2 liberals replacing 2 liberals

4/9/2010 4:54:20 PM

^^You copy that from wikipedia?

4/9/2010 4:57:41 PM

^yeah i said that in the post

Quote :

"I guess there were some non black slaves. Therefore your entire point is correct."

not just slaves either

Quote :

"three fifths of all other Persons. "

4/9/2010 7:51:20 PM

Obama will get 4 or 5 by the time he leaves office in 2017.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 8:41 PM. Reason : 2017]

4/9/2010 8:40:50 PM

That's some bold speculation.

4/10/2010 1:39:44 PM

^ i think it was a thinly veiled assassination threat

4/10/2010 1:42:09 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/11/supreme.court.senate/index.html

Quote :

"Committee chairman Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, called the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court the most activist he had seen, while ranking Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama wouldn't rule out a filibuster if Obama nominates someone the GOP perceives to be a liberal activist."

Given that recent, infamous, narrowly passed, conservative SCOTUS decision on campaign financing that went against precedent, I think the whole "activist" insult being thrown around is kind of silly, and they should focus on qualifications.

By default the GOP consider liberal to mean activist, so short of moving the court to an even more conservative position, the filibuster option will be on the table. Which I kind of hope they keep threatening it, I mean at this point I think that strategy of threatening to filibuster, block, or obstruct everything is backfiring on them.

4/11/2010 12:26:58 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/wh-gops-recent-obstruction-liberating-for-obama-to-make-supreme-court-choice-without-bending-to-repu.php

Quote :

"White House: Obama Won't Make Cautious Court Pick Because GOP Will Oppose Whoever He Nominates President Obama thinks Republicans will engage in a full battle over his Supreme Court nominee regardless of the person's ideological leanings, and in some ways "that realization is liberating for the president" to choose whomever he pleases, an administration official told TPMDC. In comments that are at odds with the conventional wisdom about what Obama needs to do to make sure the Senate confirms his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens, a White House official involved in the confirmation process tells TPMDC that the President isn't taking a cautious approach to selecting a nominee. Despite having one less Democrat in the Senate than when Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed last year, the administration isn't limiting itself to reviewing only centrist candidates for the court vacancy, the official said. "It doesn't matter who he chooses, there is going to be a big 'ol fight over it. So he doesn't have to get sidetracked by those sorts of concerns," the official told me. The GOP has attempted to obstruct "anything of consequence" put forth by the Obama administration since he took office, the official said. "The president is making this decision with a pretty clear view that whoever he chooses is going to provoke a strong reaction on the right," the official added."

4/20/2010 4:13:21 PM

^^ considering the recent decision was correct, idk what point you're trying to make.

4/20/2010 4:41:38 PM

Just gonna head u off before you copy paste that retarded "hurf durf companies can run for office!!!" bullshit as thats not what the ruling said. No matter how many times you read it from wherever you get your talkingpoints and official democratic strategy press releases, its not true. Nor does it do anything other that make you sound like a fucking idiot child.

The ruling was that members of a group do not lose their individual rights when they form a group. In this case meaning that individuals maintain the unrestricted right to free speech that they hold as individuals. The limiting of individuals speech because you dont approve of their associations is unconstitutional.

Its esepcially hilarious considering if anything would come of the change at all, it would be that campaign advertisement would become more transparent. Instead of the limitations forcing groups to launder money through non-profits, they could instead just come out with their statements.


[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM. Reason : a]

4/20/2010 5:13:42 PM

^ "Sarah Palin 2010, brought to you by Blackwater, Goldman Sachs and Halliburton!"

You see, nothing screams "transparency" like a millisecond of microdot text on your TV screen.

4/20/2010 5:28:09 PM

So you're seriously retarded enough to think they weren't the ones already financing that shit?

4/20/2010 5:31:08 PM

I'm not that retarded, no. But I question your belief that this adds any transparency to the process. Companies are going to curry favor with the winners, not the ideologues. I don't see there being any value to the majority of the large donor companies wanting to state publicly that they support X, Y, or Z candidate.

4/20/2010 5:36:31 PM

President Obama met Wednesday with Vice President Joe Biden and Senate leaders from both
parties to discuss a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. (PHOTO
CREDIT: Getty Images)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/21/obama-meets-with-congressional-leaders-to-discuss-supreme-court-vacancy/?fbid=CeukDESvFZn

Quote :

"President Obama met Wednesday with Senate leaders from both parties to discuss a replacement for retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. The president welcomed Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada; Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky; Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont; and the Judiciary panel's ranking Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, to the White House meeting. Vice President Joe Biden also attended."

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2010 2:31:06 PM

Quote :

"I'm not that retarded, no. But I question your belief that this adds any transparency to the process. Companies are going to curry favor with the winners, not the ideologues. I don't see there being any value to the majority of the large donor companies wanting to state publicly that they support X, Y, or Z candidate."

I dont disagree, I think its far more likely that companies will continue to funnel funds through non-profits like they do now, to avoid endorsing potentially emarrasing candidates. Making the entire argument about hurf durf companies paying all this money for ads completely moot. In reality nothing will probably change at all because of the ruling, except for the remote possibility that one particular company that directly endorses a candidate can now spend more money on that candidate.

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM. Reason : a]

4/22/2010 2:45:01 PM

DIE SCALIA DIE!

4/23/2010 11:36:57 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6490DU20100510

Elena Kagan is the nominee

5/9/2010 10:40:05 PM

The prevailing strategy is clear. Nominations are to be as young as possible and have as small a "paper trail" as possible. This has been true for Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and now Kagan.

5/10/2010 8:32:30 AM

assuming she gets confirmed, will this be the first Supreme Court with zero Protestants?

5/10/2010 9:44:47 AM

i haven't been to golo today, but have they started solely focusing on her face yet?

[Edited on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM. Reason : yet yet]

5/10/2010 10:13:13 AM

The Supreme Court will finally be unanimous on one thing...everyone on it is either from Harvard or Yale.

Yeah for diversity!

5/10/2010 10:19:47 AM

!

AND THEY'RE ALL HUMAN TOO!

SEND FORTH JUDGETRON 3000

5/10/2010 10:35:02 AM

Quote :

"assuming she gets confirmed, will this be the first Supreme Court with zero Protestants? "

Not to sound like a Bigot or an angry WASP, but Obama supports "diversity" and a supreme court should be representative of the
people within our society. How is picking another jewish woman, making the court effectively void of any justices practicing
the nation's most prevalent religion, support diversity and representative government??

Besides this is one ugly bitch!

Quote :

"everyone on it is either from Harvard or Yale. Yeah for diversity! "

True also. She also only has very very minor practical law experience.



Woof!

5/10/2010 11:28:32 AM

I love how the right is all concerned about diversity as a qualification, when it's THEIR group that's not being represented... LOL what happened to "best person in the COUNTRY for the job...?"

I bet this was intentional on the admin's part.

5/10/2010 11:32:16 AM

I am not "the right" and please provide evidence that she is the Best Candidate for teh Job. I believe Mrs. Sotomayor had more qualifications then Kagan, and I think Sotomayor edged out candidates with better or equal resume's simply for the fact that she was a hispanic female which for better or worse adds to the "diversity" of the court. Kagan I can not say the same for.

5/10/2010 12:01:40 PM

I mean, she's no Harriet Miers or anything. But I think she'll do.

5/10/2010 12:09:44 PM

My theory is that she's being nominated just so the Supreme Court has a ringer for the softball tournament.

5/10/2010 12:39:59 PM

hahaha

I don't want a representative slice of the population. The average American is borderline retarded.


but I'm pretty sure that I'll loathe this broad.

5/10/2010 1:08:06 PM

Kagan is Obama's Harriet Miers.
Meirs was criticized as being too inexperienced and just a crony of Bush. Kagan is just as inexperienced and also a crony of Obama. If Harriet Miers wasn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court...than neither is Elene Kagan.

5/10/2010 10:50:02 PM

You tell 'em!!!!1

5/10/2010 11:03:58 PM

Okay, I haven't heard enough to know all of Kagan's qualifications, but somehow I think that Dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General of the United States trumps Chairman of the State Lottery Commission and Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff.

5/10/2010 11:24:23 PM

She's already been confirmed (to be Solicitor General) once with a smattering of Republican support.

5/11/2010 9:16:08 AM

for fun

here's the old harriet miers threads

message_topic.aspx?topic=354820
message_topic.aspx?topic=358289
message_topic.aspx?topic=360741

john roberts

message_topic.aspx?topic=334693
message_topic.aspx?topic=340777
message_topic.aspx?topic=349186

tried to find sonia sotomayor, but i couldn't come up with anything... i searched her name, justice, supreme, hispanic and latina... but there's a chance i could have missed it

it must have been buried in some other obama thread

5/11/2010 9:42:05 AM

I understand that ripping up the constitution is part of the progressive agenda, which makes Kagan a perfect candidate. It's extremely important that she not get the nomination. It's too difficult to undo the damage caused by an appointment like this.

6/30/2010 4:42:39 PM

I keep waiting for Sotomayor to turn into the left's Souter.

6/30/2010 4:54:58 PM

^^ ad hom, and childish.

6/30/2010 5:02:44 PM

Quote :

"“Did you write that memo?” Hatch asked. “Senator, with respect,” Kagan began, “I don’t think that that’s what happened — ” “Did you write that memo?” “I’m sorry — the memo which is?” “The memo that caused them to go back to the language of ‘medically necessary,’ which was the big issue to begin with — ” “Yes, well, I’ve seen the document — ” “But did you write it?” “The document is certainly in my handwriting.”"

Classic answer. She should get extra bonus points for this evasion.

7/1/2010 12:21:28 AM

OH THE HORROR

7/1/2010 1:39:16 AM

She's doing her best to make sure no one knows anything about what she believes. I don't see how Obama, having access to pretty much anyone, thought Kagan was the best choice.

Quote :

"ad hom, and childish."

Whatever. Progressives really don't give a fuck about the constitution, and I'm not sure why they're so afraid to admit it. Kagan is very clearly, based on the things that she's said and written, one of these progressives. The job of a justice is to uphold the constitution. Ginsberg failed miserably at that. Kagan will follow in her footsteps.

7/1/2010 1:45:10 AM

Stevens, rather, though the same is true for Ginsburg.

7/1/2010 2:16:13 AM

... because just what the country needs is another Alito or Scalia on the bench, right? "The job of a justice is to uphold the constitution" is just conserva-code for "abortion is bad, mkay."

7/1/2010 7:28:12 AM

Quote :

"... because just what the country needs is another Alito or Scalia on the bench, right? "The job of a justice is to uphold the constitution" is just conserva-code for "abortion is bad, mkay.""

bullshit dude.

can we just all stop with the abortion ridiculousness? if you support or dislike a Justice over their stance on abortion you have a serious mental problem and zero sense of what is important.

Justices should not be right or left. they should be non-activists and should interpret the constitution. period. it is supremely unclear if this broad or Sotomayor can do this.

7/1/2010 7:35:38 AM

The problem with saying that all they need to do is "interpret the Constitution" is that even that question has its own complexities. Strict-constructionist, etc.?

Also, I used abortion merely as an example, because it's been subject to a lot of hand-wringing and second-guessing over the years since Roe v. Wade. I could have picked other things, but it was just what came to mind first.

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 7:51 AM. Reason : does d357r0y3r think he's Paul Revere? the liberals are coming, the liberals are coming!]

7/1/2010 7:51:06 AM

They should do away with these useless and expensive Senate confirmation charades on Supreme Court judges. Why pay Al Franken to doodle?

7/1/2010 11:47:33 AM

Quote :

"... because just what the country needs is another Alito or Scalia on the bench, right? "The job of a justice is to uphold the constitution" is just conserva-code for "abortion is bad, mkay.""

I would reconsider that. There's a night and day difference between "the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate abortion" and "abortion is bad."

Quote :

"The problem with saying that all they need to do is "interpret the Constitution" is that even that question has its own complexities. Strict-constructionist, etc.?"

There are parts that can be interpreted in different ways. Here's one that can't be: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The problem, which was discussed when the Constitution was being designed, is that if Constitution truly is a "living, breathing" document, then its meaning can be morphed into whatever some power hungry politician wants to be. Lo and behold, that's exactly what ended up happening. A strict interpretation of the Constititution is the only legitimate interpretation, which I know is a huge obstacle for those that aim to have a supremely powerful federal government.

Quote :

"does d357r0y3r think he's Paul Revere? the liberals are coming, the liberals are coming!"

Funny, but disregard for the Constitution has proliferated all corners of American politics. The Bush administration, for instance, never declared war in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are illegal wars. Liberals were more than happy to point this out during Bush's term. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power and scope of government. I'm just hoping we can start holding government accountable, rather than giving it a free pass whenever the "right guy" is in office.

7/1/2010 1:36:12 PM

Quote :

"Progressives really don't give a fuck about the constitution"

Fuck you, man. It's not "Your way or the highway." It is possible for two people to read the same document and come up with two different interpretations. It doesn't mean that the other guy is ignoring the document or throwing it out the window.

Jesus it's obnoxious when people talk like this. It's like a few years back when it was "if you oppose the war then you don't support our troops" or, God forbid, "if you don't like the president then you're unamerican."

7/1/2010 2:00:12 PM

Quote :

"A strict interpretation of the Constititution is the only legitimate interpretation, which I know is a huge obstacle for those that aim to have a supremely powerful federal government."

I'm glad you know more about the legitimate interpretation of the Constitution than constitutional law scholars, which don't have a consensus view. I'm having trouble taking you seriously when you make grand pronouncements like this.

7/1/2010 2:34:31 PM

^^ There's quite a bit of evidence that some "progressives," in fact, don't care about the Constitution. I've certainly seen at least one thread here--not that this forum is a good indicator of mainstream liberal thought--in which some were acting as if the Constitution is just a dusty old document that has outlived its usefulness (I'm not searching to find the thread).

Those who feel that way don't even understand the basic structure of our government, not to mention the oaths to uphold the Constitution sworn by officeholders and other government officials at all levels. Just one example:

Quote :

"I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest!"

--Phil Hare (D-IL)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8

And don't even get me started on many liberals often ignoring or even denying over the years rights listed in the Second Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment.

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ^ Loose interpretations give us terrible holdings like Kelo v. City of New London. ]

7/1/2010 2:50:12 PM

I kinda wish we could stop talking about this crap through a partisan lens anyway. No one is going to win any points on this today.

7/1/2010 2:51:36 PM

strict interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

If a law is bad change the law. Allowing loose interpretations creates inequal justice.

7/1/2010 2:58:52 PM