Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

T She's let it be known that her agenda is anti-American rights.

---

Ok, show us where you found that info and show us what anti-american rights are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Also, this woman is a Jew and would definitely follow a pro-Israeli agenda.

---

Hello again, twink:

So, do we have to worry about Scalia following a pro-Italian agenda? Besides, I thought you wingers WERE pro Israel.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Besides, I thought you wingers WERE pro Israel.

---

Which makes me wonder why Dems get the Jewish vote. Anyway, CBS has confirmed Kagan is a liberal. I think they were pretty worried she wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

CBS has confirmed Kagan is a liberal

---

Hello again, Steve:

Whewee!

excon

Yeah, you were pretty worried, too, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yeah, you were pretty worried, too, eh?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Sure. Why not? You got your Scalia's, and Alito's. You got your Robertson's, and your Thomas's. The rest are in the middle. Why shouldn't the left have one?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

The rest are in the middle. Why shouldn't the left have one?

---

I haven't been critical yet have I? Have you seen me throwing a fit yet? Nope, I've been pretty quiet. I don't figure it will change much with her replacing Stevens. But where exactly is your middle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

But where exactly is your middle?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Let me see, without doing a lot of research, the middle was making its presence felt when it sided with the right by approving, NSA wire tapping, rendition, unlimited detention, military tribunals, and the Bush grab for executive power, just to name a few.

excon

Quote:

---

CBS has confirmed Kagan is a liberal.

---

I'm shocked !

My bet is that when questioned she will say that she was working on behalf of Marshall and was writing briefs that reflected his judicial philosophy .

What is more interesting to me is Kagan papers in the Clintoon library. I keep on hearing conflicting reports that the President wants to invoke executive privilige on these .

No doubt some of them could conceivably implicate Bubba in something tawdry... and for that reason the President would invoke it as a courtesy to the Clintonoids (some of them working in the White House today ). But with a dirth of available material otherwise available to determine her philosophy ;unless there was something they don't want revealed about Kagan; they should be proud to release the documents.

"The Bork hearings were the best thing that ever happened to Constitutional Democracy.”

What??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What????

---

Hello Steve:

Surprise, surprise - she's believes in the checks and balances the founders envisioned.

excon

So now the "politics of personal destruction " and the demonization so despised by the Dems is "checks and balances". No doubt Kagan will not object to similar treatment during her hearings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so now the "politics of personal destruction " and the demonization...

---

You mean like on Fox News? Everyday?

[QUOTE=NeedKarma;2404992]You mean like on Fox News? Everyday?/QUOTE]

Bet you've never watched MSNBC have you?

Quote:

---

You mean like on Fox News? Everyday?

---

Not really . The press role is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

What I meant was the smear campaign by the Senators charged by our Constitution with the advise and consent role .Wat I meant was the diatribe that Sen Swimmer did when the Bork nomination was announced ;and the continued slanders and character assassination the Senator and his cronies pursued throughout the nomination process.

What we have had since is gun-shy nominees being less than candid about their judicial philosophy ,afraid to subject themselves to similar abuse .And that undermines the process the Founders envisioned .

Actually the Bork hearings weren't the worse . The Senate Dems went to new lows that I doubt will ever be matched when Clarence Thomas was nominated.

But that's just the way your politics works in your country - there is really no examples of civil politics is there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so now the "politics of personal destruction " and the demonization so despised by the Dems is "checks and balances".

---

Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, I ain't a dem.

excon

Quote:

---

But that's just the way your politics works in your country - there is really no examples of civil politics is there?

---

I do not recall a similar smear campaign of a SCOTUS nominee prior to the Bork hearings. The only thing close to that I can recall was the Abe Fortes fillibuster when Johnson wanted to elevate him from associate justice to Chief Justice . But that was a civil process and the determining factor was neither his judicial philosophy ,nor a concocted smear. The issue was that as a sitting justice to SCOTUS he regularly attended Johnson staff meetings . He also was double dipping ,getting a stipend for teaching summer college courses at American University .

There have been plenty of examples where the Senate denied a nomination ;or the President withdrew them under pressure . But the Bork hearing was the turning point when the politics of nomination became personal.

Lindsey Graham said 'elections have consequences' when he voted with the majority to move the Kagan nomination out of committee.

I wonder if the people of South Carolina got what they voted for when he voted for a liberal SCOTUS appointee. I bet they think they didn't .