Obama to name Kagan for high court

[IDBillzFan]

This is enough for me - The Gray Lady doesn't like the nomination

Sorry to sound a bit tin-foily, but I've been under the impression the NYT is little more than the White House newsletter. And it's not hard to imagine the Obama admin is directing (writing) the press to this message; the far left (NYT) hates this pick, the far right (Rush, etc.) hate this pick, so it must be a pretty good pick. Let's confirm quickly so we can move on to other matters.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Judges running for election is a good idea? Are you serious?

 

Gaaaah!

 

Again, what are the issues in the lower cours with elected judges? I haven't heard anything to indicate they're somehow corrupt, but maybe you as a lawyer have some specific circumstances to refute that.

[GG]

Again, what are the issues in the lower cours with elected judges? I haven't heard anything to indicate they're somehow corrupt, but maybe you as a lawyer have some specific circumstances to refute that.

 

Interesting how people would be quick to defend the Consitution, except in a matter that would call for a complete rewrite of Article III.

 

There is everything wrong with elected judges, who tend to be a lot more "activist" to curry voter favor. There's a reason the gray old men wanted only two branches to be composed of elected officials.

[Magox]

Sorry to sound a bit tin-foily, but I've been under the impression the NYT is little more than the White House newsletter. And it's not hard to imagine the Obama admin is directing (writing) the press to this message; the far left (NYT) hates this pick, the far right (Rush, etc.) hate this pick, so it must be a pretty good pick. Let's confirm quickly so we can move on to other matters.

Ya, it's pretty well known that the NYT gets special treatment from the W.H. And why is that? Because the coverage they afford this administration meets the W.H's seal approval. If you don't cover them favorably, "No story for you".

[Magox]

This type of news favoritism has been true for just about every President we've ever had. Leave it to you right wing looney's to discard history and start getting mad about this now that Obama is in office.

True for every administration?

Here you go dumbass.

 

President Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship – as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the last decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

 

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors – and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

 

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost non-existent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

 

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic emails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call – or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

 

— Except for a few reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach - even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

 

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper - the New York Times - enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face-time.

Cuz you know, Politico is a bastion of right wing looney news.

[John Adams]

Again, what are the issues in the lower cours with elected judges? I haven't heard anything to indicate they're somehow corrupt, but maybe you as a lawyer have some specific circumstances to refute that.

 

Elected judges are notoriously corrupt nationwide. You put the Union buddy in the seat with no judicial experience and get the corrupt results you expect, with little regard for the law. An elected judiciary is a disaster and there's a reason it doesn't extend to the highest courts.

 

Here in PA, we have one of the most ridiculed state Supreme Courts in the entire country because it is elected (to 10 year terms). Rarely is the best and brightest candidate elected. Instead, you get the jackass lawyer who can campaign the best. Is that who you want as your supposedly impartial and blind justice--and how impartial do you think those justices are in the year leading to an election?

 

Elected judiciary=bad news. Not that an appointed one doesn't have some of the same issues regarding politicking to get the position but at least there are no re-election issues.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Elected judges are notoriously corrupt nationwide. You put the Union buddy in the seat with no judicial experience and get the corrupt results you expect, with little regard for the law. An elected judiciary is a disaster and there's a reason it doesn't extend to the highest courts.

 

Here in PA, we have one of the most ridiculed state Supreme Courts in the entire country because it is elected (to 10 year terms). Rarely is the best and brightest candidate elected. Instead, you get the jackass lawyer who can campaign the best. Is that who you want as your supposedly impartial and blind justice--and how impartial do you think those justices are in the year leading to an election?

 

Elected judiciary=bad news. Not that an appointed one doesn't have some of the same issues regarding politicking to get the position but at least there are no re-election issues.

 

Then what's your thought on term limits for the judiciary?

[John Adams]

Then what's your thought on term limits for the judiciary?

 

Against. I am against term limits in general.

[K-9]

Listening to CSPAN on the radio this morning and a person called in to say Kagan is anti-Christian because she's gay and anti-family because she doens't have children.

 

It's comforting to know we live in such an age of enlightenment.

[Chef Jim]

I'm going to chime in here only one thing that I'm concerned about with her. She banned the military from recruiting at Harvard because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the Pentagon. This just sounds like a vindictive position and someone who makes decisions based on that type of reasoning has me scratching my head.

[WisconsinBillzFan]

She's an activist justice? You base this on...? What she's proven is that she's one of the brightest legal minds in the US--just like Roberts was when he was voted in. And frankly, there are activist judges on the right and left.

 

We're still waiting for a second reason why you don't like her. So far, you're single reason for why she's "disgusting" is that she defends gay rights on a college campus! What a reason.

 

How is she any different than Harriet Myers?

[IDBillzFan]

I'm going to chime in here only one thing that I'm concerned about with her. She banned the military from recruiting at Harvard because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the Pentagon. This just sounds like a vindictive position and someone who makes decisions based on that type of reasoning has me scratching my head.

There's a history there, going back to Harvard protesting the Vietnam War.

 

Picked this story off of Real Clear Politics this morning.

 

Interesting point (at least to me) here:

 

The estrangement between the culture of the military and the culture of the Ivy League is corrosive to both. Indeed, if you want a military leadership with more liberal views on homosexuality, you should be more reluctant to entrench this cultural estrangement, not less.

[John Adams]

How is she any different than Harriet Myers?

 

As per your usual MO, you dodge the question on the table.

 

She's her own person. Miers proved herself unworthy of the position during the process--we will see if Kagan does the same but I suspect she won't because she has the academic pedigree Miers lacked. Moreover, Miers approached the process without studying and with no respect for the committee--that tanked her.

 

At this early point, she's more like Justice Roberts. Roberts was a top brain with little written record and almost zero judicial experience.

[WisconsinBillzFan]

As per your usual MO, you dodge the question on the table.

 

She's her own person. Miers proved herself unworthy of the position during the process--we will see if Kagan does the same but I suspect she won't because she has the academic pedigree Miers lacked. Moreover, Miers approached the process without studying and with no respect for the committee--that tanked her.

 

At this early point, she's more like Justice Roberts. Roberts was a top brain with little written record and almost zero judicial experience.

 

You don't think it's weird/convenient Obama picked someone with such a sparse paper trail?

[John Adams]

I'm going to chime in here only one thing that I'm concerned about with her. She banned the military from recruiting at Harvard because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the Pentagon. This just sounds like a vindictive position and someone who makes decisions based on that type of reasoning has me scratching my head.

 

I make vindictive decisions all the time--as do judges. This wasn't her position as a judge. She was Dean of Harvard Law--and took a stand against a stupid military policy that conflicted with her School's code. Don't let this smokescreen issue let you (or any of us) think it gives us insight into her judicial character.

 

On the issue, it appears we have only some insight into how she personally feels.

[John Adams]

You don't think it's weird/convenient Obama picked someone with such a sparse paper trail?

 

No more so than Bush picking Roberts. It's how asshats like you have manipulated the process. You're so up even the most qualified person's ass just because they are the choice of the party you don't like that the only people who get through the process are those without record (Roberts, Kagan) or unqualified people like Clarence Thomas.

[WisconsinBillzFan]

No more so than Bush picking Roberts. It's how asshats like you have manipulated the process. You're so up even the most qualified person's ass just because they are the choice of the party you don't like that the only people who get through the process are those without record (Roberts, Kagan) or unqualified people like Clarence Thomas.

 

How is Clarence Thomas unqualified?

[John Adams]

How is Clarence Thomas unqualified?

 

Sorry troll. I'm done dancing for you today.

[GG]

Sorry troll. I'm done dancing for you today.

 

Why are you complaining? He finally found a black man he can embrace.

[John Adams]

Why are you complaining? He finally found a black man he can embrace.

 

Touche!