"Kagan hearings promise political theater"

That is the title of a somewhat cynical article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. This one, in fact...:popcorn:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569204575329164176933620.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The hearings will be posturing for the upcoming elections, since there is no real way the Republicans can sabotage the nomination without a severe backlash. :nerd:

What can you do about it? Write your Republican Senators and Representatives to do just that...make points with the upcoming elections in mind:(

[quote="BVM_1221, post:1, topic:203318"]

What can you do about it? Write your Republican Senators and Representatives to do just that...make points with the upcoming elections in mind:

[/quote]

Is this what you want of the upper house of the federal legislature? For the greatest deliberative body on earth to engage in a political dog and pony show?

I thought they had better things to do. Waxing political for the cameras just destroys credibility.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:2, topic:203318"]
Is this what you want of the upper house of the federal legislature? For the greatest deliberative body on earth to engage in a political dog and pony show?

I thought they had better things to do. Waxing political for the cameras just destroys credibility.

[/quote]

:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk: Behave yourself.:tsktsk::tsktsk:

I did not say, hint, imply, suggest, or otherwise state that I approve or disapprove of what is going on. I simply reported on an article, gave the link, and, in light of what the article stated, suggested a writing campaign.

Anything else is your own over-heated imagination.:shrug:

Still, I like your snarky comment about the dog-and-pony show:D

[quote="BVM_1221, post:3, topic:203318"]
:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk: Behave yourself.:tsktsk::tsktsk:

I did not say, hint, imply, suggest, or otherwise state that I approve or disapprove of what is going on. I simply reported on an article, gave the link, and, in light of what the article stated, suggested a writing campaign.

[/quote]

I believe you did: " Write your Republican Senators and Representatives to do just that...make points with the upcoming elections in mind ..."

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:2, topic:203318"]
Is this what you want of the upper house of the federal legislature? For the greatest deliberative body on earth to engage in a political dog and pony show?

I thought they had better things to do. Waxing political for the cameras just destroys credibility.

[/quote]

Wouldn't that just be more of the same, politics as usual? Our representatives lost their credibility a long time ago. Their ratings would not be in the toilet otherwise.

Mr. Sessions has spent weeks painting Ms. Kagan, 50, as a ruthless political operative bent on abusing judicial power to elevate gay rights above national security, help criminals beat the rap and crack down on gun owners instead.Democrats, meanwhile, aim to focus attention on the conservative Supreme Court majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts, which they portray as a coterie of plutocrats seeking to protect robber barons from popular outrage.

In "decision after decision… corporations are winning over ordinary citizens," Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a Judiciary Committee member, said this past week, "The current conservative bloc," he said, is bending "the Constitution to suit an ideology."

Greatest Deliberative Body on the Face of the Earth, or...
dog and pony show?/

hmmm:shrug:

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:4, topic:203318"]
I believe you did: " Write your Republican Senators and Representatives to do just that...make points with the upcoming elections in mind ..."

[/quote]

Exactly. I was reiterating what the article suggested as being something that can be done in this pathetic situation. :(

The process of nominations for the Supreme Court could really do with a massive overhaul:yup:

But I have no idea how to accomplish such an overhaul.:nope:

But currently, it is disfunctional:sad_yes:

[quote="BVM_1221, post:7, topic:203318"]

The process of nominations for the Supreme Court could really do with a massive overhaul:

[/quote]

Based on what? The last bad justice was Abe Fortas. The process seems to be working.
Folks here just want different nominees.

There used to be more ABA input but Bush put the kibosh on that.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:2, topic:203318"]
Is this what you want of the upper house of the federal legislature? For the greatest deliberative body on earth to engage in a political dog and pony show?

I thought they had better things to do. Waxing political for the cameras just destroys credibility.

[/quote]

Who said they are the greatest deliberative bdy on Earth -- or that any serious deliberation occurs there at all?

Just watch C-SPAN, dog & pony shows and waxing political for the cameras is what they do.

I suggest from now on we just skip the hearings for SCOTUS nominees.

[quote="didymus, post:9, topic:203318"]
Who said they are the greatest deliberative bdy on Earth -- or that any serious deliberation occurs there at all?

Just watch C-SPAN, dog & pony shows and waxing political for the cameras is what they do.

I suggest from now on we just skip the hearings for SCOTUS nominees.

[/quote]

No problem. I have not had a TV set since the year 1985. I doubt if I would learn anything new or startling if I ever could be bothered to watch. :shrug:For entertainment I'll stick to my 3 cats

[quote="BVM_1221, post:10, topic:203318"]
No problem. I have not had a TV set since the year 1985. I doubt if I would learn anything new or startling if I ever could be bothered to watch.

[/quote]

Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Brett Favre and the release of Nelson Mandela. All on TV since 1985. You missed it.

I ceratinly hope the Republicans stand up to Kagan:

•She is a judicial activist, who agrees with former Justice Thurgood Marshall that the Constitution given to us by the Framers was "defective" and that it contained "outdated notions of liberty, justice and equality."

•Her "judicial hero" is former Israeli justice Aharon Barak, who said a judge "may give a statute a new meaning...[t]he statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning that suits new social needs."

•She is anti-military and pro-homosexual. While dean of the Harvard Law School, she kicked military recruiters off campus, in defiance of a federal law which had been upheld by the Supreme Court on a unanimous vote. She said she "abhorred" the military's ban on open homosexual service, and called it a "moral injustice of the first order."

•She believes in the supremacy of international law over the Constitution. While dean at Harvard Law, she dropped the required course in the Constitution and replaced it with a required course on international law.

•She is pro-abortion and anti-life. She has contributed financially to pro-abortion groups, and believes that abortions should be taxpayer funded.

•She believes that the government may ban political pamphlets and books during an election season, in violation of the First Amendment's free speech protections.

•She is anti-Second Amendment. She is "not sympathetic" to the claim that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution.

•She is pro-Muslim. At the same time she kicked military recruiters off campus, she allowed Saudi Arabia to recruit lawyers for work on Shariah-Compliant Finance.

•She is anti-capitalist and pro-socialist, once writing glowingly of "socialism's greatness."

She is going to make Stevens look conservative if she is confirmed.

Kagan is 'pro-Muslim" but holds an Israeli as a paragon? :rolleyes: Yes, the hearings will just be political posturings.

So much for informed debate.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:13, topic:203318"]
Kagan is 'pro-Muslim" but holds an Israeli as a paragon? :rolleyes: Yes, the hearings will just be political posturings.

So much for informed debate.

[/quote]

No, I think it's proper for Repubs or anyone else to make it clear to the nation (if they can) that she's pro-abortion. It won't make any difference in her senate approval, of course, because the Democrats control the senate. But people should know that a vote for Obama was (and will always be) a vote for abortion. Some won't care, of course, but some will.

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:14, topic:203318"]
No, I think it's proper for Repubs or anyone else to make it clear to the nation (if they can) that she's pro-abortion. It won't make any difference in her senate approval, of course, because the Democrats control the senate. But people should know that a vote for Obama was (and will always be) a vote for abortion. Some won't care, of course, but some will.

[/quote]

I'm not convinced that Kagan's nomination is a slam dunk. The Republicans are keeping the filibuster option open:

"Republicans are keeping the option of a filibuster on the table as Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings get underway this week.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Sunday said a filibuster could happen “if things come out to indicate she’s so far outside the mainstream.”

Republicans had earlier suggested that they wouldn’t use a filibuster, and Sessions’s comments may be aimed at keeping one of the minority party’s few cards on the table. In the unlikely event of a filibuster, Democrats would likely have the 60 votes needed to override it, as several Republican senators have given hints they would support Kagan."

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/27/republicans-retain-filibuster-option-for-kagan/

This article was written before Byrd died, so right now the Dems don't have 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Also, when Sotomayor testified, she said she supported the 2nd amendment, that Americans have a right to guns. But we know today that she voted against it in this latest bill. I think this will give the Republicans ammunition (excuse the pun) to really go after Kagan and ask if she is deceiving them as Sotomayor did.

I am hoping for lots of fireworks from the Republicans this time.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:13, topic:203318"]
Kagan is 'pro-Muslim" but holds an Israeli as a paragon? :rolleyes: Yes, the hearings will just be political posturings.

So much for informed debate.

[/quote]

And of course the Dems did no political posturing with Roberts or Alito, did they? :rolleyes:

It all started with Bork:imsorry:

[quote="Brooklyn, post:16, topic:203318"]
And of course the Dems did no political posturing with Roberts or Alito, did they?

[/quote]

Tu quoque?

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. "

[quote="BVM_1221, post:17, topic:203318"]
It all started with Bork:imsorry:

[/quote]

Yes, it did. In a sense, it all started with Roe v Wade, because suddenly abortion through 9 months of pregnancy became legal, not through a change in laws, but through judicial fiat.

Bork was a nominee who openly stated his convictions regarding the constitution (no one will ever make that mistake again), and his conviction that the words of the constitution mean something and ought to be taken at face value.

Because of Roe v Wade, there was great terror on the left that a Bork on the court could lead to its reversal. Thus the new adverb. Bork was borked.

But we all know the president's position on abortion. He's for it. Naturally, his nominee will be ideologically in accord with him.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:18, topic:203318"]
Tu quoque?

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. "

[/quote]

Beau, this is what you do all the time!!! I can't count how many times you did it in the thread on Gore. All I can say to you is "glass houses."

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.