Separated at birth ?
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, May 13, 2010 22:10
VIEWED: 6163
PAGE 3 of 3
Oh for gawd's sake, knock it off Strawman:Quote:
When Kagan was born in 1960, five of the Supreme Court's nine justices had no previous judicial service.
She has no record, no decisions from the bench
Per Findlaw, Supreme Court Justices without prior judicial experience in the history of the Court:
1. William Rehnquist
2. Lewis Powell
3. Abe Fortas
4. Byron White
5. Arthur Goldberg
6. Earl Warren
7. Tom Clark
8. Harold Burton
9. Robert Jackson
10. James Francis Byrnes
11. William O. Douglas
12. Felix Frankfurter
13. Stanley Forman Reed
14. Owen Josephus Roberts
15. Harlan Fiske Stone
16. Pierce Butler
17. George Sutherland
18. Louis Brandeis
19. James Clark McReynolds
20. Charles Evans Hughes
21. William Henry Moody
22. George Shiras, Jr
23. Melville Fuller
24. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar
25. Joseph Philo Bradley
26. Salmon P. Chase
27. Samuel Freeman Miller
28. Noah Haynes Swayne
29. Nathan Clifford
30. John Archibald Campbell
31. Benjamin Robbins Curtis
32. John McKinley
33. Roger Brooke Taney
34. Henry Baldwin
35. Joseph Story
36. John Marshall
37. Bushrod Washington
38. William Paterson
39. John Jay
40. John Rutledge
Can we now PLEASE let that pathetic old dog die?? Give it UP!
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to being an "academic": "Assuming President Obama wins confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, that august body will be exclusively filled with judges who earned their law degrees at Harvard or Yale."
Ooops...
Can you prove she's a "liberal academic pinhead"? Got the "academic" down, what about the other two? Do you want me to quote cites on how many Supreme Court Justices were professors, if that's what you're inferring by "academic"?
And hey, if you think Obama's two nominees are ugly, my gawd, have you looked at the rest of the Court??? He couldn't do much worse!
http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/2cf7d4dd785fdd84
And fat?
she looks pretty good to me in comparison; the others are just a buncha old ugly farts. 'Cept Thomas, he's just ugly and horny.
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But then, Borking a nominee is well known, as Stephen Colbert pointed out with Sotomayor:
And Jon Stewart does a pretty good job on the subject, too:
And Stewart did a good job on White being Neutral on the Supreme Court:
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm saddened that the biggest concern over a Supreme Court nominee is with her LOOKS.
What's sadder still is that this dude does NOT look like a lady.
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, Republican women are usually hot--dumb airheads, but hot, as opposed to Democratic women, who appeal to us for who they ARE, not what they look like.
The fact that you have so many bimbos on your side of the aisle is wonderfully indicative of the fact that most Republicans are white males who think and vote with their dicks.
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:Yes, Republican women are usually hot--dumb airheads, but hot, as opposed to Democratic women, who appeal to us for who they ARE, not what they look like.
The fact that you have so many bimbos on your side of the aisle is wonderfully indicative of the fact that most Republicans are white males who think and vote with their dicks.
Right. And black males, or asian males,....all other males never do that, huh ?
wow.
Of course, if a strong, independently thinking, successful,intelligent woman actually LOOKS good , then she's deemed a bimbo.
This from the crowd who fabricates up the idea of " tolerance " and treating everyone equally.
Well, everyone who agrees with THEM, of course.
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The statement reflects the fact that, despite their insisting otherwise, Republicans are by FAR and away Caucasians. Teabaggers even moreso. Prove otherwise: I dare you.
Also the fact that Republican bimbos aren't there to ATTRACT Asian, Black, Hispanic or otherwise males...Quote:
Of course, if a strong, independently thinking, successful,intelligent woman actually LOOKS good , then she's deemed a bimbo
Oh, gawd, it's to laugh! No, wait, you might actually HAVE one of those! Do you? Wanna name her so we can all have a good laugh, 'cuz you gotta think it's Bachman, Sarahcuda or Coultergeist, and we would get GREAT laughs out of THAT! 
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here I thought someone, anyone, might go and bring up here record - cause yanno, I don't give a fuck what they look like, myself.
That said, I don't want her on the bench, as she does not properly respect the constitution when it conflicts with her own personal beliefs, a glaring lack of the one thing that is the primary requirement for a judge at all, much less a supreme, impartiality.
I could care less whether an appointee is a flaming liberal, grumpy conservative, or cloudcuckoolander - ALL I care about, is that when the rubber meets the road, they can keep their damn spare change to themselves, and decide things based on the Constitution, and if there is any confusion, the fully stated intentions, explained in excruciating detail for just this very reason, of the people who wrote the friggin thing, and that's ALL THAT SHOULD EVER MATTER.
But no, these days, they select appointees on the basis of just how far, and in which direction, they're willing to bend and break a set of provisions that is in place for bloody good reasons - a practice, mind you, that goes all the way back to that sumbitch John Jay, who immediately jumped on the loopholes Madison and Hamilton set up for the exact purpose of subverting the whole intention of the Constitution in the first place.
The Antifederalists of course, no fools they, pointed this out immediately...
http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/78-79.html
http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/81.html
And were, as usual ignored and scoffed at with the platitude that "no one would ever dare!" by the very folk planning to do exactly that the moment it became expedient to do so.
So really, the whole premise of the supreme court kinda upsets the checks and balances system since they have loaded dice and no accountability, and it's always been that way.
Thefore it's absolutely imperative that the nominees are impartial, and they're not, and it's not like we peons have any say about it anyhow.
And it was intended that way from the very start.
So forgive me for not havin a lotta faith in the supreme court, and being rather pissed about deck stacking of this nature no matter who does it...
Of course, since when you're playin such a rigged game the only thing you can really do is cheat back, and if you wanna include folks with no judicial experience as candidates, I say pick the most extreme liberal you can with any respect for the Constitution, and this lady ain't it.
I'd be nominatin Dennis Kuchinich.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And here I thought someone, anyone, might go and bring up here record - cause yanno, I don't give a fuck what they look like, myself.
Didn't catch the subject title, did ya?
I know, it's an elusive little bugger, all right there, out in the open like that.
Now, had the subject line read " pros and cons re:nominee Kagan..... " then we'd have something quite different.
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME