Slashdot Mirror
Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court
Mr Pink Eyes writes "President Obama has made his choice to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court that was left by the retirement of Justice Stevens. According to this article that choice will be Elena Kagan."
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
Sounds like Obama.
> Yes, she might have a secret agenda but it's more likely she's just not very biased about stuff.
Are really that naive or are you just a shill? President Obama is the most overtly Progressive (read Social Democratic for you Euro readers out there) politician to make POTUS since Wilson and FDR. If he nominated her she is known to be Party Regular. And he does personally know the lady. That means forget anything she has said publicly while serving in lower positions and/or trying to get nominated to positions of authority. It would be safe to bet the rent money that within a year of getting appointed to the SCOTUS none will doubt she holds the following views.
The Constitution is a 'living' document that means whatever the Party needs it to mean today.
The 1st Amendment says Porn is protected speech but political ads aren't. Religious speech can and must be suppressed wherever and whenever it occurs outside an officially designated church.
The 2nd Amendment protects the government's Right to possess weapons but says nothing about thee or me.
The 4th Amendment doesn't apply when a Party member occupies the White House.
The 9th and 10th Amendments are a historical curiosity that say zero about the modern government's power to do whatever the Hell the Party wants.
Roe v Wade is Holy Writ. Even as most scholars now admit it was a terrible ruling and the poster child for legislating from the bench.
Enforcing our immigration laws is racist. I.e. Arizona is a bunch of racists who will need to be punished for copy/pasting Federal immigration laws (which aren't actually enforced) into State law. The idea being it is OK to have immigration laws on the books, but to actually enforce one is bad.
Democrat delenda est
So your perfectly fine with the Supreme Court or any Court for that matter making the 1st, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments pretty much null and void except in the most narrow of situations?
I mean if the constitution is an old document that doesn't apply any more and should be interpreted to however in the hell people of today decide instead of in the context to which it was written, then your opening the door for just that. Accepting the already reinterpreted versions is not only dangerous but the same so why look at it at all? It's only the highest document in the land that describes what the federal government can and cannot do accounting to the foundation of this great nation. And if it doesn't matter on some things, then why should it matter at all on the things you might hold valuable?
This always makes me laugh. Strict constitutionalists seem to be the ones protecting the freedoms that the constitution bars the government from taking from the people. Yet, those who see that as just, are typically the same ones who see laws that restrict their freedoms or empower law enforcement as unconscionable even though the restrictions that make warrant-less searches and wire taping or being held without a trial, or being stopped on the street and arrested if you can't provide your papers all illegal and a violation of constitutional rights if it happens.
So maybe you should ask yourself, if the rights you hold dear are protected by the constitution, then why is it that only part of the constitution should have meaning and not all of it. After all, it's the one thing that stops the government from ignoring all your rights.
I can see it now, You don't need a gun, you don't need a speedy trial, you don't need protections from unwarranted searches, you don't need freedom of speech, you don't need to vote, you don't need to be able to practice a religion of your choice or non-at-all, you do not need to elect your representatives or senators. What's that? The constitution? Well, that's just something that gets interpreted to however we want at the moment, it's nothing binding because it is an old document. It is simple and elegant, but not perfect, and many many times before has it stood for nothing and been reinterpreted and you will let it stand for nothing again.
I don't see the word "Constitutionalist" anywhere up thread; and I don't think most of the ACLU members and supporters out there with the "I'm a Constitution Voter" bumper stickers would agree at all that supporting the Constitution is "right wing", no.
Considering that the Founding Fathers envisioned an agrarian nation founded on stealing land from the American Indians, where only white male landowners could vote, where citizens had no recourse against oppression by state governments (since the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states until Amendment XIV was passed), that many of the Founders owned slaves -- and in Jefferson's case, raped them -- yes, I do indeed hope that people like Elena Kagan know better than that.
Could we please put down the stupid mythology that the Founders were some sort of intellectual and moral paragons? They didn't believe that themselves. Thanks.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood