Powered by TypePad

« Kevin Drum's Strangely Incomplete List | Main | And What Did They Find Out? »

May 13, 2010

Comments

peter

Minus 13 at Ras

Dave (in MA)

Why does Drudge have a closeup of Kagan's mouth for this story?

ignatz

Was wondering that myself Dave.
Perhaps he's saying she was shooting her mouth off? (groan, sorry) That bad a pun wouldn't have passed even TM's lame-o-matic pun filter.

nathan hale

Speaking of which, the Daily Show knows the score, in the LUN

dk70

She plays 16" softball therefore she swings the right way.

Nursing tops

which ranks the most influential people on the planet, is actually a sign of the impending end of days

Ann says Obama Sucks!

I am late to the Kagan debate but here is an article you should read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65808 ">Kagan ‘Decided Not to Follow the Law’ When She Barred JAG Recruiters from Harvard, Former Gitmo Prosecutor Says

Read the whole thing but here is where I went @#$%^What?

“I think it showed poor judgment, which is demonstrated by the fact that all nine justices disagreed with her decision in that matter,” Rotunda said. In a unanimous, 9-0 decision,When you have all nine Supreme Court justices saying the decision she made was wrong, that really says something about her judgment,” Rotunda said.

When was the last UNANIMOUS decision made by the SCOTUS!!!!

I can think of several reasons to say NO to Kagan. One of them being that this is a life time appointment that cannot be repealed like Obamacare and all the other crap they have rammed down our throats but doesn't this decision by the whole court scream DON"T DO IT.

Ann says Obama Sucks!

Of course, this also screams DON'T DO IT:

Photobucket
rushlimbaugh.com

nathan hale

Yes, putting Frau Bissima on the Court seems a really bad idea

JorgXMcKie

Well it is true that "gun crazies are afflicting their sensible New Yorkers" if by "gun crazies" you mean those who will do anything at all to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing or using them.

Ellie Light

Kagan, the lovechild of Lewis Black and Janet Reno, was apparently the prime mover of Clinton's gun ban. And we all know who effective that was. Pity the poor softball player.

daddy

"When was the last UNANIMOUS decision made by the SCOTUS!!!!"

Ann, It may not be rare, but to this non-Lawyer that sounds like a great question. And if so...

"Ms Kagan, as you know, the Supreme Court is a diverse lot. In their 200 year history they have only rendered ____ negative unanimous 9-0 decisions, or to put it another way, of the ____ total decisions they have ever rendered over the last 200 years, only ____ decisions or ____ percent have ever been unanimous negative decisions.

9-0 negative decisions are obviously rare, since such a diverse group of brilliant legal minds will rarely completely agree on any issue, unless of course it is a decision that is so devoid of legal logical, or so fundamentally flawed in legal reasoning and presentation, that they feel required to unanimously vote 9-0 on an issue. In fact it would have to be an issue transparently lacking in legal logic, or instead argued with evident gross incompetence in order to achieve a negative 9-0 decision.

All that being said, can you tell me when was the last time the US Supreme Court rendered a negative 9-0 decision? Hmmm interesting.

By chance do you know the name of the individual arguing that spectacular 9-0 unanimous losing case before the Supreme Court?"

No. You don't say? Care to elaborate?"

Ann, I don't know if my scenario approaches reality or how how to access such stuff to see if it's close to the mark, but I hope such research is currently being undertaken by those who do know.

"Ms Kagan, do you know a single instant in American History where an individual who argued a case before the Supreme Court and spectacularly lost 9-0, later became a Supreme Court Justice?

How about 8-0?

7-0?

Do I hear a 6-0?"

Again, IANAL and simply toss this out there as food for thought.
Would be happy to hear the particulars from the Law folks here at JOM.

That info may be available at this ">http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php"> Website, but I can't figure it out.

bgates

As far as I can tell from that link, there are actually a lot of unanimous decisions. I got 5 unanimous decisions on Constitutional issues before the Court in 2008, out of 19 Constitutional issues that reached the Court that year.

daddy

bgates,

Could you tell if they were 9-0 for or 9-0 against?

nathan hale

The way I figured, affirmed,

Useful enough for Idiots.

So why wouldn't the narrative simply become that his records were adulterated?
==============

En garde!

When guns are outlawed, outlaws will wield softball bats.
================

squaredance

Be prepared for the SCOTUS to not uphold the Second Amendment in the States.

The Left must seize those weapons--a Socialist state cannot abide the 2nd amendment any more than it can the 1st. The pressure on the "5th judge" will be overwhelming, and it will not just be political and social "pressure". All he holds dear will be threatened.

It is absurd that we have to even have to have SCOTUS rule on this two centuries later.
That we do tells us everything we need to know about this. Our fate hangs on a handful of justices. To rule this way sets up a contradiction with the DC ruling? You bet. Does it matter? No.

The Left is playing for keeps. They know it is their last chance. Even if it is fought somehow in the legislatures, it will so damage the institutions of the courts, particularly SCOTUS, that they may never recover. Such an irrational, blatant and cynical denial of the Bill of Rights will be devastating.

This will be the milestone in the nations history for it goes far beyond gun rights: If they turn around and tell us that there is a clear constitutional right and yet that right can be superseded by the laws of the States then in fact we have no rights at all.

It will make a complete mockery of all that this nation is built on. It will be soul crushing in the end. It will be a prelude to either the final destruction of our Republic or Civil War.

Once that line has been crossed it will now no longer a matter of mere elections for will have been through elections that are rights were stripped from us. We will be at once and the mercy of politics and at the same beyond a legitimate political process altogether. Welcome to the American version of the USSR.

The SCOTUS appears to quite literally lack the Manhood to do the right thing.

ignatz

--If they turn around and tell us that there is a clear constitutional right and yet that right can be superseded by the laws of the States then in fact we have no rights at all.--

Aren't you turning the state's rights argument on its head, sd?
It wasn't until the 14th amendment came along that all this 'incorporation' stuff began to happen.
For instance at the time of the ratification most of the individual states had established religions while at the same time they ratified a first amendment prohibiting the fed congress from doing just such a thing.
We've now got 100-150 years of precedent saying the states are also bound precisley as the feds are, but twasn't always so and I'm not sure it's a wholly good thing that it now is.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame