And your point is…?
Senator Feinstein seems oddly refreshed now.
Who cares what Dianne Feinstein thinks?
Mr. Feinstein?
Seeing as she is one of the people responsible for the (almost inevitable) confirmation of future Justice Kagan, I’d say her opinion is a little relevant. Probably more so than whether posters to a message board think Kagan’s free speech waffling in the past is relevant.
Helluva point there. :rolleyes:
So let’s get this straight… in a discussion about the confirmation of Kagan, no one cares what a Senator on the Judiciary committee thinks? A Senator who is responsible for deciding whether or not to proceed to vote in the full Senate on her confirmation? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense…
How do you know she didn’t find the other guy’s lack of judicial experience similarly refreshing?
She certainly made mention that it wasn’t a deal breaker; do you have a cite to back up your implication that Sen. Feinstein feels markedly different about the two nominees that will better support yet another of your tired attempts to portray liberal hypocrisy, or is this all you have?
Where—thank God—her fate will be decided by the *other *99 Senators who will cast their votes with unblemished objectivity, liberated from the pernicious influence of partisan ideology…
I think Bricker is implying that there is a contradiction between what Senator Feinstein said about Estrada and what she said about Kagan.
But as he himself posted, what the Senator said about Estrada was “we have no record of judicial decision-making to examine. This is not dispositive in itself, but it is the first area where we find no record to help us in our decision”. So the Senator was saying that Senate needs some basis to review a nominee’s views of the law. One potential method would be a judicial record but she explictly points out there are other alternative methods.
So a nominee with no judicial experience but having some other equivalent documented legal record might be reviewable. A candidate with no documented legal record would not.
Believe it or not, now the Pubs are bashing Kagan over her association with Thurgood Marshall. :rolleyes: (She clerked for him once.)
Unless you can show where the Judiciary Committee has not been granted access to a portion of Kagan’s writing, I don’t see your point.
It’s not important beyond whether or not she will vote to confirm, which she will. Unless Bricker is trying to argue that she should vote against Kagan’s confirmation then I don’t see what relevance his post has to the hearings or to Kagan’s confirmation.
From CNN:
The usual claim of evidence, at long last, of Liberal Hypocrisy! Gotcha now, lefties! We knew it all along, see, there’s the proof!
Except for the usual something else …
No, he’s just pointing out her partisanship-- exactly what you do all the time, except when it occurs on the right.
I don’t think partisanship in the Senate is anything that requires pointing out.
Yeah, it’s usually glaringly obvious these days. “Ooo, look, the Sun!”
Really?
That’s your honest answer to those two statements? “It’s refreshing,” vs “So we have no record of judicial decision-making to examine,” are really just about the same, are they?
Well, I guess I’ll let that analysis stand as a testament to liberal honesty, then. Fair enough. “The two statements show no particular bias,” is as honest as a liberal can be.
OT, but how dare he criticize the Socratic method? Law school is not education, it’s training. Embarrassing people who aren’t prepared is important indoctrination in the ethic.
(Sorry. Being sarcastic. I tend to when people talk about their experiences with inflexible tradition, then shrug and say, “eh, whadya gonna do?”)