Senate Confirms Elena Kagan's Appointment To SCOTUS 618
eldavojohn writes "As expected, by a vote of 63 to 37 Elena Kagan has been appointed as the 112th member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kagan, only 50 years old, has no judicial experience. The Washington Post explains: 'Other justices have corporate law backgrounds or a long record of arguing before the court. Kagan worked briefly for a law firm and argued her first case before an appellate court 11 months ago. It happened to be before the Supreme Court, the first of six cases she argued as the nation's first female solicitor general.' Her fair use views and free speech views have made her a focus of Slashdot recently."
lulz (Score:5, Insightful)
I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.
Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?
PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.
Re:lulz (Score:4, Insightful)
PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.
Exactly. Makes you wonder about the sanity of politicians and pundits who, upon hearing that one of the three branches of government does something they don't like, their inclination is to neuter that whole branch of the government. Not only that, but many of the same people were happy to see executive powers expanded when their guy was in office, apparently not thinking about the day when someone they -didn't- like inherited those powers.
two words: unitary executive (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how fast that one dropped out of the right wing lexicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive [wikipedia.org]
Re:lulz (Score:4, Insightful)
while everyone knows she's going to be an activist judge ruling off of her opinion because she has no practical experience.
I see. So this week "activist judge" means a judge with no prior experience. Thanks, I'll be sure to pencil that into the calender.
Let's be honest here, people. Just like nearly every other confirmation, the vast majority of the politicians with the same letter after their name as her think she would be a great pick, while the vast majority of the politicians with a different letter after their name think she would be a horrible pick.
Par for the course. To (seriously) claim otherwise is ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.
Re:lulz (Score:5, Informative)
People were pissed because she was giving textbook answers to make it through the job interview with the Senate while everyone knows she's going to be an activist judge ruling off of her opinion because she has no practical experience.
[citation-needed]
"Everyone knows" is a shitty argument, and the "no practical experience" argument has been thoroughly debunked. True, she's never been a judge, but she's more than qualified [slashdot.org], and if "everybody knew," she wouldn't have been confirmed -- 5 Republicans broke ranks and voted for her, whilst the current crop of Senate Dems are fairly moderate, and wouldn't vote to confirm a far-left activist in considerable numbers, particularly with an election cycle coming up.
Saying something doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Everyone knows" is clearly wrong.
"More than qualified" is a tougher sell. For instance, one of the top alternatives to Kagan was Diane Wood [wikipedia.org], who has experience as a Supreme Court clerk, a law professor, an assistant Attorney General, private practice, and 15 years on the Seventh Circuit. In addition to her opinions, she's published a huge amount of legal scholarship. That's what I call qualified. Or you can compare with David Souter, who prior to serving on SCOTUS had worked in the Attorney General's offic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently heard someone describe the constitution as "written as a living document." Try reading some of it, and comparing the language with both present-day bills and other late-1700's legal or philosophical writing. The constitution is actually a very easy read, comparatively! It's a much more "common" English. I think that's because it's intended to convey a kind of sensibility more clearly than any actual laws.
The end result is that while it's very easy to understand, or get the gist of, it's also ver
Re:lulz (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I think you're reaching this conclusion only because you want to. You're extrapolating way beyond Kagan's statement and envisioning a land where the "minority" (the US citizenship I presume) live in subjugation under the harsh dictatorship of the "majority" (some kind of self-perpetuating regime of former Democrats). While that's a great premise for a sci-fi novel, thankfully there's no connection to the appointment of Kagan.
But we are already seeing it, albeit not with a constitutional question (yet) look in California and the banning of gay marriages (yes it was overturned but still). Does it even matter if gays marry? Seriously, does the fact that someone lives across the street and is gay make you gay? You have a case where the majority (straight people) are essentially telling the minority what to do even when it doesn't affect them.
There are a lot of other cases like that sadly where the majority who won't be affected with what the minority wants use elections to tell the minority what to do.
Re:lulz (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Especially when you consider a liberal is replacing a liberal.
If anything, all you people yelling about how things will be thrown off-balance should be happy. Should another conservative been nominated and made it to the court, things would be skewing towards the right.
To right-wingers, a "balanced" court means one made up of nine copies of Scalia, just as "bipartisanship" in Congress means Democrats doing everything Republicans say, and "President" means a rich white Republican. Once you understand the language, it's not hard to figure out what they're saying, but it's important to remember that they're speaking something that sounds a lot like English but really isn't.
Re:lulz (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lulz (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you're trying too hard. It's just called "freedom of speech." Period. If you don't like it, why weren't you complaining about it when the law they ruled on was allowing it for some corporations/organizations (like labor unions) and not others? The "activism" was what they reversed. People who form groups (unions, associations, companies, clubs) don't give up their freedom to speak just because they decide to act together, as a group. The only reason the SCOTUS had to even say anything about it was because a law was passed that infringed on that right.
Don't like freedom of speech? Then don't let labor unions have it, don't let the Sierra Club have it, don't let the AARP, or the NAACP, or CBS/ABC/MSNBC/NPR/FOX/CNN/NYT/WSJ/etc have it, either. Is that really your preference? Don't bother answering - it's pretty clear already, how you want it.
Re:lulz (Score:5, Insightful)
The complaints were based on her record. Also, some of her terrible answers--she couldn't answer the question of whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat.
I'd say that it's a good thing for a supreme court nominee to not give off-the-cuff, kneejerk answers to a question that could have considerable legal repercussions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lulz (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's nice that you think it deserves a nice, quick, "NO!" response. But you can't just say something is unconsitutional because you don't like it, don't agree with it, or think it's stupid...which is exactly what Kagan said.
If you think something is unconstitutional, you have to say WHY it is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kudos to her, because it's obviously a trick question with no meaningful answer. If she said "sure they can tell you what to eat" people would go nuts. Yet most of those same people would agree that some drugs/medicines should only be taken by prescription; they want the USDA to watch over slaughterhouses and Chinese imports; they want local government to do health
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess a better way for her to answer the question would have been to say, "well, I don't think the govt. can mandate t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo [youtube.com]
Source, as requested. I'll leave deciding the significance of that little exchange up to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, I appreciate it!
To me, she didn't have trouble answering it. It seemed like her response was essentially "this is a pointless question, because a law like that would never reach the Supreme Court. Please try to stay on topic."
From that perspective, I gotta say I agree with her. That being said, she still went on to explain the reasoning behind her initial answer:
But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional. And I think that the courts would be wrong to strike down the laws that they think are senseless, just because they are senseless.
Then, when the guy repeated his question again, as soon as she started to answer, he interrupted her. I'm sorry dude, but if I'm bei
Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:5, Insightful)
and the Constitution almost never is,
What are you talking about? The Constitution of the US is -very- clear if you don't try to view it in tinted glasses of various political affiliations. The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers. If there was one document that was written in the 1700s that is the clearest, it would have to be the constitution. What is so unclear about the constitution?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more!
All too often we have reams of context in which we can place these well written documents. All too often interpretation is not required in the least. All too often, interpretation, and a poor one, if not flat out wrong, is what we get.
The US Constitution is one of the easiest to comprehend legal documents around. It was purposely made so. When judges can't understand the US Constitution or don't know where they should refer about ambiguity, its their way of saying they are unfit to sit
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, its clear only when you try to do that, because then the tint you choose to use resolves all the inherent ambiguities and conflicts for you -- in the favor of whatever ideological tint you've selected.
Yes, and in some of those books and papers, some of them write about how they were deliberately vague in writing some provisions of the Constitution, in order to let some aspects be resolved by experience because of the inability to come to a consensus on resolution on some points. Because, believe it or not, the political elites of the United States were no more united and homogenous in their ideology of government in the late 18th Century than they are in the early 21st; they were more able to work together, perhaps, but largely because they were more keenly aware of the potential consequences if they failed to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, some of it was deliberately vague, but the majority of the time its very specific. For example, how the hell do you take the ninth amendment along with the fourteenth and suddenly create another right, the right to an abortion? If you read both of those amendments, the same logic used to create a right to an abortion can be used to overrule just about every single state law.
The problem is, people take the specific parts of
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:5, Insightful)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It seems to be a popular one. It seems that some people believe it indicates an inborn right amongst all people to posses any weapon (up to and including tanks) that they can afford. Other seem to believe that it implies a right to be armed, but not necessarily a right to any weapon one might chose to own. Still others seem to think it is an abridgeable right, and those guilty of certain types of crimes forfeit it. Others still believe that it implies nothing at all for those who don't happen to be in a "well regulated Militia". I'm not going to go into what I think, but the fact remains that the amendment itself is awful damned vague and a reasonable argument can be made for any of the above. There are other examples, but that's definitely the one that jumps to my mind when people ask about "vague" pieces of the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.
Slavery. The authors could not come to a consensus about how to define it or even describe the industry. Once everybody realized that everyone else had different opinions, they stopped trying. The distinction between citizens and property was intentionally not discussed in the Constitution, partly to allow the States to make their own independent conclusions, but primarily so that the Legislative branch of Government could address future aspects of the issue as they arose. Slavery was simply to divisive
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:4, Interesting)
What is so unclear about the constitution?
The degree to which we'll (continue to) allow the government to shit on it?
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:4, Insightful)
"What is so unclear about the constitution?"
How to get around the bits that prevent the government from doing whatever it is I want it to do, in spite of those pesky "rights of the people".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right...
The constitution is deliberately ambiguous on a number of extremely important points, because like all other political things the constitutional congress passed the buck on the hard issues of the day.
Do you really think that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are clear? Because if you do you'd be the only one.
Does the second amendment guarantee a individual or collective right to keep and bear arms?
Does the constitution grant a right to privacy? What about anonymity?
Can a stat
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you really think that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are clear? Because if you do you'd be the only one.
They are both rather broad powers that gives Congress a central power to pass laws in accordance to the constitution. It basically does as it says, lets Congress regulate trade and let congress pass laws needed at the time in accordance to the constitution.
Does the second amendment guarantee a individual or collective right to keep and bear arms?
An individual right, as shown in various quotes from people who lead our country in the 1700s.
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, note man, singular.
And there are a lot more from almost every person there. None of them said anything to deny each (free) person the right to bear arms.
Does the constitution grant a right to privacy? What about anonymity?
The Constitution provides several limits on the government's power collectively they form a right to privacy. There is no listed "right" of anonymity, but when the rest of the constitution is preserved, the ability to be anonymous is also preserved.
Can a state secede from the union? (I think this was a pretty big deal a while ago)
Do they have the constitutional authority to do so? I think so. Do they have a practical right to do it, not after the civil war.
Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"
Someone born in the US or to people of US decent.
On which side of the cruel and unusual line does prison overcrowding fall?
Now that is something the supreme court actually should interpret because that is one of the few passes intentionally left vague for interpretation throughout history.
Does full faith and credit mean that Utah has to recognize gay couples married in California?
I think when it comes to the marriage issue we have to step back and really wonder why the hell the state is defining our relationships in the first place. And then determine that question later :P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How it applies to problems that the founders never even could have imagined. For example, their concept of privacy is largely physical, where "unreasonable searches and seizures" applies to physical property in your home. How does that Right apply on the Internet, for example? Would you like to post some of the "lots of books" they wrote on this issue? What are their views on human cloning? Stem cell research? Hell, organ transplantation and test tube babies? What d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny example my US History teacher loved to give: The Constitution gave the Government the power to maintain and Army and a Navy. The Constitution made no mention of an Air Force...
The US Constitution is pretty well regarded as being remarkably well thought out. Personally I admire its brevity and simplicity. Its genius is that it was written with the understanding that it could not provide solutions or guidelines for all issues that might arise in the future, but instead set up a system of Governmen
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:5, Informative)
What is so unclear about the constitution?
Here are two examples, just to get you started. "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" but yet "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
So which one trumps? Can Congress make a law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press in order to grant an author the exclusive right to his or her writings? And, hey, what about visual artists? They don't write anything, so do they get copyright protection or not? Or composers? And what about laws that only incidentally affect the press, like taxes on ink or printing equipment? What about a general sales tax that happens to affect ink?
Not so clear, is it?
