I’m not sure if this has been posted yet in this thread:
ETA: Activist, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST!!! Socialist communist nazi, argle bargle blahshhshsh
I think what you meant to say was, “I think you’ve made your point, counsel. Move along, please.” 
Well, there is a lack of geographical diversity on the court, now.
It’s all New York. Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Manhattan. Four of the five represented.
I am stunned at how inept the RNC’s response has been so far. They had years to prep for Kagan, who has been on the shortlist since inauguration, virtually. They certainly knew she was on the short list since Sotomayor’s nomination. And this is among their central critiques:
In their very first press release they ham-handedly deride her for thinking the original draft of the Constitution was defective? I mean, really? Their months of oppo research came up with the stunning revelation that Kagan recognizes the problem of slavery in American history?
Even if they really meant to convey that Kagan was in favor of courts fixing the Constitution instead of amendments – their post hoc explanation for this argument – they couldn’t spare a few moments before issuing the longcoming press release to make sure they weren’t giving the wrong impression by asking “Does she still think the Constitution as originally drafted was defective?”
Man, I really hope they try pushing on this angle. Attacking her for agreeing with Thurgood Marshall that slavery was bad? They don’t usually leave their chins that wide open. That is unusually stupid even for them.
So I have a background as a Constitutional scholar?
Cool.
So does every person that graduated high school in the US.
Kagan is going to fly through the nomination.
It’s an election year, so Republicans will have to flex their conservative bona fides by bitching about an Obama nominee to their brain dead constituents. In reality there is nothing that moderates can object to about Kagan. She’s well qualified and doesn’t have any extreme positions about interpreting the law.
I think the GOP will just embarrass themselves like they did with Sotomayor by objecting to a really moderate candidate and making themselves look like a fringe party.
Just out of curiosity, would you describe Obama’s opposition to John Roberts as flexing his liberal bona fides by bitching about a Bush monmiee to his “brain dead” constituents?
Of course not.
Right.
If she is at least not a centrist on abortion I cannot support her. If she’s a centrist (ie supporting parental consent, giving states more say on abortion) I might support her to prevent a more pro-abortion judge.
Define what in your understnding a SCOTUS justice does. Not a putdown; I want to see if you understand what you’re expecting her to rule in favor of.
Looks like you won.
~
On further research, it appears that the nominee has more experience than I thought. I still have misgivings, but not as much as before. I also wonder to what extent the centrist leanings of this nominee as being reported in the press are real, and to what extent they are spin. It seems to me that adding her to the Supreme Court will likely result in a case of the status quo, so I can’t get too bothered by it either way.
I’m glad Mr. Moto brought up the case of Rehnquist, but I don’t know that the exception proves the rule. It might also beg the question of what the bare minimum level of experience is required, the answer to which I’m sure varies considerably depending upon whether one voted for the President who makes the nomination, or whether one did not.
Well, some are less scholarly than others.
To rule in favour of the rights of people as per the Tenth Amendment.
Here are the confirmation votes for centrist Justices: Stephen Breyer (87–9), David Souter (90–9), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (96–3), Anthony Kennedy (97–0), and Sandra Day O’Connor (99–0).
The vote for Sotomayor was 68–31. I believe this was the result of Republican politicians pandering to brain dead constituents. When Democrats vote against a moderate and qualified judicial nominee then I will assume that they’re pandering too.
Opposition to a conservative nominee like Roberts is not the same thing as opposing a well qualified moderate.
Heh. A guy on NPR said today, “It’s time for America’s heartland to have a seat on the Supreme Court. How could they have forgotten Staten Island?”
Can I ask who considers Breyer and Ginsburg centrist? If that’s your starting point I think your results are going to be skewed. As a senator, Obama made a calculation to vote against Roberts even though he was very well qualified. Ideologically he was opposed to him. By the way, five years after O’Connor, Scalia was confirmed 98-0, but he’s not on your list. The bottom line is that the days of judges being confirmed unanimously or by 9-to-1 margins are over and it’s not going to happen again for the foreseeable future.
I just realized that when Kagan replaces Stevens there will be not one WASP left on the SCOTUS! :eek: