If Bush Has Done It

>> Monday, May 10, 2010

Obama's latest pick for the US Supreme Court has never been a judge. There will of course be many who'll say 'so what? in decades and centuries past not all justices were judges prior to nomination.'

Now for a reality check. Can any of these folks dismissive of Obama's pick's lack of judicial experience honestly claim they would have been just as dismissive if Bush had nominated to the Supreme Court someone without judicial experience?

Don't bother, I'll answer that:

NO!

Of course not. You all would have accused Bush of any number of things from ineptitude in the performance of his duty as President to charges of judicial and ideological activism. Both Roberts and Alito had served as judges prior to their appointments and STILL were dragged through the mud by the Senate. But again, imagine what would have happened if Bush had nominated someone as lacking in experience as Elena Kagan...

OH! He did! Remember Harriet Miers? What happened? She was attacked from both the left and right-- more so, much more so from the Left. The question now is, will the Left attack Obama's choice for the same reason?

LOLOL!!!! Of course not! Excuses are already being laid out for Elena Kagan:

"Kagan has not had judicial experience because GOP blocked her nomination. Kagan was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1999 by President Clinton, and the Senate, then controlled by Republicans, blocked her nomination."

--Media Matters

Truth is, Kagan was not nominated for her judicial experience. She was chosen for her judicial/constitutional ideology. She was nominated because she thinks like the man who nominated her. This country is suffering enough because of how this man thinks. Do we really want to saddle this nation with his(her) judicial philosophy for decades to come?

30 comments:

Jim May 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM  

She was attacked from both the left and right-- more so, much more so from the Left.

As I recall, the left didn't say anything. They let the right do all the objecting and, shall I say, smugly watched Bush's nomination implode.

She was chosen for her judicial/constitutional ideology.

Maybe. Isn't that why we have elections?

Do we really want to saddle this nation with his(her) judicial philosophy for decades to come?

How would you know what her judicial philosophy is? We're saddled with Roberts and Alito for years to come. But they were appointed by the president who was elected at the time.

I thought you believed in the Constitution. Only when a Republican wins?

Marshall Art May 10, 2010 at 10:40 PM  

Actually, the I don't pay much attention to the left in the media, so in my case, most of the objections came, justifiably, from the right. I consider that a feather in our collective hats that we saw the error in George's selection of Harriet and voiced our concerns loud enough to make a difference. That, along with the right's reaction to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill put forth by Bush proved how the conservative portion of the population aren't likely to let just anything pass just because a Republican president supports it.

As to Kagan's judicial philosophy, I heard an interview today with someone who has looked at her in more depth and found that she is a major fan of a retired Israeli judge who was a total activist from the bench. Likely as not, she'd perform in a manner that mirrors him. Not good.

WomanHonorThyself May 12, 2010 at 2:56 PM  

great rant..she's another lefty tool who will do whatever Hussein tells her!

Jim May 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM  

major fan of a retired Israeli judge

This would be relevant in what context?

ELAshley May 13, 2010 at 9:57 AM  

In the context that she might emulate his style... that, at least, is what I get from Marshall's comment. She's a fan of a judge (that he's Israeli is irrelevant) who is a 'total activist from the bench.' We need judges who rule from the Constitution. Not from personal ideological mores-- like what Ginsberg does.

Marshall Art May 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM  

"This would be relevant in what context?"

Jeez, Jim! Though Eric responded exactly, that I stated "Likely as not, she'd perform in a manner that mirrors him. Not good." right after the bit you copied and pasted should have made your question totally unnecessaru!

Marshall Art May 13, 2010 at 10:48 AM  

Or even unnecessary. Damned fingers!

Jim May 14, 2010 at 10:46 PM  

She's a fan of a judge (that he's Israeli is irrelevant) who is a 'total activist from the bench.' We need judges who rule from the Constitution.

Oh, you mean THIS Israeli judge:

Scalia offered a moving tribute to his "good friend" Barak. No other living jurist has had a greater impact on his own country's legal system -- and perhaps on legal systems throughout the world -- Scalia argued. He went on to celebrate his fruitful and long-standing relationship with the Israeli judge, and to affirm a profound respect for the man, one that trumped their fundamental philosophical, legal and constitutional disagreements.

This guy?

Marshall Art May 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM  

What have you proved, Jim, except that in Scalia's case, there are "fundamental philosophical, legal and constitutional disagreements" between them. In the interview I heard, there were no such pronouncements regarding Kagan. Perhaps you've heard of a similar disparity between Kagan and Barak?

Jim May 15, 2010 at 12:12 AM  

Scalia's case, there are "fundamental philosophical, legal and constitutional disagreements" between them.

Elena Kagan, called Aharon Barak 'my judicial hero. He is the judge who has best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice.'

What part of that statement is at odds with what Scalia said? What part of that statement makes any comparison between Kagan's and Barak's judicial philosophy?

You've got nothing here. I've shown it and you know it.

Marshall Art May 15, 2010 at 1:03 PM  

"What part of that statement is at odds with what Scalia said? What part of that statement makes any comparison between Kagan's and Barak's judicial philosophy?"

Scalia didn't say he respected the guy's opinions. He said he respected the guy's impact on his country's judicial system. The difference is night and day. Kagan refers to his opinions as what drives her respect, Scalia, his impact. And again, there hasn't been anything that shows Kagan disagrees with Barak. Indeed, what's been said suggests that she does agree, which is not a plus for a nominee for a justice of the SCOTUS. We've already got an idiot or two who believes we should look to decisions of foreign courts in reaching opinions here. Why would we want another? The opinions of our justices should be based soley on American interests, culture and character, not on what Israelis, Italians or Greeks do. Otherwise, we will become those other countries instead of remaining what made us become the greatest country on earth.

Jim May 15, 2010 at 9:33 PM  

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. What is your source for both Scalia's and Kagan's thoughts on Barack.

Kagan refers to his opinions as what drives her respect, Scalia, his impact.

Where is this from?

And again, there hasn't been anything that shows Kagan disagrees with Barak.

Is this supposed to be proof that she doesn't disagree? There hasn't been anything that shows Kagan disagrees with 9/11 truthers either. So what?

I think you are making a LOT of assumptions that you haven't backed up.

Marshall Art May 16, 2010 at 1:28 AM  

"No other living jurist has had a greater impact on his own country's legal system -- and perhaps on legal systems throughout the world -- Scalia argued."

I'm not sure, but I think I got that from your own freakin' comment. As for Kagan's views of Barak, I got it from the radio interview to which I referred. I won't say it's bible, but I have no reason to suspect the credibility of the person giving the information. If you have some information regarding Kagan's views that would counter this bit of her own opinions of Barak, anything that would assure the nation that she'd base her opinions on what the Constitution says, rather than an activist twisting of or disregard for what the Constitution says, by all means, let's have it.

I recall the Harriet Meiers situation. Though I believe she had more in her background that would qualify her than Kagan, she definitely didn't have enough. We didn't need liberals to tell us she didn't fit the bill. Apparently, all you libs need is for Barry to give his approval and you swallow whatever he feeds you.

Bloviating Zeppelin May 17, 2010 at 12:57 PM  

Kagan is in perfect keeping with Obaka and his regime. She is very well educated from an Eastern Leftist bent, but possesses no real world experience or a realistic interpretation of the way the nation and the world truly operate.

Further: she is a lesbian. Why is it that she, and other Leftists for that matter, don't wish to truly OWN their nature?

BZ

Marshall Art May 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM  

Zepster,

I've heard her accused of being a lezbo, but I've also heard she has publicly said otherwise. Her butch looks and love of sports shouldn't be held against her. Goodness knows there seems to be enough legitimate stuff.

For the record, no, I would NOT like to see a homo or lesbian on the SCOTUS where the matter of state sanctioning of their faux marriages and other issues regarding their supposed rights might someday be decided once and for all.

Dan Trabue May 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM  

The bloviated one said...

Further: she is a lesbian. Why is it that she, and other Leftists for that matter, don't wish to truly OWN their nature?

This is incredibly ironic, funny and stupid/sad all at the same time.

It's stupid/sad because... what difference does it make if she's a lesbian?? Who cares? Are we going to start refusing to nominate people who we think have sin in their lives (for you who think being a lesbian is a sin)? If so, good luck nominating anyone.

It's incredibly ironic and funny because of the constant stream of self-hating gay conservative folk who've been caught playing doctor with another boy. Why DON'T conservatives own up to their true nature? Because they've been taught you're a BAD boy if you like boys and it's something to be ashamed of and hide and so they self-destruct themselves with self-loathing, thanks to that bit of "good news" from the Religious Right.

Let's review that list of conservative men caught playing cootchie with other boys/men...

Republican politician Roy Ashburn
Anti-gay minister George Alan Reker
Republican politician Richard Curtis
Republican politician Bob Allen
Republican politician Glen Murphy, Jr
Republican politician Edward Schrock
Republican politician David Dreier
Republican politician Mark Foley
Conservative evangelist Ted Haggard
Republican politician Larry Craig...

For starters.

And the list of Liberal guys caught "being secretly gay?"

....

?

Anyone? I can't think of any. So, reviewing the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, it does not appear that the libs have any serious problem at being who they are. Having said that, given the climate of hatred and violence that has been too often directed towards gay folk, you can understand them trying to keep it secret, so that's not so much a problem as it is the self-haters who preach and legislate anti-gay words and actions, but who turn to be gay themselves.

Marshall Art May 19, 2010 at 8:47 PM  

"It's stupid/sad because... what difference does it make if she's a lesbian??"

as I said...

"...I would NOT like to see a homo or lesbian on the SCOTUS where the matter of state sanctioning of their faux marriages and other issues regarding their supposed rights might someday be decided once and for all."

You don't want oil men having anything to do with regulations of the oil industry, yet you're cool with a homosexual having input into deciding whether they can appeal to the Constitution? What's wrong with this picuture?

"It's incredibly ironic and funny because of the constant stream of self-hating gay conservative folk who've been caught playing doctor with another boy."

"Constant stream"? Can we be a little more hyperbolic? Any good person, any real Christian would hate their own sinful urges, don't you think? Oh wait, as a lib, you DON'T think so. For as you said, "...it does not appear that the libs have any serious problem at being who they are."

And that sums up the problem with libs and morality. They DON'T have any serious problems being as sinful as pleases them. They simply decide their desires are no longer sinful. They simply insist they aren't at fault. They simply do not own up to their own shortcomings but instead demand that others accept them as they are and pretend there's nothing wrong with it.

I feel a whole lot better with people who are too ashamed to publicize their sinfulness. It's not good that they hide while engaging in it, but it's good that they're ashamed to let anyone know. One SHOULD be ashamed of their sinful desires and work to overcome them.

Dan Trabue May 21, 2010 at 9:18 AM  

Marshall...

And that sums up the problem with libs and morality. They DON'T have any serious problems being as sinful as pleases them.

Is there any point in my pointing out what I've already pointed out dozens of times? That it's not a matter of thinking homosexuality is a sin and saying it's okay for selfish reasons, it's a matter of thinking that YOU are mistaken when you consider it a sin.

So, while you are free to guess whatever you wish to guess about people, the fact is we disagree with you. You misrepresent reality every time you bear this false witness.

It WOULD be good if you had a bit of sense of shame about such bearing of false witness and kept such falsehoods to yourself.

Good luck with that, bro.

Dan Trabue May 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM  

Marshall...

They simply do not own up to their own shortcomings but instead demand that others accept them as they are and pretend there's nothing wrong with it.

So, anytime you're willing to man up and own up to YOUR own shortcomings, your falsehoods about what we do and don't believe, I'll be able to take your criticism as having at least SOME credibility. But as long as you so gleefully misrepresent truths and call for others to repent when you are wholly blind to the log in your eye, well, I just have a hard time taking such proclamations seriously. It's that whole stink of hypocrisy thing that makes it hard to believe.

ELAshley May 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM  

Not to be wholly argumentative Dan, but you can't call it 'false witness' when you can't defend the position that homosexuality is NOT a sin, according to scripture.

We've had this debate before, so I'm not going to get embroiled in it once again but, you have never been able to prove, to anyone's satisfaction but your own, that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality.

No false witness has been perpetrated-- at least not in the sense of equating someone's homosexual behavior as 'sinful.' The Bible says homosexuality is sinful. And since God does not change...

Dan Trabue May 21, 2010 at 10:23 AM  

Eric, similarly, you have not been able to prove to anyone's satisfaction but those who agree with you that homosexuality is always condemned in the Bible. That's my point. We have a disagreement.

The lying is not coming in by saying that MARSHALL THINKS that being gay is wrong, but in the suggestion that WE THINK being gay is wrong, but we dismiss it because, you know, we're liberal and so it's okay. That's a blatant falsehood. Once again, it's not that we think homosexuality is a sin and so we try to find a way to mask that sin, it's that we don't think homosexuality is a sin. Period.

To suggest we think something we DON'T think IS bearing false witness, right?

Jim May 21, 2010 at 2:44 PM  

You don't want oil men having anything to do with regulations of the oil industry, yet you're cool with a homosexual having input into deciding whether they can appeal to the Constitution? What's wrong with this picuture?


No more or less than I want any heterosexuals having input into deciding whether homosexuals can appeal to the Constitution.

