Kagan hearings

[moreluck]

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!

 

[Babagounj]

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

 

[moreluck]

I agree with Capt. Hegseth....

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026668.php

 

[Babagounj]

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.

 

[moreluck]

By Eric Allie - November 21, 2011

 

[texan]

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?

 

[Babagounj]

Yes she should, but will not.

 

[moreluck]

Yes.

 

[Jones]

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

 

[trplnkl]

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

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.

 

[Jones]

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.

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.

 

[texan]

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.

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?

 

[moreluck]

 

[Catatonic]

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.

Stop making sense!

 

[Jones]

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?

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.

 

[av8torntn]

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.

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

 

[Jones]

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

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.

 

[texan]

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?

 

[Jones]

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?

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.

 

[av8torntn]

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.

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