(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
lotowner
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2010 8:16:45 AM
|
What about the pressure from an anonymous White House staffer for CBS News to retract some statements made about Elena Kagan, Obama's pick for the Supreme Court? This was discussed openly in an article by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer.
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2010 6:21:46 PM
|
-Geeeeez Lot, lately you've been posting a lot !
- OK, most of your posts are interesting questions. ...like this one.
-My take would be the WH is out-of-line pressuring CBS to "retract" that part of its story.
-However, I would be fine with teh WH "criticizing" CBS for printing something untrue, or suggesting something was true by innuendo, if it were untrue in fact.
-In this day, let kagan speak for herself. ANyone accepting the nomination for supreme court justice should expect that their sexual preferences, as well as their favorite colors, will be topics open for question. With Sotomayor the question was would her latinoness effect her views on issues effecting latinos and other minorities. If Kagan is gay, then it is equally fair I suppose that the question will be will her gayness effect her views on issues effecting gays.
-Geeeez, teh dems are the rainbow party, why can't they talk about being gay.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2010 7:56:23 PM
|
I would think that they would be far more interested in the fact that she has no judicial experience than her sexual preference.
I don't think it is that unusual for the WH to try to carefully craft the image of their SC nominee.
Frankly, I don't know what I think about her. I suspect that there are a lot of well qualified women on the bench. I don't like it when they try to stack the SC based on certain gender or age or political leaning. I'd rather they just look for the best qualified candidate.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2010 9:09:46 PM
|
wow ... couldn't agree more.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2010 11:18:24 PM
|
Since all justices are supposed to interpret the constitution, I don't feel that her sexual orientation should ne an issue. This issue was raised because WSJ had a picture of her playing softball. Give me a BREAK. Are baseball players who adjust their jock straps at home plate on TV gay? How about a coach who slaps a guy on the butt for a job well done?
What is more surprising to me is if she is affirmed the make up of the court will be 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. The fact is that most decisions on the current court with her as a justice will come down to how Kennedy votes. However, with that said, she is not on the far left and her vote is not a guarantee on all liberal leaning issues. As the choice of nominee is the President’s, I would suggest she is closer to the middle than one would have expected from the Messiah. Her lack of judicial experience is more disappointing.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2010 11:51:13 AM
|
The interesting aspect about your question is the number of judges from the northeast who were appointed by Clinton and Bush 43, both from the south. Maybe, the perception is that a conservative judge from the south or southwest would be perceived to be too far to the right and would not be affirmed.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2010 3:15:58 PM
|
I frankly don't think her being confirmed is going to change the balance of the court. She is replacing a consistently "liberal" vote on the court with what I am sure will be a consistently "liberal" vote.
I do find all this posturing of her as some sort of centrist or more conservative than you would have expected or whatever to be comical. That view is based on what, she has conservative friends?!?!? She has almost no record by which to examine her judicial philosophy. She is wildly unpublished for a SCOTUS nominee, she has never been a judge, etc. What record does exist and her actions at Harvard in my view places her squarely in the liberal category. I frankly believe she was chosen by the president for a couple of key reasons: 1) she is a fellow traveler with him vis-a-vis an activist court; and 2) she has no record upon which to oppose her other than the usual ancillary statements and writings that confirm her to be a leftist.
Her sexual orientation is only relevant is she believes that the role of the court is to create new rights applicable to the gay community regardless of the constitutional merits. Otherwise who cares. And I think the picture in the WSJ being portrayed as an implication that she is a lesbian is some sort of joke.
I do find the composition of the court vis-a-vis Catholics and Jews and the incredible bias toward ivy league schools Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. to be much more interesting. I don't really have any specific comment other than to say I don't care much about their religion but I would love to see a member of the court come from somewhere other than that pedigree. But lets face it, for most of our adult lives most of our Presidents have been ivy league graduates themselves (except Reagan and Carter). Both Bush's, Clinton and Obama are ivy league grads and they are predisposed to pick from those schools. I need to get in there so we can have a justice from the University of Dayton. That would be interesting.
Final thought on her lack of judicial experience. The only reason that concerns me is just an inability to examine her true temperament and how she views the role of the courts in the interpretation of laws as opposed to legislation from the bench. William Renquist likewise had no prior judicial experience and from my worldview was a great Chief Justice. So I am not going to oppose her on that issue. She will be confirmed unless the administration did not do their homework and there is some smoking gun bombshell that gets uncovered, like she voted for Reagan twice or Roe v Wade must be overturned or worse yet, she drives and SUV.....absent that she is a shoo-in (after the usual posturing and red meat throwing to score political points).
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2010 5:00:38 PM
|
+1 I agree with you Hound.
Every President is going to pick nominees that meet their ideas of a good candidate but unfortunately it seems like these days we are trying to find someone that also meets some other irrelevant criteria. From what I had heard Kagan was Obama's first choice for the first opening but he got the full court press (pun intended) to pick a hispanic and hence we got Sotomayor.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Supreme Court Nominee
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2010 7:49:02 PM
|
That's a really interesting observation about the court -- I really never thought about it, but you are right.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
