Mrs. Clinton - Supreme Court?
Moderator: Super Moderators
We scream incessantly about "democracy" (where appointment is based solely on popularity), and we back up our rhetoric with our guns & bombs around the world.
But what all of you are advocating for here is meritocracy - that is very different from what this nation claims to be.
Sounds wonderful. It also sounds like justification for a tyranny of the "educated", or those worthy of "merit". It's proof of a naturally gifted aristocracy that all of you believe exists, a convenient way to identify the elite class of born leaders to which we all owe our allegiance - right? Of course, that notion is fundamental to the conservative mind (& social dominance theory).
Who has determined the criteria of merit in your world?
But what all of you are advocating for here is meritocracy - that is very different from what this nation claims to be.
Sounds wonderful. It also sounds like justification for a tyranny of the "educated", or those worthy of "merit". It's proof of a naturally gifted aristocracy that all of you believe exists, a convenient way to identify the elite class of born leaders to which we all owe our allegiance - right? Of course, that notion is fundamental to the conservative mind (& social dominance theory).
Who has determined the criteria of merit in your world?
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-21-2010 10:30 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Interesting question, Corvid...
If it were put to a direct vote by the people, who would gain more votes?
The fact is, if we want to continue our democracy, we need to accept the possibility that Oprah might be appointed - she's popular, and Bolton might be rejected again. Or, vise-versa. Personally, I think that an Oprah appointment would be outrageous, just as I thought the idea of Arnold S. as governor of California was an outrage (and without merit).
We have the means within our system to change all of that, and to ensure that only people of a certain ilk are placed on the court, or in the operating room. It would require amendments and/or conventions in my estimation.
Until then statements like...
...are nothing but absurdities, uttered by contemptuous class supremacists.
If it were put to a direct vote by the people, who would gain more votes?
The fact is, if we want to continue our democracy, we need to accept the possibility that Oprah might be appointed - she's popular, and Bolton might be rejected again. Or, vise-versa. Personally, I think that an Oprah appointment would be outrageous, just as I thought the idea of Arnold S. as governor of California was an outrage (and without merit).
We have the means within our system to change all of that, and to ensure that only people of a certain ilk are placed on the court, or in the operating room. It would require amendments and/or conventions in my estimation.
Until then statements like...
No non-Attorney will be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States EVER again!
...are nothing but absurdities, uttered by contemptuous class supremacists.
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-21-2010 04:24 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
- lazarus long
- Pirate
- Posts: 621
- Joined: 03-16-2008 10:51 PM
lazarus long wrote: my good friend squid! it's so nice to share a forum with you again! your points are right on, as always, and irrefutable. that's why they're often danced around or outright ignored. DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT!
Hello, lazarus long - and thank you for your kind words!
By the way, I'm way too stupid to give up...
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-21-2010 10:18 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... court.html
May 07, 2010
Signs Point to Kagan for Supreme Court
Mike Allen: "Look for President Obama to name his Supreme Court pick Monday, and look for it to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean. The pick isn't official, but top White House aides will be shocked if it's otherwise. Kagan's relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post. And President Obama considers her to be a persuasive, fearless advocate who would serve as an intellectual counterweight to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, and could lure swing Justice Kennedy into some coalitions The West Wing may leak the pick to AP's Ben Feller on the later side Sunday, then confirm it for others for morning editions."
Another sign: Salon reports the White House is circulating pro-Kagan talking points.
racehorse
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... ecess.html
May 10, 2010
Kagan Vote Likely Before July Recess
Roll Call says the timing of the announcement of Elena Kagan to fill the Supreme Court vacancy means she "will be confirmed before the Senate adjourns for the July Fourth recess in about seven weeks."
Kagan "is expected to begin meetings with Senators as soon as this week. Kagan won bipartisan support for her confirmation as solicitor general last year; Senators voted 61-31 in favor... Still, GOP Senators aren't expected to let Kagan walk onto the bench uncontested. GOP Senators plan to use the confirmation debate to wage a broader political war against Obama over the future of the judiciary."
racehorse
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... views.html
May 10, 2010
Even Friends Not Sure of Kagan's Views
Jeffrey Toobin writes that he's been friends with Elena Kagan since they met on the first day of law school in 1983. Nontheless, he is "somewhat at a loss" when it comes to understanding how she'll be as a Supreme Court justice.
"Clearly, she's a Democrat. She was a highly regarded member of the White House staff during the Clinton years, but her own views were and are something of a mystery. She has written relatively little, and nothing of great consequence... But on the Court, Kagan will have to do something she's not done before. Show her hand. Develop a clear ideology. Make tough votes. I have little doubt she's up to the job, but am less clear on how she'll do it."
racehorse
- Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
There is some info on her positions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... g-law.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 98210.aspx
And some interesting blood ties to some arch neo-cons and, what else, teabaggers.
http://docudharma.com/diary/21063/morni ... e-supremes
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... g-law.html
During her '09 confirmation hearing, the New York Times notes that there was no daylight between her and GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham. "Graham … led her through a six-minute colloquy about the president's broad authority to detain enemy combatants. "Do you believe we're at war?" Graham asked. "I do, senator," Kagan replied. (New York Times 5/17/09)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 98210.aspx
And some interesting blood ties to some arch neo-cons and, what else, teabaggers.
http://docudharma.com/diary/21063/morni ... e-supremes
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
Oh wait, I see, it's like this:
"The reality is that Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks."
"The reality is that Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks."