« | »

Kagan 1st Softball Player On Supreme Crt

From a walking on air New York Times:

Senate Confirms Kagan as Justice in Partisan Vote

By CARL HULSE
August 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme Court on Thursday, giving President Obama his second appointment to the court in a year and a victory over Republicans who sharply challenged her credentials and record.

In contrast, it took President Bush a full eight years to get a mere two appointees. Mr. Obama, needed only a little more than 18 months to get two. Which goes to show that our liberal activist judges had been waiting for the right kind of President to come along.

Ms. Kagan, who is set to be sworn in Saturday as the newest member of the court, was approved by a vote of 63 to 37 after hearings and floor debate that showcased the competing views of Democrats and Republicans about the court but exposed no significant stumbling blocks to her confirmation.

Since we learned absolutely nothing about her. Except that she is an unqualified partisan hack. (Much like the person who nominated her, come to think of it.)

In welcoming the Senate action, Mr. Obama said he expected that Ms. Kagan would be a strong addition to the court because she “understands that the law isn’t just an abstraction or an intellectual exercise.”

Of course, Mr. Obama was being facetious here. In reality, Ms. Kagan has almost never actually practiced any law.

She worked only very briefly for a law firm. She argued her first case before an appellate court, the Supreme Court, just 11 months ago, as Solicitor General. A case she lost.

The court she is joining has grown more assertive in placing a conservative stamp on decisions under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and is likely to confront an array of divisive issues in coming years, like same-sex marriage, immigration and the federal government’s role in health care.

Oh, yes, that “conservative” court which has recently upheld the first and second amendments by mere 5-4 margins.

In the final vote, 5 Republicans joined 56 Democrats and 2 independents in supporting the nomination; 36 Republicans and one Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, opposed her

Naturally, she got the votes of the usual suspects: Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar, Olympia Snowe and Judd Gregg. So The Times is actually right for once to call the vote “partisan.” Not a single Republican voted against her.

Still, wouldn’t it be hilarious if Ms. Kagan turns out to be a closeted conservative who actually bases her opinions on the Constitution? Why does it always have to be supposedly conservative nominees who end up turning liberal on the bench?

You would think that just once a nominee would turn out the other way. Maybe Ms. Kagan will even turn out to be the left’s David Souter. — We can dream can’t we?

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, August 6th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Kagan 1st Softball Player On Supreme Crt”

  1. proreason says:

    Why do you think the Criminal appointed two women?

    http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

    A woman in her mid-50’s has a life expectancy 5 years greater than a man.

    The thugs don’t miss a trick.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”A woman in her mid-50′s has a life expectancy 5 years greater than a man……”

      She also likely still has PMS, is progressing to menopause, mood swings, hot flashes, hormonal imbalances (of course this would presuppose that Kagan had a normal hormone balance to begin with) and in this case, a general dislike for all things masculine. Add in the racial component (for the “wise Latina”), and the gender-preference component for Kagan and we’re looking at a real mess in the years to come. Can you imagine a 95-year-old Kagan still making rulings? (shudder)!!

    • proreason says:

      Sotomayer and Kagan would probably both live into their 90’s if they would lose 20 pounds.

      Pray that they continue hating themselves.

      The only other deliverance would be if they fall in love with each other. Perhaps then they would find happiness and stop punishing the world for their sexuality.

    • JohnMG says:

      Just another thought.

      Judge Vaughn Walker, the openly homosexual judge who ruled the Prop. 8 California ballot issue unconstiitutional, can still be overturned by a higher court.

      With Sotomayor and Kagan on SCOTUS along with the other libwits already there, what happens if (when) this issue arrives before the Supreme Court. If Walker wouldn’t recuse himself, why is there any reason to expect these two to do so?

      As usual, we seem to be caught playing catch-up ball. The court-packing has begun again in earnest.

    • confucius says:

      As far as I am concerned, this is a 100% estrogen-free court.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    A left-to-right epiphany would constitute a betrayal of the Big Clique and the Ruling Class.

    When vengeance is the guiding star, betraying your friend is more dangerous than being their enemy.

    What happened to JFK when he sided with his free-market advisers, not the Harvard inner-circle eggheads, and pushed for Tax Cuts? Just askin.

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Bye-bye Constitution. Bye-bye Bill Of Rights.

    Hello one effed up world.

  4. Roehnan says:

    I’d just like to know what parallel universe the NYT thinks we’re in… “and a victory over Republicans who sharply challenged her credentials and record.” I didn’t think anyone did anything challenging.

  5. fallingpianos says:

    Judges can be impeached.

    • confucius says:

      Yep. Here’s a list:

      Judge Alcee Hastings
      Judge Charles Swayne
      Judge Mark Delahay
      Judge Walter Nixon
      Judge Harold Louderback
      Judge James Peck
      Judge Samuel Kent
      Judge John Pickering
      Judge Halsted Ritter
      Judge Harry Claiborne
      Judge Thomas Porteous
      Judge West Hughes Humphreys
      Judge George English
      Justice Robert Archbald
      Justice Samuel Chase

    • proreason says:

      Can the people impeach judges directly? i.e., does a process exist to do the impeachement without depending on Congress.

      It would be a shot across the bow if we could take out a couple of these arrogant pricks.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »