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."
Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him.
Seriously? Well I guess that's what you get when you link to "America's Watchtower." Check out his About Me page for some clues.
Here's Reuters for some less biased sanity.
My work here is dung.
This is a US centric site, managed by Americans about technology.
You're going to have a lot of US bias here. If you don't like these stories, don't read them.
I mean, looking at the title, what exactly did you think you'd find in this article?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Great, block politics from your home page. This is not a tech news site, it is a news for nerds site. If you don't like politics, feel free to modify your preferences. This appointment could have very significant consequences on dozens of issues to be decided at the Supreme Court level. Many of those, no doubt, will be news for nerds as well.
I think I'll stop here.
Well, hypothetically... if she is confirmed, and any RIAA/MPAA/intellectual property/copyright/file sharing/patent/wiretapping/etc. cases ever make it to the Supreme Court, this might be important. Your Rights Online and all that.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Help and Account >> Classic Index >> Sections >> Politics >> Click checkbox corresponding to red circle with line through it >> Press Save button
Reply to That ||
Today Paris Hilton walked past an internet router.
I mean, looking at the title, what exactly did you think you'd find in this article?
A new BSG spin-off?
Really? You think we're unaware of the American-heavy story selection around here?
The point here is clearly that a purely political story is misplaced on /.
That said, I would love for somebody to analyse Kagan's positions on tech issues here (or provide some pointers to places doing that).
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.
I know right? What possible impact could the LIFETIME appointment of a 50 year old have on the world. It's not like that appointment will have anything to do with directing the behavior of US law. And US law never has had any impact other countries.
Ok, snark off...
But understand, that a young Supreme Court Justice can have an impact on the United States and its laws an policies that go well beyond that of even the President. Obama is gone in 8 years at most, and as we have seen the first year, the fourth year, and potentially the 8th year will mean nothing. At most you will see 5 years of him effecting change and quite possibly only 2.5 yrs. Considering we see these justices approaching 90 years of age, and they don't have to campaign, this appointment will likely have 30+ years of influence on US law that will likely resonate around the world.
I'd place a US Supreme Court justice as one of the top 100 most powerful people in the world. They don't get to wield their power in the typical manner like a show of force, but they when they use it, it would take 3/4ths of the United States to overrule them.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
And if the position of the court swings to support more ridged software patents or towards supporting what is proposed in the ACTA treaty.. won't that have an extreme impact on the technological realms ?
Hi. Please turn in your internet license.
This may not be strictly technology news. However it is most definitely news that matters. In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government. You can damn well be sure this will impact many hot button topics that relate to technology.
And if you are outside the U.S. the impact is less... but the United States still sets the tone on many privacy and technology issues. It would be smart to have at least SOME idea about what is going on in this regard.
So, sorry that this isn't your third daily update on the iPad. But maybe, just maybe, this is more relevant.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Elena was having a torrid affair with Stallman. So, you know, we got that angle.
Slashdot has been rundown by PolySci Majors!! RUN AWAY! Run of the hills!
Actually, near elections there are a lot of political stories on /. I recall that there was an actual "Politics" section created in 2004.
Let's fact it, U.S. elections have a huge effect on the technology world and a Supreme Court appointment directly effects many issues as well. Many YRO stories are closely tied to what the leadership of the U.S. is choosing to do with respect to technology, the policies they pursue and the laws they pass.
Now I would have expected to see a story relating something in Kagan's past that related to technology and might reflect her views on something relevant to our interests. Nevertheless, her choice can be very important to "News for Nerds", but since she has not been a judge I think it will be very interesting trying to decide what kind of judge she will be. Non-judges have been appointed before, there's no problem with someone who's never been a judge but has other relevant experience, but there's no paper trail of judgements or decisions.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
And yet, look at the most active stories:
Which of those were "News for Nerds"? The editors here sure know what attracts eyeballs and "discourse."
As others have pointed out, you can disable politics by adding "politics" to your exclusions on dynamic or unchecking it in classic. Keep in mind that will block everything filed in politics both here and abroad.
Whether you like it or not, nerds are often very opinionated about politics because they know it affects them and therefore it is important to them. It is not a bad thing, it is not a good thing. It's just the way I am and many of my friends are.
CmdrTaco is editing right now, it's his site originally and he prefers to keep discussions diverse daily. If it annoys you just avoid it altogether.
I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world.
Also, not to sound like an elitist but I would posit that high profile court cases in privacy (warrantless wiretapping), patents (re:Bilski) and technology regulations that make it to the supreme court actually do have some bearing on the rest of the world.
My work here is dung.
I, for one, welcome our new man-suit wearing overlords.
Or at least tell us which type of phone she has and what her favorite desktop theme is.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The New York Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without a trial -- even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.
- New York Times, 17th February 2009
There you go! An article on her view regarding detention and human rights, two hot topics on any news website. If you want a nerd angle, consider the word "cyberterror."
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
That squicking noise you're hearing is political talking heads and late night comedians the length and breadth of the nation literally creaming their pants. Warm gushes of pure joy as their jobs are secured for the next 3 months.
Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.
Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to put Krogans in the Supreme Court. After all, they were genetically engineered as a weapon and so it might not be safe for the other members of the court. On the other hand, it might give me and Obama Paragon points that might open interesting conversation options later. What do your think?
Not that kind of Cisco.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
are political
the reason for this is that people are interested in politics, techie or not. and there's nothing wrong with a roomful of techies talking politics. you don't have to go there if you don't want. so leave us on slashdot who are obviously interested in politics (based on the most commented stories in slashdot history) to our politics, and go away
in fact, a political discussion on slashdot, theoretically, might be a more useful political discussion than a roomful of other classes of careers: as engineers, techies have minds which are designed to root out a problem and solve it. politics needs more of this, certainly
i really wish there were a class of "political engineers" sometimes when i hear certain mindless discussions: "the political engineering union has deemed this political topic pointless and, by the power vested in us, we are closing down this issue and erasing it from national attention. that is all"
well.. maybe that isn't such a great idea ;-)
but when i see some of the propaganda wallowing out there, the idea of "political engineers" becomes momentarily attractive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
See that big bright ball in the sky? Thats the sun.
This wet stuff? It's called rain.
None of this happens in basements...
PhysOrg.com offers REAL science and tech news, interesting science factoids etc, not just fanboi stuff. Let's see what some of today's front page headlines are...
New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots
Masses of common quarks are revealed
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
QUT physicist corrects Oxford English Dictionary
Funnel vision: New info about how cells in the eye help guide light into the retina
Suppressing activity of common intestinal bacteria reduces tumor growth
Scientists create mouse grimace scale to help identify pain in humans and animals
Chemist stitches up speedier chemical reactions
Next generation hard drives may store 10 terabits per sq inch: research
I like political news as it pertains to technology (e.g., DMCA, ACTA, George W. Bush's daughter giving him an illegal mix CD for his birthday). I'd rather not block all stories filed under politics to avoid non-tech stories such as this one.
It's because, from an American politics standpoint, he's actually a centrist, and that really pisses people off. To quote Stephen Colbert: We're at war, pick a side!
What if Ms Kagan runs Linux?
Wow, I knew Linux was platform-agnostic but had no idea the kernel was compatible with flesh and blood architecture. Or are they patching in the spleen and circulatory system drivers later?
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
All I've got to say is how Cmdr Taco found time to head over to Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein is beyond me. What with all the attention paid to editing Slashdot submissions...
Wait a minute. I think I just figured it out.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government.
One way to look at it in terms of impact. Take the US Federal budget, divide it by three(3 branches), then divide that by 9. $3.6 trillion dollars/3 = $1.2 Trillion dollars. divide by 9, and this very gross approximation of her influence is on the order of:
$130 billion per year. Assume she sits for 28 years (78 yrs old?) and somehow the US budget doesn't increase and she will have a total lifetime impact of $3.64 Trillion. Of course, she doesn't determine the budget in a way where she has at her disposal that much money, but when you consider that is how much of the government she represents, it kind of puts the weight of this appointment into perspective.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Don't be silly, he was clearly talking about Kagan's computer.
Unless...maybe this is a subtle way of saying Kagan is a robot! Is Obama poised to nominate the first female robot Supreme Court Justice? This could indeed be a historic moment! Not only that, it would finally balance the court in terms of robot justices. Finally the liberal side of the court will have its own robot justice to balance out Clarence Thomas.
Don't let the spin fool you. It would be impossible for Obama to find someone to the left of justice Stevens. Therefore, even replacing him with a fire breathing, man-hating lesbian liberal would be a move to the right.
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Glenn Greenwald has written several articles over the past few weeks detailing what information is available about Kagan.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/10/kagan/
I agree with this article, that while she may be a liberal candidate, she seems to be very willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints.
You have to expect a liberal candidate is going to nominate someone with a liberal bent, so to nominate someone who can truly work with diverse viewpoints on an issue is, I think, a pretty thoughtful and intelligent nomination.
As to those wanting this story off Slashdot - just who do you think is going to be involved in the end-game of various copyright and FCC regulation? The largest issues will all end up in the supreme court. Like it or not, the future of what is possible with technology is intertwined with the laws that define what CAN be realistically presented to the market. In an ideal world, wouldn't you love to have her views on copyright extension, and the constitutionality of the ACTA treaty brought up?
You can chose to ignore politics and focus only on technology - but politics is in no way going to ignore YOU.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is of course not really worth replying to, but I'm feeling masochistic today, so:
- Kagan is the current Solicitor General of The US
- Kagan was the Dean of Law at Harvard
--> Now imagine having that on your CV and people telling you "Nah, that's not enough experience for us, sorry."
This argument comes up all the time.
Since when is News for Nerds, limited to just technology? You might be a "technology" centric nerd, but there are other nerds out there. There are Sci-Fi Fantasy nerds. There are nerds of sciences other than Technology, like Psychology and Sociology...
If you don't like the title, don't click the link.
She has argued before the supreme court that if a prosecutor manufactures evidence, causing the conviction of an innocent person, that the prosecutor should not be subject to a lawsuit from the person they fucked over.
She has no interest in justice, only in power.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
Since we don't know the ideology of the SCOTUS nominee, we have to assume that she is closely aligned with that of the President. With that assumption made, it should be pretty easy to answer your questions. I'll provide them below just as I predict Kagan will.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
Yes, absolutely. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate ... anything. Just look at all the precedent we have for massive expansion of power under Interstate Commerce. These agencies are allowed to regulate "trade" and "communications". Without limit.
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
Your community is where you live, of course. And as long as your community leaders recognize the supremacy of Federal law, they will be able to require whatever filtering and banning of Internet content that they deem necessary. Based on their community standards, of course.
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
No, I'm sorry, that's all based on private contracts and copyright. Congress can extend copyright to forever -1 day if they want. That's what the Constitution allows. Look at all the precedent!
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
Well no, of course not. That's just the Federal government working to protect you, along with cooperative international agreements and global consensus. That "privacy right" that precedent created is only for ensuring your right to sexual proclivities and abortions and stuff. It doesn't mean you get to keep information private from the Federal government, because that would be an undue burden on its ability to govern. You see that, don't you?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Yep.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You're being a bit disingenuous:
'Starving yogi' astounds Indian scientists
Chavez rockets to No. 1 on Twitter in Venezuela
'Happy ending' gives recyclable products higher status
Sweden pushes condom use as study hints risky sex common
All from today, May 10th. Don't get me wrong, I love physorg as well and read it daily. But to say it's not political charged or sometimes trivial is frankly misleading and disingenuous. Every news site has problems, just find what's best for you.
My work here is dung.
Great, block politics from your home page.
I'd rather not block all stories filed under politics to avoid non-tech stories such as this one.
OK, simple solution: don't click 'Read More'. Problem solved.
For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience.
For comparison's sake, consider that Sonia Sotomayor had been spent about 20 years on the bench before she was nominated. Diane Wood, frequently put forward as a good alternative to Kagan, has been on an appellate court for 15 years. Being a competent lawyer and being a competent judge are different skills, and I'd much rather have a pick that has demonstrated they're capable of being a judge.
In addition, there's good reason to call her competence as an attorney into question. For instance, in Citizen's United v FEC, her first oral argument of any kind, she (by her own admission) panicked when Justice Kennedy asked her about other significant First Amendment cases. (the exchange can be found on page 41)
And I'm not suggesting this rule has always been followed, but when it isn't followed, we are taking a much bigger risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I am officially gone from
Which illustrates the main problem with the current American debate: the use of "socialism" (and sometimes "facism") as a synonym for "stuff I do not agree with".
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
SCOTUSblog has a great writeup on Kagan.
Although they ultimately come out in her favor, the writers make a great presentation of their evidence, and certainly know a thing or two about the Supreme Court.
It's definitely worth a read before sounding off on your initial gut reactions to the nomination. It's also your right and prerogative to research the case against Kagan, although you really need to comprehend and understand the context of her job as Solicitor General before jumping to any conclusions.
Personally, despite my initial unease, I'm growing to like her, and would welcome a persuasive, non-activist judge on the court.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Actually, near elections there are a lot of political stories on /. I recall that there was an actual "Politics" section created in 2004.
You're currently soaking in it.
* John Roberts: Was a Republican Party operative who had been a judge for two years before being appointed to lead the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship.
* Earl Warren: Was governor of California and that state's Attorney General, and became one of the best justices of all time.
* William Rehnquist: Was a Republican Party operative challenging the voting rights of Latino citizens in Arizona before being an Assistant Attorney General, and became one of the worst justices of all time.
* Abe Fortas: Was a Democratic Party operative and a criminal defense lawyer who won Gideon v. Wainwright.
* Harlan Stone: Was a U.S. Attorney General.
* Clarence Thomas: Was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri and a member of the EEOC and had been a judge for two years before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship
* Lewis Powell: Was the American Bar Association President and a Tobacco Institute lawyer.
* Arthur Goldberg: Was a union lawyer and Secretary of Labor.
* Byron White: Was a running back and an Assistant U.S. Attorney General.
* John Harlan: Was judge for one year before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who gave him a judgeship.
* Felix Frankfurter: Was a Zionist activist and co-founder of the ACLU
* William Douglas: Was a member of the Securities and Exchange commission
* Robert Jackson: Was a U.S. Attorney General
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.
Elena Kagan at fifty would be the youngest judge on the Court.
Justice Stevens is ninety.
Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court cast a very long shadow.
"If confirmed, Kagan will be the fourth woman justice in the history of the Supreme court, the eighth Jewish justice to sit on the court, and the first nominee since 1972 with no prior experience as a judge." Court Nominee Elena Kagan
The U.S. Supreme Court is the court of the Constitution:
It has become fashionable for Supreme Court nominees and sometimes the Justices themselves to deflect controversy and play down their own importance by suggesting judicial decision-making involves nothing more than the simple application of clear, undisputed rules. Perhaps with Obama's selection of a woman, we won't be subjected to the baseball metaphor that Chief Justice John Roberts has used, but however the idea is couched, it's pure bunk. There is no rulebook for constitutional interpretation. In trying to give meaning to inherently elastic constitutional concepts like "equal protection of the laws" and due process, and in interpreting federal statutes that are often less than precise, Supreme Court Justices inevitably make subjective value judgments that are colored by their individual views about right and wrong, fair and unfair, wise and unwise.
In voting against confirming John Roberts, then Senator Obama explained that he was opposing the conservative Roberts because of how he would decide the slim "5%" of cases in which the law really is ambiguous and a Justice's values will inevitably shape his or her views. Our law-professor President got the concept right but the percentage wrong. Cases rarely reach the Supreme Court level when the right answer is clear. Most of the time, the Supreme Court hears cases only after lower federal courts have reached conflicting answers on vexing legal questions.
In short, there is a reason that Justice Harry Blackmun, a man whose grandfathers had fought for the Union in the Civil War and who idolized Abraham Lincoln, opposed the states' rights movement and was a passionate liberal voice on issues of race. There is a reason that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneer of the fight for women's legal equality, takes an expansive view of the equal-protection clause. There is a reason that Roberts, who came of age as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, has a voting record that matches the old Reagan agenda. And there is a reason that Clarence Thomas, who grew up resenting the racial preferences that took him up the educational ladder to Yale Law School, reads the Constitution as imposing absolute colorblindness on government actors.
Conscientious judges understand that the law is much more than a reflection of their own personal preferences. But in the hard cases, the political cases, the cases tinged with moral judgment, where constitutional language and history provide no single irrefutable answer, a judge's formative experience matters -- family, geography, mentors and heroes -- they cleave liberal from conservative and ineluctably insinuate themselves into the law.
Four Enduring Myths About Supreme Court Nominees: 3. Supreme Court Justices Are Umpires
Is there a way to know whether it is her personal view, or whether she was just doing her job?
risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I was napping through the first part of your comment. With this last part, you were referring to Thomas, right? the justice who famously decides the case before oral arguments are even made, and thus has no use to ever ask any questions? And you are probably hoping that Kagan will be as astute and informed as he is?
I had a lot of fun demolishing my poli sci instructor's graduate thesis. It was that increasing the speed limits had turned out to vastly increase the number of highway deaths. A little statistics later, I showed him that almost all of the increase he was citing was in areas where the speed limits had not in fact increased (urban areas), and that most urban areas had no change outside the margins of error. PoliSci is not particularly rigorous, I find.
I am curious in what way the tea parties are "a bunch of garbage." It would seem to me that "stop expanding the Federal government, cut the programs that don't work, balance the budget, and leave us alone" is a reasonable position.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Congress is about the way "most American's live."
Most Americans are apparently lawyers and/or successful businessmen, then.
Tweet, tweet.
Seeing the type of people he normally nominates, she must be something like a convicted armed bank robber.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Funny, the majority of Americans disagree with you about that. How's it feel to be a powerless minority? What you call damage, real Americans call progress. In fact, most of us think he hasn't done enough. He's too centrist, we all wish he was a real socialist, but he's not. Frankly, I don't understand why the right wing hates him, he's practically a clone of Ronald Reagan, who, by the by, is Obama's stated favorite president. Senile Ronald freaking Reagan, our 'socialist' president's favorite. Doesn't that beat all? Bet you never heard that, listening to the delusional right wing echo chamber.
Okay, I lied. I do know why the right wing hates him. To the right wing, it doesn't matter what Obama really is. He's the enemy, and he must fail for them to win. Thus, the constant stream of lies. But real lefties like myself are even more disappointed in the man than you probably are. Repealed DADT yet? No. Stopped torture? No. Prosecuted anyone in the Bush admin for war crimes? Are you fucking joking? Gotten out of Iraq? No. Socialized health care? Hah! Not even close. Reined in Wall Street? Hardly. Face it, Obama is a center right corporatist, about as far as you can get from a socialist, despite what the right claims.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Somebody mod this up please.
Oh noes! I was called out for pointing out by way of example what conservatives do, telling other Americans they aren't 'real.' Yes, that makes me just like them, to the satire impaired.
I'm not a 'winger' of any stripe. I'm a fucking anarcho-socialist, capice? I voted for Obama as the (far) lesser of two evils. You assholes who try to equate the left and right wings are being totally disingenuous, and it isn't because you are in any way independent. From what I've witnessed, you're all disenchanted Bush Republicans who have gone over to the batshit crazy tea party. You have no defense for what your party has done, so you falsely claim that both major parties are identical. Not true. Democrats are influenced by big money and special interests. Republicans are owned by them, lock, stock and barrel.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
RE - Citation needed - go google for yourself.
Rural states, you know, the "fly over" or "red states" generally get more earmarks/pork than urban states. You know, things like the Bridge(s) to Nowhere that the darling of the Teabaggers, Sarah Palin, supported.
Note - I'm from a Red State (South Dakota) and fully support Senators and Congresscritters getting as much for their state or district as they can.
As for "auditing for Constitutionality", again, Jesus, its a slippery slope to a nightmare.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - No Air Force in there, no Marine Corps, so both are unconstitutional.
Therefore, the GPS isn't constitutional. Oh and 911, it's not in the constitution either.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
TSA, wiretaps, police wires, body wires, those aren't "constitutional". Nor is the EPA, lets throw it all out!
He's a left-leaning centrist with Socialist/Fascist tendencies. He has done some things that have surprised me, the Kagan nomination being one of them.
Overall, though, he's still 90%+ anti-libertarian - and that's who you see doing the stirring right now, not the people who are Republicans because their parents were Republicans.
Learn about Photography Basics.
The Solicitor General has a nickname: "The 10th Justice".
She is very well qualified. She also clerked for a justice.
Good thing we've got Clarence Thomas on the Court. He's asked a handful of questions in his whole Court career, even though the entire Court procedure is based on justices asking questions during the arguing of cases before them. He's the worst justice of your lifetime, and he's your gold standard.
Along with Roberts. Evidently, the more extreme Republican they are, the more you like them. Hardly an example of "real world" connectedness.
--
make install -not war