This is what happens when liberal justices get confirmed to the Supreme Court

[Decidion]

Last year Sotomayer, when questioned about her stance on the Second Amendment, only commented it was "settled law". Yet this is how she dissented in the recent McDonald vs Chicago decision....

"But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the “settled law” of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Now Kagan, when also questioned about her stance on the Second Amendment is also only saying it's "settled law".

I'm calling a big BS on Kagan, especially considering her history. If Kagan had been on the high court for this last decision, I'd bet the bank that Chicago would have won the case.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[ZachS]

Kagan is replacing Justice Stevens, who was in the minority on the McDonald decision. Even before she was nominated, everybody knew that she was going to be a reliable liberal vote. Her appointment does not change the court's political balance and her presence on the Court would not have changed the decision. Justice Kennedy's vote is still the only one that counts in politically charged decisions.

As far as statements in confirmation hearings go, everyone in Congress understands the whole thing is just a bunch of BS kabuki theater where the nominees and senators do nothing more than act out their expected roles. Kagan published an article on this subject 15 years ago in which she called on future Supreme Court nominees to break the pattern and talk about what they actually believed... but it's never going to happen, because so many Americans have the idea that Supreme Court justices are supposed to be neutral figures who make decisions based, in an abstract sense, on "the law." A case doesn't typically reach the Supreme Court if there's already a specific answer in the law about how it should be decided.

 

[MountainBear]

If Kagan had been on the high court for this last decision, I'd bet the bank that Chicago would have won the case.

I can't say I disagree that she's liberal, but, she's replacing a liberal, and I'm pretty sure she'd be replacing one of the dissenting votes anyway. She won't be changing the fundamental make-up of the court.

 

[Cougfan2]

I agree with both ZachS and MountainBear.

 

[rufus]

I hate this "replacing one lib vote with another" attitude that is so prevalent. Kagan is to the left of Stevens overall, by a long shot, thus she will tilt the overall balance of the Supreme Court to the left. This cannot be good for freedom loving Americans.

Sotomayer is way out in left field too, we have yet to see her true colors.

 

[ZachS]

I hate this "replacing one lib vote with another" attitude that is so prevalent. Kagan is to the left of Stevens overall, by a long shot, thus she will tilt the overall balance of the Supreme Court to the left. This cannot be good for freedom loving Americans.

1. Most close observers of the Court agree that Kagan is more centrist that Justice Stevens.

2. Even if she wasn't, it wouldn't matter - even if she were the most liberal justice ever. There'd still be eight other justices, and she'd often find herself a lone dissenter - like Justice Marshall used to be, and Justice Thomas is now. Justices whose views are on the political or jurisprudential fringe do not have much influence over the others.

 

[Decidion]

You are right in that it probably won't affect the overall balance of the court. I guess I was just venting a bit as I get more and more aggravated about government figures who either outright lie or take an "no comment" stance in order to obtain an authority position. Then when they are secure in their position (even if it is only a term position) they do the opposite of what they said or implied.

 

[Spray-n-pray]

You are right in that it probably won't affect the overall balance of the court. I guess I was just venting a bit as I get more and more aggravated about government figures who either outright lie or take an "no comment" stance in order to obtain an authority position. Then when they are secure in their position (even if it is only a term position) they do the opposite of what they said or implied.

Welcome to politics!!!

 

[terrylf72]

I know I'm on a watch list already, so np with what is coming next..

We all know where this government is leading this country. Some of us are more prepared then the rest. Those that are in the positions as Sotomayer and Kagan are not there to push thier views, they are there to push the views of those that have put them in to these positions and paid thier way to get them into power.

What is going on is a card game for the balence of power of this country and to slowly but surely resolve our rights like flushing or washing dirt off your hands. With foreign powers influencing this countries goverenment

The hole reason most of us are preparing for SHTF, the Second Revolution, or what ever we decide to get ready for to protect those we care about..

 

[jimwsea]

And don't forget the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can throw as much cash as they want at elected officials and candidates. That's also a major blow to we the people.

 

[elsullo]

And don't forget the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can throw as much cash as they want at elected officials and candidates. That's also a major blow to we the people.

But that decision to give corporations the rights of a "citizen" was made by the "conservative" court members, with all of the "liberal" members in strong dissent! One more liberal vote and that egregious ruling would have gone the other way. Personally, I am against Kagan's appointment, but it may not be a complete disaster..........................elsullo

 

[Jamie6.5]

And don't forget the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can throw as much cash as they want at elected officials and candidates. That's also a major blow to we the people.

Especially those "people" that run the the unions, or that rely on union contributions to their campaign!

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

No pro-gun people or organizations like her. She is liberal and she is anti-gun. The problem is she's going to be confirmed and there's nothing we can do about it. The NRA isn't even fighting it because it's a waste of time and resources. The senate hearings are a joke. They asked her about the idiotic Twilight movie for petes sake.
The only silver lining is she's replacing a liberal judge so it's not going to change the outcomes, that was an anti-gun position and it'll remain one. Now if one of the conservative judges retires during this presidency we may have some serious problems.

 

[ZachS]

I think we need some justices, conservative or liberal, who neither went to ivy league schools nor spent their whole careers working as judges/professors/government attorneys/etc. Lawyers with those kinds of backgrounds almost as a rule have no clue what everyday life is like for most people, and I don't like having a Court composed almost entirely of ivory-tower elitists.

Politically, presidents will always attempt to appoint judges whose politics match their own. That's a simple fact that everybody knows, but it bears repeating here - it doesn't matter whether or not you like Kagan's politics. Any other Obama appointee would be pretty much the same.

 

[Karma]

I think we need some justices, conservative or liberal, who neither went to ivy league schools nor spent their whole careers working as judges/professors/government attorneys/etc. Lawyers with those kinds of backgrounds almost as a rule have no clue what everyday life is like for most people, and I don't like having a Court composed almost entirely of ivory-tower elitists.

I agree completely. I think we need some politicians that aren't from the elitelst background also!

 

[deen_ad]

And don't forget the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can throw as much cash as they want at elected officials and candidates. That's also a major blow to we the people.

One of the original reps that pushed the gag order stated in a speach that the intent of the bill was to silence the NRA. So now the NRA (and others) have their free speach restored. How is that a bad thing?

Pres OB lied (as he has in so many other cases) when he stated that the SCOTUS ruling changed an "almost 100 year old law".

Here's some reading for you: <broken link removed>

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC Member
SWWAC Member

 

[OcelotZ3]

ou are right in that it probably won't affect the overall balance of the court. I guess I was just venting a bit as I get more and more aggravated about government figures who either outright lie or take an "no comment" stance in order to obtain an authority position.

That is *exactly* the position Roberts took during his confirmation process... Did you feel the same way then?

 

[kenno]

A few months back I was bounced from this site because Of my views on Sotomayer. Some jerkwad kept saying she'd have no impact because she was replacing another 'liberal"
I strongly disagree she is not a "Liberal", nor a socialist, she is a Marxist placed there by a Marxist. The so-called Consertives on the bench are actually weak willed liberals. There are no more Constitutional Protections when the SCOTUS is kissing a Keynan's ash.
The 1st ACT of this Farce has been played out, all the main charcters have been introduced and thier motives identified to the audience.
Act 2 is Obamma trying to get some Crazy 'Cracker' to go Postal or to fake same as Hitler did and his retailation upon the citizenery (which he will soon refer to as Subjects, or "being subject to..."), total censorship, massive voter fraud, travel restrictions, permanent martial law, private armys turned loose to terrorize the citizenry, starvation and subjugation.
Act 3 ends in Liberty or Re-Education Camps and Ovens.
This is not a joke, YOU are the only thing standing between Obama and the genocide of millions of americans.

 

[elsullo]

But I am seriously thinking about returning to my home planet!......................elsullo

 

[Decidion]

That is *exactly* the position Roberts took during his confirmation process... Did you feel the same way then?

I feel the same way about government figures lying or taking the "no comment" stance whether they are democrat, republic, libertarian or any other party, race, creed, religion or any other way you want to slice or dice them.

Wouldn't you?