Or how about this one "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States?" What does that mean? Does it apply only to things like interstate taxes? What about the infrastructure of commerce like interstate roads? What about products sold across state lines? What if the seller doesn't ship it across state lines but the buyer brings it across? What if one state subsidizes the heck out of a product, leading to competition problems with the neighboring state? What about products that are illegal but sold across state lines, like drugs? What if the product is being given away, like open source software, is that still commerce?
So you can see that the Constitution is not very clear at all on a lot of points. Sometimes it's because parts of the document are in tension with other parts. Other times it's because the words are just plain vague. Scholars, politicians, and judges have spent centuries trying to figure out the best way to balance those tensions and interpret those vague words.
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Constitution is so clear, we'd only ever have unanimous decisions. Even the very first court under John Jay had at split decisions, indicating that less than 5 years after the constitution was completed, there were already disagreements on how it should be interpreted.
The document was written 200+ years ago, before many modern issues could have hoped to crop up. Photography, cinematography, automobiles, airplanes, rocket ships, computers, the internet, medicine, civil rights, economics, weaponry, physics, chemistry, & even mathematics have all advanced significantly since the inception of the constitution. Many of the advances in these areas were completely out of the realm of comprehension in 1787. Even if they were possessed with great foresight, how could the framers have possibly anticipated copyright issues with movies or music, the possibility that health care could ever cost someone more than many people make in a lifetime, or the ramifications of corporate personhood? The fact is they couldn't, and because of that, there are areas in which the constitution is very *unclear*.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress shall make no law... [cornell.edu]
That's pretty fucking clear to me.
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah?
(establishment)
Can congress give money to a religiously run school?
Can you have public prayer in public schools? How about moments of silence for religious reflection?
Can a public school teach creationism?
Is congress allowed to authorize the placement of a christian cross on public land? If they do, do they have to authorize the placement of a summum pyramid?
(free exercise)
Can congress mandate that women aren't allowed to wear face-coverings in government jobs generally? What about jobs that require interaction with the public? What about jobs involving the use of heavy machinery? What about soldiers?
(press)
Can congress force journalists to reveal their sources in testimony?
Can congress forbit the publication of details sensitive to national security? Troop movements?
(assembly)
Can congress mandate that your demonstration requires a permit?
Can they give permits to some groups but not others?
What kind of fee can be charged for a permit?
How close to private property can I assemble?
Can I obstruct through traffic? For how long?
(speech - my favorite)
Can congress ban dangerous speech?
Libelous speech?
Obscene speech?
Fraudulent speech?
Deceptive commercial speech?
Corporate political speech?
The speech of members of the armed services?
Speech carried over public airwaves?
Speech in public schools?
Is wearing a black armband speech? What about carrying a poster?
Does the right of free speech extend to public areas of privately property?
Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't suppose you've noticed, but while lawyers are disproportionately represented in Congress, it isn't a prerequisite. Non-lawyers are at least partially responsible for our laws.
For the record, my opinions on this are solely confined to the Supreme Court. Lower courts need experienced judges and lawyers because they are constrained by Supreme Court precedent as well as the laws as written, and it takes training and study to deal with the multiple layers of ambiguity involved.
The whole point of the Supreme Court is that it takes the tough cases, the ones without a clear answer. In those sorts of cases, legal training isn't a prerequisite. Having people trained how to think, rather than solely how to parse legalese is a good thing. A liberal arts student from, for example, St. Johns with a history of non-profit work, or of managing a business, or a successful career as a psychologist would add some diversity of views. The fact of the matter is that lawyers are indoctrinated with a specific world view in modern law schools (a fairly corporatist world view), and having people who don't have these built in assumptions about how the world works on the Court provides more diversity than any number of minorities, women, etc., if the minorities and women were indoctrinated into the law school mindset.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Having a team of diverse backgrounds does make it stronger and more compentent to serve a world of diverse needs.
So that's why! (Score:5, Insightful)
Other justices have corporate law backgrounds...
That explains a lot.
Re:So that's why! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now comes the hard part (Score:5, Insightful)
Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.
The problem is that nowadays presidents aim to nominate people with as little documentation of what they really think as they can get away with. Then we go through Senate confirmation hearings which are largely a chance for the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee to play for the cameras while the potential justice avoids answering any questions.
I read (Score:5, Funny)
SCROTUS.
Sorry.
We need a process like that for /. (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously. This story is way off-topic and it's showing up here almost 24 hours after the fact.
Slashdot's article-selection system has been getting more and more stupid as time goes on.
We need a little constitutional reform.
But... (Score:4, Funny)
She has almost no court experience, but she _did_ stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Still About Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
36 Republicans and one Democrat tried to block Kagan's appointment. The Democrat is Ben Nelson (D-NE), who represents the (Omaha) insurance industry (which also is the Credit Default Swap industry) and routinely votes with Republicans, especially in filibusters that prevent a simple majority vote that would usually pass.
You can see each of the Republicans give their reasons [huffingtonpost.com] for voting against Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court, and judge for yourself whether those are either the real reasons, or good ones.
Re:eh (Score:5, Informative)
No history of scholarship, unless you count being a fucking law professor and dean of the Harvard law school. Or her published books and papers on legal issues. But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.
(Also, she clerked for Thurgood Marshall in the 80s, so it's not like she has no judicial experience of any kind. And it's not unheard of for SC members to jump into the job without being judges first.)
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
She has only four major articles in her career, was a law professor for a total of only 8 years, and "dean" is a political/administrative position, not a scholarly one.
But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.
I don't know her politics. Very few people seem to, which is one of the problems.
Oh that's an easy one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
The polarization of the confirmation process for Justices has made having either a substantial body of legal scholarship, substantive judicial experience, or substantive trial advocacy experience weaknesses in confirmation proceedings, since the processes is almost completely one of opponents of the nomination seeking choice tidbits -- often out of context -- that make good political soundbites to embarrass anyone who would vote to confirm.
This has been increasingly true over time, independently of which party is doing the appointing and which side is inclined to oppose the nomination, so the results in terms of who gets appointed are fairly predictable.
If you want better (by the standards suggested in the parent post) judicial nominees, you need to get better Senators first. And since the behavior of Senators is driven essentially by what works in producing reactions in the electorate to bring pressure to bear on other Senators, you need a better electorate to get that.
Re:eh (Score:5, Interesting)
As an added bonus, it might just slow down the federal government's powergrab from the states (see things like speed limits or drinking age) since, you know, someone would actually be representing the states in the united STATES government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think the Senate would be any better without the 17th Amendment? Why do you think state-house politics are any better than the sort they deal with now?
I rather suspect it was enacted because people could see that the senators were beholden to state-house politics, rather than being concerned with the people.
Yes, repeal the 17th. (Score:5, Insightful)
The major reason to be rid of the 17th amendment is prior to its instatement Congress couldn't coerce the states. Now many Federal power grabs are backed by indirect forcing of the states to pass laws. For example, congress has no power to mandate seat belts. But it wants all the states to have such a law on the book and passes a Federal law that removes the federal highway funds of any state that fails to enact a seat belt law.
There are numerous other examples of this. It is bald, naked, coercion, and it is wrong. Repeal the 17th amendment and Congress would lose this power because all the Senators would know that the moment they passed a law telling the state legislators what to do they'd lose their seat.
The whole point of the senate was to have half the power of the Congress subject to the State's approval. State legislators are themselves career politicians - watching what Congress does is their job and livelihood. It isn't ours. We could care less about what Congress does day to day and don't have time to keep tabs on them.
Ironically, since the 17th amendment the roles of the House and Senate have reversed. State legislatures have used gerrymandering to control the House. This control isn't perfect - it certainly hasn't prevented coercion, but it has allowed them to influence the House more than they can the Senate. Senate seats have become competitive in most states where House seats almost never are do to Gerrymandering.
Want to fix the mess? Repeal the 17th amendment. Remove the right of districting from states and place it in the hands of a computer algorithm. Divide states into districts of 10 or less reps and use STB ballots to elect them. Elect the president with Instant Run off ballots. These measures would demolish the power of the parties (they'd persist, but in a highly weakened state). It would be nice to see this solution take effect, but too many people in power would lose power if it was ever enacted so it's nothing more than a pipe dream.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By my math, she's spent 4 years as a cler
Re:eh (Score:4, Insightful)
What did would-be President McCain govern? What did would-be President McCain manage to do besides crashing 3 planes before even getting to Vietnam?
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
There were more nominees in the primaries that would have been better, not to mention many third-party candidates that would have been better than either.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dubya didn't win the election. Karl Rove did. Why anyone looks at the gibbering dry-drunk and thinks he was in charge of anything is a mystery.
Re:eh (Score:5, Interesting)
How many companies did Dubya manage into the ground? How did his super-duper governing skillz help him in his 8 years?
Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers (the team, not the police force). Got the city to build a new stadium, and massively increased attandance and profits. He also did OK as governer of Texas (though arguable the Lt. Gove has more power there), and often compromised to get things done. I was really surprised by how he behaved as president.
Two words: Sammy Sosa (Score:3, Informative)
He traded Sammy Sosa [highbeam.com]. Nuff said.
Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa (Score:4, Insightful)
That proves nothing. Sports teams trade away good players all the time. Sometimes they do it because they are rebuilding and need younger players even if they are less experienced. Other times they do it because they can't afford to keep them and would rather get something in a trade than let them go to free agency. Occasionally they even do it to finance a Broadway play [wikipedia.org], though that one might not have been the best idea in the world.... ;)
Point is, you can't say GWB was an idiot just because he traded Sammy Sosa.
Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us "basement dwellers" don't count the head of the CIA or a President of the United States as a parent, nor were we born into very rich families.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And was that before or after Sosa started using steroids?
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Got the city to build a new stadium
So he had practice ripping off the public to line his pockets.
"ripping off the public" (Score:3, Insightful)
Got the city to build a new stadium
So he had practice ripping off the public to line his pockets.
Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer that relied on federal subsidies. JFK's family not only made money from illicit activities, they maintained their fortune with sweet favors from the government.
I think cities that foot the bill for stadium owners are downright stupid, but it's not as if Bush was the only one to get that kind of deal. All of them do. And you make it sound like he's the only one that's ever profited from stupid government policies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, what a great governor -- executing mentally retarded felons.
Um, those "mentally retarded felons" were tried, convicted and sentenced well before GWB was ever the governor. The criticism you are hurling at GWB could just as easily be directed to Ann Richards, the Democrat governor of Texas before GWB.
Strange that you only criticize GWB. Take the following [www.fdp.dk] for example:
President Clinton took time off from his 1992 campaign to be in Arkansas for the execution of killer Rickey Ray Rector. He was so brain damaged from a suicide attempt that he asked guards to set aside his piece of pecan pie so he could eat it after his execution, according to the New York Times.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't realize those were requirements.
Because the previous guy came without a functioning brain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't help that the other half of congress think party and skin color is what drives the others to oppose the president's agenda.
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office.
Do you think the Democrats would have voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee who had previously argued in favor of banning books [reason.com] if GWB had appointed her?
The vast majority of both major parties place duty to party ahead of duty to the Constitution. More's the pity.....
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office.
Do you think the Democrats would have voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee who had previously argued in favor of banning books [reason.com] if GWB had appointed her?
The vast majority of both major parties place duty to party ahead of duty to the Constitution. More's the pity.....
That's a little disingenuous. The case was about corporations funding libelous material under the guise of a "concerned citizens" group. I'd argue that republicans are the only ones with party loyalty though.. The democrats are more interested in maintaining their own seats, rather than maintaining party power. When they finally have the power, they're too afraid to actually do anything because it might be used against them in a campaign. But they both suck donkey balls, for a certainty.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How long are you going to ride those hundred year old coattails?
Re:eh (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason I bring this up is because a lot of people didn't like the bill in the beginning because it didn't include medicare expansion or a public option. But I believe many of those people would still not want it repealed.
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, a lot of heated opinions here. Seriously though, you have to look at track records. The party that has a platform of less government and fiscal (and personal) responsibility has been at the helm of the largest government increases and spending excesses in history, as well as trying it's damnedest to legislate personal responsibility right out of existence (abortion decisions, porn, religion, etc), and the party that has the platform of larger government, more social nets and more social control has been the only one in decades to reduce the deficit, and believes that people should have more liberty (abortion decisions, gay marriage, etc).
