Kagan hearings

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by moreluck, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    What amazes me is that with 4 hours of hearings gone by, we have not heard the candidates voice. It's all about different windbags making their opening statements. I swear, they all love to hear themselves talk.

    There should only be ONE opening statement explaining what is about to take place and welcoming people......then let the questioning begin.

    What a waste of time and in turn a waste of my money! Their "slug schedule" would drive me nuts! :sick:
     
  2. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    Blah, blah, blah.....................never tried a case, never handed down a judgment ........a perfect little sheep for the moonbats
     
  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  4. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    She admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer, she falsified a document and the confirmation hearings are still proceeding? It seems to me that this admission should automatically disqualify her as a nominee!!!

    Elena Kagan has now admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer in 1997, she fraudulently revised an official medical opinion by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The medical society was going to publicly reveal that “its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the (partial birth abortion) procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman.”
    In a secret internal memo, she wrote that “This, of course, would be a disaster[.]”
    Kagan therefore secretly revised the language so the final statement in 1997 claimed that the partial-birth abortion “may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
    That was a pernicious lie. The medical panel originally said that was false. Kagan substituted her own judgment for a medical consensus.
    No wonder eight hundred Jewish rabbis have publicly stated that in their opinion, Elena Kagan is not morally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Her fraudulent actions in 1997 legally authorized the killing of approximately two thousand newborns or almost-newborns each year, according to the pro-abortion Gutmacher Institute.

     
  5. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    [​IMG]


    By Eric Allie - November 21, 2011
     
  6. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his / her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he / she has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he / she “served in governmental employment.”
    What do all of you say? Should she recuse?
     
  7. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    Yes she should, but will not.
     
  8. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  9. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    She's not the only one who should recuse: click
     
  10. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Although the two judges attending that event can lead to speculation of inappropriate (not illegal) actions, we know for fact that Kagan had a hand in deciding preemptive tactics on how to defend the law in the SCotUS. Maybe just degrees of difference, but different.
     
  11. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Nothing Kagan did was illegal either, the argument for her recusal is that she has a preformed opinion on the legality of the Affordable healthcare Act and therefore can't/won't judge the arguments impartially. I think that's true, but I also don't think she's the only one.
     
  12. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    The law states “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he / she “served in governmental employment.” Did the two judges express an opinion?
     
  13. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  14. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    Stop making sense!
     
  15. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Unlike Kagan they were already members of SCOTUS when the healthcare act was passed, so of course they have been careful not to "express an opinion", but if you really don't believe they have just as strong opinions as Kagan I have some real estate you might be interested in.
    The law cannot force a Supreme Court justice to recuse themselves, it's ultimately up to them.
     
  16. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    So you are saying no they did not and yes she did but that's somehow the same thing?
     
  17. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    No. I'm saying they all have opinions, none of them are truly impartial. If Kagan had already been justice when the AHA was passed you wouldn't have heard a peep out of her about it, but she would still have had the same opinion and it wouldn't have made her any more impartial.
     
  18. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    True none are impartial, but do they have integrity to take the constitution as the first consideration,
    and the current historical law as the second consideration?
     
  19. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    The short answer is that's a question that is supposed to be answered by the confirmation process. The longer answer is they all interpret the articles of the constitution slightly differently, even Thomas and Scalia have their differences. I'm sure they all believe they do it with integrity.
     
  20. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Well I haven't heard anyone saying she should recuse herself for the things she has done since she has become a justice.