG!!!

Divadiver, I'm Jewish myself.

First, this isn't a political forum.

Second, please, caps off. Thanks.

Third, your argument is weak, and the point is moot anyway (liberal replacing a liberal).

AS DEMEANING AND SELF-LOATHING AS KAGAN’S TYPE OF PERSONALITY IS, IT CAN HAVE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LAW AND HUMAN LIVES AS WELL. TAKE THE CASE TODAY OF JUDGE DENNIS G. JACOBS. JACOBS IS CHIEF JUDGE OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT CORT OF APPEALS, APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH. HE GRADUATED FROM QUEENS COLLEGE WHERE HE LATER LECTURED IN THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT. THEN IN 1973, HE GRADUATED FROM NYU LAW. JACOBS ALSO ONCE WROTE THIS IN AN ARTICLE: IN OUR COURTS, JUDGES ARE LAWYERS … MOST OF US HAVE NEVER BEEN, NOR WANT TO BE, ANYTHING ELSE. WE ARE PROUD OF BEING LAWYERS. FOR MANY OF US (LIKE MYSELF), LAWYERING IS OUR ONLY TALENT (ASSUMING WE HAVE ANY TALENT AT ALL), AND IT IS THE SOURCE OF AS MUCH ESTEEM AS WE ENJOY.

DOES THAT SOUND FUNNY TO YOU? BECAUSE IT’S NOT. IT’S DISGUSTING. BECAUSE TODAY, THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE, JACOBS, JUST THREW OUT A DEATH SENTENCE AGAINST A DOUBLE COP KILLER FOR REASONS ONLY LAWYERS CAN UNDERSTAND. THE KILLER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF EXECUTING TWO COPS IN AN UNDERCOVER OPERATION. HE WAS GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY IN 2003. YET THIS JUDGE JACOBS THREW OUT THE DEATH SENTENCE TODAY BECAUSE HE CLAIMED THAT PROSECUTORS VIOLATED THE COP KILLER’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY STATING THE COP KILLER WASN’T REMORSEFUL. IT’S AN INSANE TECHNICALITY THAT ONLY A LAWYER COULD UNDERSTAND AND ONLY AN NYU LAW GRADUATE COULD ACCEPT.

THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THAT PAGAN-LIKE JUDGES CAN HAVE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES INDEED. KAGAN IS UNQUALIFIED AT ANY WEIGHT. SHE SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED, SHE SHOULD BE FILIBUSTERED. IF WE HAD A REAL TWO-PARTY SYSTEM SHE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED.

Hey Divadiver - this all-caps crap has got to go! Where is your head, man?

Hey Winorhino - great post, man. Let's see Kagan on a pole or on somebody's (not me though!) lap. As long as you keep that gorgeous big titted blonde as your Avatar, I'm on your side.

Who cares what the heck subject is brought up on this board anyway? My motto is, "read what I like, ignore the rest."

Don't worry, be happy.

Every stripper at most clubs is more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than is Kagan.

There's the topicality! ;)

^
LOL.. funny but sadly true!

Clubber, that's cool. One of the great things about our great country and for those of us who have been fortunate to travel to other countries) we've had the opportunity to see how good our country is compared to much of the world. I'll defend your right to free speech as I hope others would defend mine. Doubtless, there are troubling aspects to any pending appointee to the Supreme Court, but let's see how the process works out. Justices, historically alter the course of this nation's law, I, for one, think she'll do well. If she isn't appointed, oh well, there's always the next one, and the next one, and the next one. . . .

vm,

Here is the problem with your statement. Justices have no authority to "alter the course of this nation's law", but rather decide is a law from Congress, Constitutional. Nothing more. I guess that can sort of be considered altering law.

My major problem with the judges is when they alter the Constitution. They are very good at doing just that!

Clubber wake up and and say what you mean (I have no idea what you mean.) The fact is, no Supreme Court Justice has EVER altered a single word of the constitution. That can be done only through the amending process which is spelled out very clearly in the constitution itself.

Supreme Court Justices DO, however, alter the way the nation goes about doing its business. Two great examples (whether you like them or not) were the rulings which (1) ended segregated schools, and (2) legalized abortion. The constitution contained not one word about either subject, and still doesn't. But Supreme Court ruled on both, changing "the norm" which pleased some folks and pissed off others.

arbeeguy, your post is interesting and salient. The examples you gave and others like them could be considered "activism from the bench." Many would prefer the amendment process be used to enact such "constitutional findings." Because, as you noted, the constitution is mute on certain issues, but we have a process to update it. That process does not include 5 robed people declaring new things about the constitution...

What's the aversion to all caps? I know it's supposed to equate to shouting but sometimes I find all caps easier to read.

geez, we get rid of one clown who had to always rant and rave about politics, now we pick up another one? there goes the neighborhood.....

Is Kagan a lesbian?

yup

ag,

Never altered the Constitution??? Perhaps not the words, but without a doubt, the intent! Of course I am sure you never read the Federalist papers.

how,

The Constitution is not "mute" on anything. Amendment X addresses everything. I'll paraphrase, If it ain't in the Constitution, it ain't the feds business!

Dr Darby's diagnosis of OP(based on the psychoanalytical techniques perfected by Dr. Moe Howard, Dr.Erwin Corey, and Dr.Vinnie-Boom-Bah):

Yoda avatar = mouth-breathing nerd
Use of caps = insecure wanker
Off topic posts = thrown out of Tea Party blogs for being a douche
Reactionary anti-Semitic ravings = closet homosexual in denial
Emotional response to criticism = still lives in mom's basement

Conclusion: Troll--do not feed! Ignore!

The esteemed Professor Ludwig Von Drake adds:

"Dis one iz clearly sccccrewy in hiz head, like dat nut job Himmler and hiz leg-humping Schnauzer, Adolf."

This bitch Kagan said the character smearing of Bork was great.

This bitch Kagan must be filibustered, or the Republicrats have NO BALLS


Consider a leering Democratic senator grilling Madison in 2010 on his views concerning the current mainstream theory of “a living Constitution,” which requires that the Constitution be viewed in the context of today’s events. Being an honest man, Madison would have to repeat what he said whilst he was alive: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

Oh dear, that puts Madison dangerously outside the current mainstream.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!