Huh, maybe they should just swap names and get on with it. As far as I can tell, the party platform is only there to sucker the idiots...
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
You and I can't afford to publish a 500-page book just to astroturf a statement of endorsement and advertise it well beyond the reasonable costs to promote such a book to its reasonable audience. We can afford to get our endorsement out to a few people on an open forum here.
That's not about "banning books". It's about banning the political fraud of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to use money to dominate speech. It's about making democracy, not plutocracy, the political system we live under. Which was the point of the Revolutionary War.
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
George Washington on Political Parties - I agree..
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight, the party that openly advances homophobia, islamaphobia and racism to get votes somehow is more respectful of the President? Sorry, I can't buy that. Given the amount of focus they've put on his birthplace, alleged link to Islam, I find it very hard to believe that race doesn't figure in prominently into it.
Sorry, none of the things you have mentioned are part of the party platform.
Take racism for example. I'm sure Michael Steele will be shocked to find that the party he leads advances racism.
Don't I recall GWB holding hands with an Islamic Saudi Prince? (Islamaphobia, as with all things that start with Islam, should be capitalized)
Homophobia? I'm sure Dick Cheney hates all homo's. I'm sure his daughter does as well. I think the problem is that homosexuals demand the right to marry. See, marriage is a re
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
I have spoken to homosexuals who have openly stated that they want it to be called "marriage". Nothing less will do.
They probably have the "Separate but equal" fiasco stuck in their mind where people who were supposed to be treated equally, were not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen little proof otherwise. Their blantly transparent appointment of Micheal Steele as party chairman to insulate themselves from all their members basically shouting the N-word was pathetic.
Hey, if you can get a video of that, you can make $100,000 for the United Negro College Fund. Should be easy, considering all the cameras there that video taped the whole thing. I find it strange that no one has taken Breitbart up on that challenge.
As to the claim you repeating, it was directed to TEA Party members, not the Republican party. At least get your baseless accusations correct.
In other words, PICTURES, OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Or, to modify the meme, Pictures, or you are lying!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democrats wield ALL of the power between Congress and the White House right now and the Republicans can't do a thing to stop them, only fellow Democrats that have trepidation about their leadership's goals. But keep blaming the Re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is there so much poverty in a land so rich? Just 10% of the people own, control, and consume 70% of the nation’s wealth. The other 90% of the people producing most of that wealth survive on the remaining 30%. Who is confiscating your fair share?
Who is "confiscating" my "fair share"? I'm sorry, those guys can go fuck themselves raw with a hot curling iron. The breakdown of wealth isn't always ideal, but to cry that someone has more than you and that you want your "fair share" is fucking self-entitled bullshit. You want your "fair share"? EARN IT instead of crying that someone else is "confiscating" it. I've got no love for fat cats, but I've got even less love for class warfare crybabies.
Good cop, Bad cop (Score:4, Insightful)
Both cops work for the same department. Both want the same thing out of you. Neither one is your friend. It's a negotiating tactic. Their boss wants something from you, so one of them is going to offer you a cup of coffee and a donut, then while he's out of the room getting it, the other one is going to bash your face in. When the friendly guy comes back with the coffee and the donut, he's going to apologize for his partner and explain to you that he has little control over his 'crazy' partner, and for everyone's sake, you'd better just play along.
Sure, one guy gives you some crappy coffee and a stale donut while the other guy gives you a chair to the face, but they are both working for the same rich asshole, trying to get the same thing from you: your cheap and silent obedience.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Funny)
Or voting left, for that matter.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
So you've already forgotten their involvement with determining the outcome of the 2000 US presidential election?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I think the Supreme Court should have ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter of Florida's electors should have been decided by the Florida legislature (the Constitution rest all authority for deciding how a state's electors are chosen on the state legislatures). Or alternatively, they could have ruled that in one of several different ways that said that no Electoral College majority was determined so the election gets decided by Congress. In either of those cases the result would have been that George W. Bush ended up President.
The only possible way that Al Gore would have ended up President is if the recount was continued selectively in such a way as to guarantee that only Al Gore got additional votes. Several news organizations (most of which favored Al Gore), ran their own recount after the election and determined that George W. Bush won the Florida election.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are republicans who support gun control too - look up James Brady.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Meaning that because a well regulated Militia is needed for the security, people must have the right to bear arms in order to form a Militia to secure a free state. Without the right to bear arms, it becomes impossible to create a Militia.
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
Alexander Hamilton
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
James Monroe
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."
George Washington
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
If the right to bear arms meant as you thought it meant, why would the people who wrote the Constitution and served the country in its earliest days have this opinion which strongly suggests the right for every free man to keep and bear arms to defend the country from internal tyranny?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, the need for militias is merely the justification for guaranteeing that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One absolutely does not need to be part of a militia to have and exercise that right.
Anyway, the 2nd amendment is completely redundant, like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to prohibit ownership or non-aggressive use of any kind of weapon in the first place. Given that they needed an amendment to ban alcohol, they would certainly need one to ban guns (or drugs or anything else not specifically mentioned among their enumerated powers).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed.
Time to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. The militia bit was an example, not a requirement. Here's an oversimplified modern re-write you should be able to understand:
"It's nice to have people around who know how to handle weapons, so don't take people's guns away."
I'm just gonna go ahead and quote you so the people filtering out by score will see this point. You are exactly correct.
The wording of the amendment implies that the presence of well regulated militias is a function of an armed citizenry. Seeing as how well regulated militias are better than non regulated militias (i.e. street gangs), we ought to make sure our law abiding citizens have a right to arm themselves.
That's not even a really conservative reading of the amendment. A really conservative readin
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe that's the cause of all the confusion -- politicians use a similar acronym for the Constitution of the United States -- COTUS -- and misread it as "COITUS" and think that they're *SUPPOSED* to be fucking it!
Re:Next Up... (Score:5, Insightful)
More like highly-regarded medical scientist being made Surgeon General.
It's far better to have a procedurally unpracticed constitutional scholar for once than the sequence of long-time political hacks we got from the other side.
Re:Obama's Harriet Miers (Score:5, Insightful)
Err What? (Re:Obama's Harriet Miers) (Score:5, Insightful)
There maybe faults with Kagan but "no judicial experience" is kind of disengenious. She has a pretty extensive record being a clerk for a couple of judges including for Marshall. She has an extensive record in academia including Harvard Law. She has some record being Solicitor General. Kagan appears to have spent a lot of time in and around the Supreme Court of the United States. While never being a judge at state or federal levels that isn't a requirement for the job where Kagan appears to be familiar with constituional law and qualified to comment on constitutional questions.
Harriet Miers on the other hand is by profession a personal attorney with a corporate law background and doesn't appear to have any more of a constitutional background than being an advisor to the President. Worse still being a direct council to Bush means there could and would be direct conflicts of interest and previliage in some instances.
There are legitamate complaints about Kagan but she is heads and shoulders above qualifications on constitional law, history, and even procedures than Miers.
Re:Obama's Harriet Miers (Score:5, Informative)
George W. Bush appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he goes out and finds a better qualified candidate.
Barrack Obama appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he laughs in their faces and pushes her through confirmation anyway.
Harriet Myers:
Elena Kagan:
While it is true tha both women have no experience as a judge, Kagan has much more experience in academia and in government as a lawyer. In my opinion, she's more qualified than Miers. Before her nomination, Miers spent a total of 2 years as a lawyer for the government and no time in academia. Kagan spent 5 years as a government lawyer with 14 years of academia. Kagan also spent 3 years clerking for Thurgood Marshall.
Re:Obama's Harriet Miers (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama appoints a fairly moderate liberal with Kagan. His base, the Dems, argue about it a bit, and several progressives call for a more far left candidate, but they generally go along with her in the end. His opponents, the Republicans, spread rumors of her secret far-left activist plans and hide their displeasure for her liberal political views by accusing her of not having enough "experience." Obama finds no reason to switch Kagan out for someone else.
You want Kagan to lose the nomination? Get Obama's base angry about it, not his opponents, who are going to mostly oppose anyone he nominates anyway.