Elena Kagan:
"I loved what happened in the Bork hearings!"
Printable View
Elena Kagan:
"I loved what happened in the Bork hearings!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
I couldn't agree with her more. Robert Bork got exactly what he deserved. Aside from Ms. Myers, he was the worst SCOTUS nominee ever.
Right. Begging for a Borking because she's sooo like Bork. That's the problem with hate speech; it makes no sense. Bork upheld the poll tax and said he wanted to negate a lot of the civil rights legislation of the Burger and Warren courts. He sounded like a real John Birchite. Oh, and we already have too many justices on the SCOTUS who think there is no constitutional right to privacy.
More rightwing propaganda that repeats there is no difference between Republican and Democrat. ID is just as valid as evolution. And if we would just let the rich people do whatever they want to make money, some of the crumbs will fall off the table to the little people.
So then you'd agree that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should also attempt to subpoena Kagan’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, with the hope that they will get leaked to the press anyway when the subpoena is denied? The focus should be on the nominee's judicial philosophy rather than their private life, but that's not what happened to Judge Bork. Hopefully Elena Kagan's words won't come back to haunt her.Quote:
Robert Bork got exactly what he deserved.
I'd recommend reading her Princeton Thesis to get a glimpse on how she thinks.
Sadly, Princeton University yanked it from public domain and will not release it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
Let me repeat it again, Bork got EXACTLY what he deserved. One of the worst nominees EVER.
Mikeg:
Since you obviously didn't read and/or comprehend my post, tell us what judicial stances Bork took that would have benefited the people of the U.S..
maxx, what's to comprehend? It's obvious from your rant about Robert Bork that you want to go off-topic [[along with ferntruth).
The topic is about the process used by the Senate to confirm the nominee to the SCOTUS - specifically Elena Kagan's statement that she "loved what happened" during the hearings when Bork was nominated [[a.k.a "Borking").
Do you think she would love it if within the first hour after President Obama announced her as his choice to fill the SCOTUS opening, a US Senator took to the floor and said, "I oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to reject it. Elena Kagan's America is a land in which no fetus' skull is safe from the crushing forceps of the partial-birth abortionist, a land where the federal judiciary molds the laws of the legislative branch to achieve selective social ends........."
Do you think she would love it if during the upcoming hearings, Senators probed into details of her private life instead of focusing on her judicial philosophy?
That old video clip of her defending the process used against Robert Bork reveals a certain lack of respect for the proper advise and consent role of the Senate in confirming SCOTUS nominees and tacit approval of the "politics of personal destruction".
SO you think any candidate to the SCOTUS should be confirmed because a president nominated him? Even Bork who, it appears, you can find nothing good to say about? Or maybe you were upset by the amount of public attention his nomination got? Things are sooo much easier for the right when people are not paying attention to what is going on in Washington.
Sounds like she's begging for something that belongs behind closed bedroom doors. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
There's nothing funny about the prospect of a Bork on the Supreme Court. Or is the rolling back of civil rights legislation and privacy rights OK with you?
In case there are any cheapskates like me out there who do not have cable, they are broadcasting Kagan's nomination hearings on PBS Channel 56.2
Don't sell yourself short. Some people wisely don't pay for 100+ channels they don't even watch because they don't watch much TV in the first place. I hardly watch any in the summer time. In my opinion, being forced to watch advertisements is my payment to the networks for watching TV periodically here and there, just like the old days!Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
Let's see, I've had no cable for over 15 years now, times say $50/month = $9000 extra that I've banked for myself over the years.
Oh yeah, maxx, everything about the word "bork" is funny. Bork, borking, borked, borker...funny stuff
^So true. I never could figure that out about cable: you pay for it, but you still have to watch all the commercials anyway. And forget about getting current weather from the "Weather" Channel. I hope they bring back Channel 7.3
Now back to your regularly scheduled political slug fest...
First of all, I thought the Swedish chef said, "Mork!"Quote:
Johnsmith:
Oh yeah, maxx, everything about the word "bork" is funny. Bork, borking, borked, borker...funny stuff
Secondly, there was nothing funny about the man Bork.
Is Borking the same thing as being "Thomasized"??
Or should that be Gomorreated?? :eek:
[[Retroit... do your channels 56.1, 56.2 and 56.3 ever switch over to 43.1, 43.2 and 43.3... thus requiring a reprogramming of the digital box?? I hate that!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slouching_Towards_Gomorrah
"Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline is a 1996 book by former United States Court of Appeals judge Robert H. Bork. Bork's thesis in the book is that American and more generally Western culture is in a state of decline and that the cause of this decline is modern liberalism and the rise of the New Left. Specifically, he attacks modern liberalism for what he describes as its dual emphases on radical egalitarianism and radical individualism..."
[What is radical egalitarianism?] What can be more radically egalitarian than insisting that the fetus has the same rights as the woman carrying it?