Marshall Art May 21, 2010 at 10:17 PM  

Dan,

Can you say, "Jumping the gun"? Although homosex is surely sinful and although homos pretend it's really not sinful (at least the way THEY do it), I wasn't necessarily referring to any particular sinful practice in my last comment. Libs will generally downplay the immorality/sinfulness of their behavior. It's SOP for them. For example, it's not the illegals' fault that they are sneaking into this country in breech of our laws, it's America's fault for crimes supposedly committed. It's not the criminal's fault he's a punk/thief/murderer/drug dealer, it's society's fault. And hey, if it feels good, do it, right? Free love, dude!

But then again, you DO give credence to my comments by your outrageous comment:

"Eric, similarly, you have not been able to prove to anyone's satisfaction but those who agree with you that homosexuality is always condemned in the Bible."

A more accurate statement would be that we have not been able to prove to the satisfaction of those determined to do what they want that homosex is always condemned in the Bible. Of course it is. There is no qualifier anywhere but the extra-biblical crap that activists and enablers pretend has relevance.

I stand by my statement that you seek to pretend what is evil is good (by "you" I mean libs in general, not necessarily just homos).

ELAshley May 22, 2010 at 1:03 PM  

How many times does the word of God have to say it for you and others to believe it, Dan? The Bible is quite explicit on the subject.... 'an abomination...'

If God calls it an abomination, why would any man think that by putting a ring on another man's finger he is suddenly free to have sex with the man he 'marries'? God said "I am the Lord; I change not..."

But you're right Dan. I haven't been able to prove to your satisfaction homosexuality is a sin... Despite what the bible clearly has to say on the subject.

So I'll leave it at that; you're not going to believe me OR what the Bible has to say. All I can do now is pray the scales will fall from your eyes, and that you'll return to the God of the Bible.

Dan Trabue May 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM  

Marshall...

I stand by my statement that you seek to pretend what is evil is good

And I stand by my statement (and revise it) that you are most likely a bald-faced liar. The difference between us is, I have evidence and you have none.

I, being ME, happen to know that I do not at all pretend what is evil is good. That's just not a fact and I know it because, well, we're talking about what I, DAN TRABUE, believe. I know what I believe and you don't.

Thus, your statement is a flat lie and I know so because you're making wild guesses about what I believe that I happen to know (again, being me) are wrong.

Now, it could be that you are truly, truly ignorant, warped and/or unable because of a hardness of heart or just stupidity to wrap your mind around the fact that I know what I believe and am representing it correctly.

In that case, it would just be a bearing of false witness in willful ignorance. That's the best case scenario. Otherwise, it's just a bald faced lie.

Facts is facts.

Marshall Art May 22, 2010 at 9:14 PM  

Dan,

Your protests notwithstanding, holding to an opinion does not constitute a lie. Can I know with certainty that you do not truly believe what you claim to believe? Maybe only 99% certainty. After all these years you have not proven anything but an ability to accept on the thinnest of possibilities that which is in clear violation of God's written word. You believe what you believe by choice. This is what I believe and my belief is based on your extremely weak defense of your position. You can't be blamed too hard for that, as even better scholars than you (though not good scholars, mind you) overlook the same holes in the enabling arguments, accept the same weak points, overlay the same irrelevant extra-Biblical "facts" that don't mean anything regarding what Scripture says or doesn't say...in short, a heapin' helpin' of obvious BS that only a liberal enamored with what seems to sound Christian but is clearly not, can pretend to believe in. If you've convinced yourself that what you believe is possibly true (LOL), there's not a whole lot I can do about it. But the fact that you believe a lot of crap is not a lie in the least. Of course you're free to do so, but I am in no way compelled to buy into it in the least, so I don't. I'll need a bit more than the lame arguments you and other enablers put forth to convince me that God has given you insights that are unfathomable to those who believe in His Word. Your inability to even give pause to, much less convince someone like myself with only half a brain, is all the evidence I need that you are pretending to believe what you believe. If it makes you feel better to call me a liar, a bearer of false witness, knock yourself out. That won't change the facts.

In the meantime, I continue to remain open to attempts to persuade. Someday perhaps, you'll come up with something both new and/or never addressed by real scholars.

Mark May 22, 2010 at 10:16 PM  

Dan, you are the liar. You have said repeatedly, "God blesses gay marriage."

That is a lie.

And you know it.

Dan Trabue May 23, 2010 at 7:29 AM  

...and that concludes the crazy mind-reading segment of this post...

Marshall Art May 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM  

Wow! There was a mind-reading segment of this post??!! Damn! I always miss the cool stuff!!

Dan Trabue May 23, 2010 at 2:47 PM  

Sorry. I meant "mind-reading," as in "these guys think they know better than the actual person what the actual person thinks about something, as if they thought they could read minds. Some people are just crazy that way..."

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP