You phrased the question wrong Howard. It should have been: "Is there anyone Obama could nominate for the Supreme Court, or anything at all he could ever do that you wouldn't be against?" The Party of NO indeed.
Ok, so we have a woman who has never been a judge, set to ascend to the bench of the land's highest court. Her career in academia is supposed to offset her lack of judicial experience.
This will be the 3rd woman on the SC, and all 3 aren't married. Is that typical of women this age? Answer: no
The court, for the first time ever, will be void of any protestants on the bench. 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Is this representative of the American population? Answer: no
Do we have any idea if she is qualified to be appointed? Answer: no (but the guy appointing her wasn't qualified either)
Time will tell, but I for one was really hoping for a more centrist nominee, not the status quo liberal crap.
The remarkable lack of published work by Elena Kagan may bode well in confirmation hearings; critics will have little to hang their hats on. However, her failure to present a case while arguing Citizens United indicates both inadequate skills as jurist and a questionable level of respect from her future peers on the bench. Her poor score with justices of either polarity makes one wonder as to her fit- perhaps she's a Souter-esque enigma? ...Maybe she is Obama's stealth nominee; hardly likely.
Uhhhhh when did it become a requirement for a woman to be married to be on the Supreme Court? What difference does that make?? Since when is the Supreme Court to be made up of a specific makeup of people???
If you want to bash her....Bash her for having no experience!
Marital status and religion should have absolutely no bearing on this. Would a man be subjected to judgements about his marital status? Probably not. Are there enormous groups of Atheists pissing and moaning about having no representation on the Court? Not really.
I haven't done any research on this person, but I can tell you that when I do, her marital status and religious preference will have absolute no weight on my opinion.
Bud, I have no idea what status quo liberal crap is- other than perhaps a scatological oxymoron. If the complaint presumes Kagan is of the liberal persuasion, why are Slate and Mother Jones so unimpressed with her? Perhaps her bias is best illustrated: Obama's encapsulation of the Citizens United case, "...(I)n a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.” Kagan was concerned with the misuse of shareholders' money.
My point is this...the court should be comprised of individuals who represent the broad spectrum of citizens in this nation.
The largest religious grouping in America? Protestant. Will there be any on the bench? No
Also, it escaped my thought that, if approved, she will be the 4th person from NYC on the bench. That seems rather odd as well. Are there no women in Texas or California?
Bud,
When did this demographic become important to you? Did you feel that way with past presidents' nominations?
There is a list going around stating what the Conservatives will find wrong. Sounds like you have the sound bites down to a science.
If POTUS had nominated Jesus Christ, you would have found something wrong with Him.
There are no Muslims on the SCOTUS either. What about the Hindus and the Budists??
There aren't any Native Americans, Asian Americans, Polish Americans represented either..
As for Harvard. I am pretty sure she took this position because of the ban on gays in the military.
Bud, the separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution bars, in theory, any consideration of a person's religious beliefs when taking into account their qualifications for office. It would be unrealistic and probably illegal to say that a certain percent of the population is x-religion and a certain percent is y-religion and then demand that the Courts be molded to fit the math.
A Supreme Court Justice should only need to be able to provide sound interpretations of the law both in spirit and practice. It looks like there are some legitimate concerns about this person's ability to do those things and I'm looking forward to doing some research on her.
Bea, unlike political office, this is a lifetime appointment. When did it become important to me? When Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'connor became justices. It brought some much needed diversity to the court. Now, if appointed, we will have 3 liberal spinster New Yorkers making up 1/3 of the bench! We need varied types of qualified people, and since Obama's last appointee was a liberal spinster NY'er, how about someone from another part of the country? Why not do what President Ford did in 1975, and appoint the best possible judge, regardless of politics?
Bud, If you want a true cross section of the population represented on the SCOTUS, there should be a preponderance of women. Or doesn't that statistic bother you? By the way, what is your definition of spinster? Ginsburg is married with children.
Well Janice, if we could get three more women appointed, wouldn't it be nice if they were more conservative to balance the three liberal ladies from NYC already there?
Yeah, this is the stuff I like, intelligent discourse between adults. Too cool, and too rare. Yeah Janice, one to the rib section. Oof, how do you like that?
Bud, if the Supreme Court was all women we wouldn't be in this mess. My old lady puts the fear of SCOTUS in me, without that I would be really unruly. I don't want nothing to do with that SCOTUS stuff anymore and I never should have asked her what SCOTUS was in the first place.
I've been avoiding the subject of POTUS because I know now, it can't be good.
The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution.
These important roles have nothing to do with gender or having experience on the bench. Having the brilliance and background of Elena Kagan will go a long way toward satisfying the fundamental intention of a Supreme Court Justice.
I don't care about her ethniticity or her gender. What I care about is that we have a person who has no experience in the job we are putting her up for. A job which could literally transform the way we do things in our country. Who cares if she is a Protestant?
How about the fact that she has bean a professor more than a lawyer! I can't believe this is was the nomination. Really sad.
I don't know Phil, after reading up on her (slow day at work) I'm fairly comfortable with her credentials. Call me elitist but summa cum laude and the Daniel Sachs scholarship (Princeton), magna cum laude (Harvard Law), law clerk for Thurgood Marshall, Dean of Harvard Law, White House Counsel and Solicitor General all make for a pretty damned impressive resume.
I have read the same. Yes I find her educational background, time spent with Clinton and everything else to be great resume hits for many jobs in this country. She is no doubt a brilliant woman, but I want the title "judge" on that resume when you are going to be one of the most important "judges" in the land. Call me crazy.
I don't think your elitist for being impressed by her accomplishments.
Spinster??? Is this 2010?? Are women still property of their husbands??
Again...How does being married (or not) qualify you (or disqualify you) for a job? Or does that rule only apply to women?
Scott Brown from Massachusetts posed NAKED in Cosmo a million years ago.....Does that disqualify him to be in the US Senate? Would it disqualify a woman if she had done the same thing?
Elena Kagan has earned degrees from: Harvard, Princton, AND Oxford.
She has accomplished more in her 50 years of life than ANY of us ever will.
Good for her! Bravo! I just don't think she would have been able to accomplish as much if she was married (to a man).
A LOT of super successful women aren't married......Condi Rice comes to mind...Or does Condi not count because she is a Republican?
It's funny, when Bud said 'spinster' I assumed he was making up a new synonym for spin doctor...i didn't even catch it in context.
There's no reason in modern times that a woman should be judged by her willingness to get married and have babies. We're well past that sort of thinking as a society, or at least we should be. We have never asked men to choose between family life and a career and there's no reason we should ask women to do it either. A person has a right to prioritize their goals and society has no right to judge those goals.
Posted by Julie A Pappalardo on May 10, 2010 - 3:29pm
Elena Kagan has earned degrees from: Harvard, Princton, AND Oxford.
She has accomplished more in her 50 years of life than ANY of us ever will.
Says who? I'm glad that education is held to such a high degree, but just because she has been fortunate to do this does not mean that I could not accomplish more than her in the next 20 years of my life.
Anyone can acheive great things if they have the will, desire and chance. Let's not over idolize a person that no one knew seven days ago please. There are a lot of smart, talented people in this world that have done a lot.
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate', she was driven. No one does the things she's done without exerting the kind of effort that would make most of us cry in our scotch at the end of every night. Her work experience and academic accomplishments could be called 'unique' in the most severe sense of the term.
Judging by her background, I would have to say her knowledge and experience qualifies her for the job. Of course, that's not for me or anyone else here to determine. Obviously she's already been through the vetting process (probably twice), now she'll go through the confirmation process.
If you hear a loud popping noise during the confirmation hearings you can rest assured that it was the distinct sound of my head exploding because a Republican Senator used the words 'protestant' and 'not married' in the same sentence.
"If you hear a loud popping noise during the confirmation hearings you can rest assured that it was the distinct sound of my head exploding because a Republican Senator used the words 'protestant' and 'not married' in the same sentence."
Chris says"...the separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution bars, in theory, any consideration of a person's religious beliefs when taking into account their qualifications for office."
Please explain how and where the Constitution says that.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Accomplishments she's like a full time college student with no experience looking for her first job. So yeah lets stay with this liberal agenda stuff.....we took care of the latina female vote, now we need to make the white women voters happy so I'll give another woman a job because she is a woman and she read alot of books about law at Harvard, Princton, AND Oxford.
Ms. Kagan’s resume is indeed, very impressive. What bothers me is her reluctance to render an opinion... on anything. The virtue of owning one’s opinion has been discussed at great length on this site.
The simple explanation could be that her past and present positions required her to represent the interests of her employers, regardless of her own personal opinion - so there is no need to rock the boat. I can certainly respect that. I’m sure we’ve all had to bite our tongues at one time or another, at work, in order to preserve our jobs.
But what if her ambiguity is by design and not default? Instead of stating an opinion and standing by it, what if she instead formulates opinions that are most likely to land her the job she has worked toward all her life.
In the upcoming confirmation debate, it would be interesting, but futile, to ask Ms. Kagan whether she thinks Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce is flexible enough to justify requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. (She, of course, won’t answer this question)
I’m sure that her opinion on the Constitutional limits of the commerce clause has crossed President Obama’s mind, if not his lips. It also wouldn’t surprise me if Vice President Biden reminded her over their breakfast meeting, that health care reform is a big f*****g deal.
Something tells me that if she was very outspoken about reigning in and limiting the powers of Congress, she would not have been on the President’s short list, no matter how impressive her credentials were.
Chris, I was talking about "separation of church and state". I continually hear that phrase thrown about, but have yet to find the concept in the Constitution. Good reference on the second part however, spot on.
Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke, the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
Combined with Article 6, the separation clause in the First Amendment covers the rest; sprinkle in a little Equal Protection from the Fourteenth Amendment and we have a full flavored separation stew.
It would appear that I started a line of debate that I was ill-prepared to defend. I looked up the "wall of separation" quote from the Jefferson letter and it is a reasonable explanation for the origins of the phrase itself. The phrase however is taken out of context when the entire Danbury letter as well as Jefferson's entire response show that the wall of separation he was referring to maintained that the barrier prevented overreaching from both sides of the wall as well as the fact that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god" (a quote from Jefferson's response to Danbury).
The fact that the First Ammendment is known as the Establishment clause clearly defines the simplicity of the intent. The concept of separation of church and state has been hijacked to totally alienate any expression of faith in or around all aspects of public life. That was not the intention of our founding fathers as evidenced by so many expressions of faith in early government actions that in no way breached the establishment clause.
Jeff, I think it is important that we do our best to understand what the spirit of the law is here, maybe even more so than the letter.
It is obvious to me that religion is an important and personal subject to you and I respect that completely.
I think what our fathers were after with Article 6 and the First Amendment was true freedom of government from religious dominance and vice-versa. We have to bear in mind that the King/Queen of England was (and of course still is) the leader of the Anglican Church as well. The men who wrote our Constitution understood personally the pitfalls of state-sponsored religion. Many of their recent forbears had already fled English religious tyranny; hell, it's one of the main reasons the Mayflower set sail in the first place.
What the separation of church and state does for us, in my most humble opinion, is a beautiful thing. It allows us to live together peacefully as no multi-religious culture has ever really been able to do. We are unbound by the shackles of doctrine and are free to govern and be governed with the knowledge that the laws we obey, or choose not to obey, stem from accepted moral practices that hold true across cultural and religious divides. We grow up knowing, not thinking or hoping, but knowing, that on any given day, we will be treated the same in the eyes of the law as any other human being, no matter what we look like, or how we worship.
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are what made our melting pot happen. It was one of the first steps we took, one of the first steps ever taken in the history of the world, that led toward a truly equal society. We've fought since then for other sorts of equalities and we are still fighting today in the hope that a generation from now, there will be no test whatsoever but the true worth of a person.
The best part of all of this is that nowhere does it say that a person should ignore their religion when making decisions. The founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, were either brilliant or crazy or both for thinking that something like this could work and a couple centuries later, we're still fighting over it and for good reason.
Equality is a thought process, both the theory and the practice take effort and energy. Occasionally we even have to make a law, like Article 6, any of a number of constitutional amendments, and a multitude of other major and minor legislation to enforce what was said in the Declaration of Independence to be 'self-evident': all men are created equal. It is true, of course, that all of us are created equal but occasionally we need to be reminded of it. The single greatest pitfall to true equality would be for one group, any group to rise to supremacy (religious, racial or otherwise) with the blessing of the rest of us. Our forefathers understood that and did well to protect us. Now the Democracy is ours...if we can keep it.
Posted by Chris Charvella on May 10, 2010 - 4:12pm
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate', she was driven. No one does the things she's done without exerting the kind of effort that would make most of us cry in our scotch at the end of every night. Her work experience and academic accomplishments could be called 'unique' in the most severe sense of the term.
Judging by her background, I would have to say her knowledge and experience qualifies her for the job. Of course, that's not for me or anyone else here to determine. Obviously she's already been through the vetting process (probably twice), now she'll go through the confirmation process.
No Chris she was also fortunate to gain the opportunities that she has. We are all fortunate when they come, then it is our drive and will that actually makes something of them.
I have no doubt that she is a smart, talented lady, but my comments are directed at being told that she has done more that ANY of us ever will. That takes nerve to say and I disagree.
As far as it not being our place to decide, you're right and that's what's wrong with this process. Why is it that the SC is appointed and not voted on? So that it won't be political? Hogwash. It is political.
I agree with Joanne. Her lack of willingness to put forward opinions coupled with my complaint that she has never served in the role makes me less than excited. That is not to say that as I hear more, I may not change my stance, but I have learned far too often, not much will change.
Chris, very well stated. Your first statement..."I think it is important that we do our best to understand what the spirit of the law is here, maybe even more so than the letter." brings us back to Justices. What is a Justices priority, the letter or the spirit of the law?
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate to gain the opportunities she has', she worked hard to create those opportunities and even harder to make the most of them.
For a libertarian, you sure place a lot of credence in the idea of fortune. I think you do her accomplishments a disservice by inferring that anyone else could do the same.
Life is a mixture of fate/fortune and what you do with what life hands you.
It's good fortunate to placed in a situation where Harvard is an option.
It's bad fate to be born in Harlem.
Kagan made the most of her good fortune.
Colin Powell overcame his fate.
Few given the opportunity to go to Harvard ever amount to much; and few born in Harlem ever become Secretary of State.
Many who have a shot at Harvard squander all of dad's wealth, and, sadly, few born in Harlem understand that they have a shot at a Harvard education if they're willing to make the effort.
Fate and fortune fall on all equally, but only a few grasp opportunity or make the necessary effort to overcome adversity (which can include being born in Harlem as well as being born in the Hamptons).
Originally posted (by mistake) on Julie Pappalardo's account
JoAnne Rock wrote: <<< What bothers me is her reluctance to render an opinion... on anything.>>>
She isn't a judge yet.
JoAnne Rock wrote: <<<Instead of stating an opinion and standing by it>>>
Show me anyone in our government who has stated an opinion and stood by it!
JoAnne Rock wrote <<<But what if her ambiguity is by design and not default? what if she instead formulates opinions that are most likely to land her the job she has worked toward all her life.>>>
That could be said of any of us, I suppose. Generally, I think, an intelligent person pursues certain goals because of their feelings and passions. Not the other way around. I'm not even sure that there has been any ambiguity here. She hasn't been a judge. Which, if you read Ben Bonarigo's post you'll see that it holds no bearing here.
Another point of view, which I notice quite a lot in small towns over bigger cities is that grown adults who have a political point of view or opinion don't really know WHY they have it. For instance: Why would someone who is a firm believer in union work, and stronger government be a republican?
Sometimes I think that people just post on this site to argue. Everyone has an opinion and that's all it is. Before anyone starts going off about this woman they should first research her. And, then, if they have any beef about any part of her career, experience, etc., (not relating to her gender or marital status or what she LOOKS like) go and research the justices already on the SC to see if they were any different. Or better still, compare to those who they might have opt'd for in her place; instead of getting bits and pieces of information provided by The Batavian message board posters to formulate their opinion.
Actually, I think I know quite about what can be accomplished through hard work and the freedom to choose one's own fate. No stats needed. It's a basic life lesson.
BTW: where's your evidence that I'm wrong, rather than an ad hominem assertion?
Few given the opportunity to go to Harvard ever amount to much;
Howard, this is obviously just your opinion. The kids that go to Ivy League colleges are our countries brightest. They REALLY are.
I was educated in private school in New England. I went to school with the "elite’s". They hated me because of my Italian name! Their parents (not just Daddy) made their money the old fashioned way…..They inherited it! These were people who (in 5th grade) would learn the definition of a new word EVERY single day to build their vocabulary so they could get into an Ivy League School. When we had to take a test, our teacher (who we had to address as Ma’am or Sir) would walk out of the room while we took it because everything was on the "honor system". Honesty and Integrity are held VERY high! We took ballroom dance (with white gloves and everything…..to my horror) every Tuesday, played sports, sailed, and did equestrian stuff on the weekends. Not to mention the volunteer work that we did every week (we visited an old folks home and were candystripers….again to my horror) which was also a part of our education. As an added bonus, when we took a math test, we had to hand in our scratch paper with our test!!! I called Greenwich Academy today to see if they still do this stuff. Guess what? They DO!! This was all so that we would be "well rounded" and have a better chance of getting into a "good school" and didn’t marry "Joe the Plumber". Debutante Cotillions REALLY happen (shudder).
Those girls were SO much smarter than me. They just were. Some of them could read a few typed pages once and have it memorized. Hillary Clinton (she went to Wellesley and graduated top of her class) can do that too…..So could Saddam Hussain. I struggled just to TRY and keep up!
Fast forward to now: These girls (who went to the ivy league) have amounted to a LOT! One girl is now the admissions director for the MBA program at Harvard( and she’s not married….gasp!). Another is a world champion squash player (also not married) and now a squash coach at an ivy league school, another had a top 10 best seller on the New York Times Best Seller list. That is out of a class of 33 girls, and I didn’t even look up ALL of them! I can go on and on.
How many Nobel Prize winners went to Harvard? How many US Presidents? Add in the rest of the Ivy League schools and the answer would be: MOST of them!
Howard, you also said:
Many who have a shot at Harvard squander all of dad's wealth
First of all, who’s to say the wealth came from Dad? These people don’t marry out of their class. Period. The money comes from Mom and Dad. If you want to get technical about it, the money came from their Grandparents who got it from their grandparents who got it from their grandparents….etc etc back to the Mayflower! And they have the genealogy to prove it. But I’m not going to get into how that works……Second of all: "old money" people don’t squander wealth. "New money" people squander wealth. People like rappers, football players (who NEVER would have gotten an education without a scholarship), Lotto winners, and rock stars squander their wealth. The "elite’s" preserve their wealth (when they aren’t giving it out to charities, and/or getting taxed to death so some irresponsible unwed teenager can pop out her 3rd kid that she can’t support).
Howard said: and few born in Harlem ever become Secretary of State.
And
few born in Harlem understand that they have a shot at a Harvard education if they're willing to make the effort.
Really throughout your post, you can just change the word "Harlem" for "Batavia". The kids here are doing the same thing. Get knocked up in High School and you get rewarded with Welfare and Food Stamps (that WE have to pay for). Why bother even trying to set a goal for ones self and work towards a better education when you can get entitlements from birth to death.
Not ragging on you Howard...Just had to get my 2 cents in
I made a hasty read of Howard's commentary. I thought he was channeling Sesame Street; today being sponsored by the letter H (Howard, Harlem, Harvard and the Hamptons). He's obviously elevating self-made over accident of birth- never mind the generalities. Are there actually statistics on squandered Harvard degrees and fathers wiped out by higher education bills? In deference to Harlem's famous- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Harlem,_New_York
Julie , Great post , except for the last part. It is my understanding that more of the government assistants abusers that get knocked up and end up having three kids we pay for are transplants from Rochester and Buffalo . I am not saying we don't have some of our own in Batavia , but the majority came from somewhere other than here but end up here due to various reasons . I do see a trend , when one family from the city moves here they bring with them friends and family. What happens is that a lot of the neighborhood ends up being big city transplants . This pushes out life long residents to the town . Unfortunate but true . This is one of the problems with the community not gelling like it used to . I am sorry but I don't want to know these people and am sick of all the porch sitters in this town . We need more people that want to come to Batavia to work . Perfect example is the house on the corner of Washington and Tracy . Used to be a nice house with nice people . They sit on the porch all day and night with no job , ten kids ,multiple families living there , smoke non stop while being pregnant, trash all over the place , flat screen TV's , lap tops , ond once again no job . Do you know who they are , didn't think so, because they are from Rochester.
Deb Pappalardo said:
Before anyone starts going off about this woman they should first research her.
*I spent 4 hours researching Ms. Kagan and I'm still learning more. I don't think that taking an active interest rises to the level of "going off".
Deb Pappalardo said:
She isn't a judge yet.
*I'm fully aware that she is not a judge. I didn’t realize that you had to be a judge to have an opinion.
Deb Pappalardo said:
Show me anyone in our government who has stated an opinion and stood by it!
*Show me anyone in our government that DOESN’T have an opinion. It’s their promises that they have a hard time standing by, which are too numerous to list here.
Deb Pappalardo said:
Which, if you read Ben Bonarigo's post you'll see that it holds no bearing here.
*I did read Ben’s excellent post and I agree with every word. Show me where I questioned her ability to perform the job. My ONLY concern with Ms. Kagan is which way will she lean? Will she be an activist judge?
Deb Pappalardo said:
For instance: Why would someone who is a firm believer in union work, and stronger government be a republican?
*I don’t know who or what this is referring to!
Deb Pappalardo said:
Sometimes I think that people just post on this site to argue.
*There is a huge difference between debating and arguing. People that can’t tell the difference are usually arguing. I have no animus toward anyone that I have debated on The Batavian; in fact I have a great deal of respect for their intellect and their ability to make their case.
Here’s my OPINION, laced with SPECULATION, and EXTRAPOLATED to the max:
I think that Ms. Kagan has probably dreamed of being a Supreme Court Justice since she was about 5. She went to all the “right” schools and worked very hard. By the time she was old enough to realize that her “opinions” would matter when it came to a SCOTUS nomination, she made a conscience decision not to make any that might jeopardize her chances. She was also smart enough to know that her political leanings would have to be in line with whoever was in the White House at the time of the vacancy. Afterall, vacancies don't happen all that often and she's pushing 50.
The only questions I still have are: Is she in line politically with Obama, or did she give him a snow job just to get the nomination and will she be an activist judge? Either way, she is one smart cookie.
Kudos to her for using the intellectual equivalent of sleeping her way to the top!
No, I'm NOT suggesting she is gay! I have no clue if she is gay and could really care less, but the Supreme Court building COULD use a makeover (grin)
My point is: Many men (not ALL) cannot handle being married to a woman more powerful amd/or smarter than them (Martha Stewart comes to mind so does Oprah). Not to mention the pressure women tend to get to stay home and raise kids instead of having a career.
On the other hand, women tend to be more supportive of their partners and wouldn't feel threatened by their other halfs success.
You phrased the question
You phrased the question wrong Howard. It should have been: "Is there anyone Obama could nominate for the Supreme Court, or anything at all he could ever do that you wouldn't be against?" The Party of NO indeed.
Ok, so we have a woman who
Ok, so we have a woman who has never been a judge, set to ascend to the bench of the land's highest court. Her career in academia is supposed to offset her lack of judicial experience.
This will be the 3rd woman on the SC, and all 3 aren't married. Is that typical of women this age? Answer: no
The court, for the first time ever, will be void of any protestants on the bench. 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Is this representative of the American population? Answer: no
Do we have any idea if she is qualified to be appointed? Answer: no (but the guy appointing her wasn't qualified either)
Time will tell, but I for one was really hoping for a more centrist nominee, not the status quo liberal crap.
The remarkable lack of
The remarkable lack of published work by Elena Kagan may bode well in confirmation hearings; critics will have little to hang their hats on. However, her failure to present a case while arguing Citizens United indicates both inadequate skills as jurist and a questionable level of respect from her future peers on the bench. Her poor score with justices of either polarity makes one wonder as to her fit- perhaps she's a Souter-esque enigma? ...Maybe she is Obama's stealth nominee; hardly likely.
Bud..... Uhhhhh when did it
Bud.....
Uhhhhh when did it become a requirement for a woman to be married to be on the Supreme Court? What difference does that make?? Since when is the Supreme Court to be made up of a specific makeup of people???
If you want to bash her....Bash her for having no experience!
(shaking head)
Bud, George Bush, Bill
Bud,
George Bush, Bill Clinton and others were not "qualified" to sit on the court either.
There is a good case for not putting another judge on the court, but maybe, just maybe, we should wait until her record is made public?
Marital status and religion
Marital status and religion should have absolutely no bearing on this. Would a man be subjected to judgements about his marital status? Probably not. Are there enormous groups of Atheists pissing and moaning about having no representation on the Court? Not really.
I haven't done any research on this person, but I can tell you that when I do, her marital status and religious preference will have absolute no weight on my opinion.
Bud, I have no idea what
Bud, I have no idea what status quo liberal crap is- other than perhaps a scatological oxymoron. If the complaint presumes Kagan is of the liberal persuasion, why are Slate and Mother Jones so unimpressed with her? Perhaps her bias is best illustrated: Obama's encapsulation of the Citizens United case, "...(I)n a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.” Kagan was concerned with the misuse of shareholders' money.
Howard, I have to agree with
Howard, I have to agree with George Richardson. I'd love to see his question asked in one of your polls.
In my opinion, Obama has faced more adversity than any other President in recent times. Even the mess left by Bush is being pinned on him.
Chris Charvella, you make some pretty good points, too. As well as C.M. and John.
So far, my only problem with
So far, my only problem with her is that she fought to ban military recruiters being allowed at Harvard.
My point is this...the court
My point is this...the court should be comprised of individuals who represent the broad spectrum of citizens in this nation.
The largest religious grouping in America? Protestant. Will there be any on the bench? No
Also, it escaped my thought that, if approved, she will be the 4th person from NYC on the bench. That seems rather odd as well. Are there no women in Texas or California?
Bud, When did this
Bud,
When did this demographic become important to you? Did you feel that way with past presidents' nominations?
There is a list going around stating what the Conservatives will find wrong. Sounds like you have the sound bites down to a science.
If POTUS had nominated Jesus Christ, you would have found something wrong with Him.
There are no Muslims on the
There are no Muslims on the SCOTUS either. What about the Hindus and the Budists??
There aren't any Native Americans, Asian Americans, Polish Americans represented either..
As for Harvard. I am pretty sure she took this position because of the ban on gays in the military.
Bud, the separation of church
Bud, the separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution bars, in theory, any consideration of a person's religious beliefs when taking into account their qualifications for office. It would be unrealistic and probably illegal to say that a certain percent of the population is x-religion and a certain percent is y-religion and then demand that the Courts be molded to fit the math.
A Supreme Court Justice should only need to be able to provide sound interpretations of the law both in spirit and practice. It looks like there are some legitimate concerns about this person's ability to do those things and I'm looking forward to doing some research on her.
Julie, You're right, that is
Julie,
You're right, that is the reason. But does justify her stand on banning recruters?
I like your thought on Native Americans (aboriginal people). That is the one group I wish somebody would put on the court.
Bea, unlike political office,
Bea, unlike political office, this is a lifetime appointment. When did it become important to me? When Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'connor became justices. It brought some much needed diversity to the court. Now, if appointed, we will have 3 liberal spinster New Yorkers making up 1/3 of the bench! We need varied types of qualified people, and since Obama's last appointee was a liberal spinster NY'er, how about someone from another part of the country? Why not do what President Ford did in 1975, and appoint the best possible judge, regardless of politics?
Bud, If you want a true cross
Bud, If you want a true cross section of the population represented on the SCOTUS, there should be a preponderance of women. Or doesn't that statistic bother you? By the way, what is your definition of spinster? Ginsburg is married with children.
Well Janice, if we could get
Well Janice, if we could get three more women appointed, wouldn't it be nice if they were more conservative to balance the three liberal ladies from NYC already there?
Yeah, this is the stuff I
Yeah, this is the stuff I like, intelligent discourse between adults. Too cool, and too rare. Yeah Janice, one to the rib section. Oof, how do you like that?
The court doesn't have to
The court doesn't have to have ideological balance, hell, it shouldn't have ideology at all but that's too much to ask for.
Not enough protestants? Oh,
Not enough protestants? Oh, well. Three NYCers? Now that's disturbing.
Chris, we can't escape that
Chris, we can't escape that there are liberal ways to interpret the Constitution and conservative means to that end.
It would be a bad thing to have a court of all conservatives or all liberals.
Especially in this more partisan era.
Bud, if the Supreme Court was
Bud, if the Supreme Court was all women we wouldn't be in this mess. My old lady puts the fear of SCOTUS in me, without that I would be really unruly. I don't want nothing to do with that SCOTUS stuff anymore and I never should have asked her what SCOTUS was in the first place.
I've been avoiding the subject of POTUS because I know now, it can't be good.
Howard, I agree.
Howard, I agree.
The Supreme Court has two
The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution.
These important roles have nothing to do with gender or having experience on the bench. Having the brilliance and background of Elena Kagan will go a long way toward satisfying the fundamental intention of a Supreme Court Justice.
I don't care about her
I don't care about her ethniticity or her gender. What I care about is that we have a person who has no experience in the job we are putting her up for. A job which could literally transform the way we do things in our country. Who cares if she is a Protestant?
How about the fact that she has bean a professor more than a lawyer! I can't believe this is was the nomination. Really sad.
I don't know Phil, after
I don't know Phil, after reading up on her (slow day at work) I'm fairly comfortable with her credentials. Call me elitist but summa cum laude and the Daniel Sachs scholarship (Princeton), magna cum laude (Harvard Law), law clerk for Thurgood Marshall, Dean of Harvard Law, White House Counsel and Solicitor General all make for a pretty damned impressive resume.
I have read the same. Yes I
I have read the same. Yes I find her educational background, time spent with Clinton and everything else to be great resume hits for many jobs in this country. She is no doubt a brilliant woman, but I want the title "judge" on that resume when you are going to be one of the most important "judges" in the land. Call me crazy.
I don't think your elitist for being impressed by her accomplishments.
There's a precedent Phil:
There's a precedent Phil: Rehnquist.
Spinster??? Is this 2010??
Spinster??? Is this 2010?? Are women still property of their husbands??
Again...How does being married (or not) qualify you (or disqualify you) for a job? Or does that rule only apply to women?
Scott Brown from Massachusetts posed NAKED in Cosmo a million years ago.....Does that disqualify him to be in the US Senate? Would it disqualify a woman if she had done the same thing?
Elena Kagan has earned degrees from: Harvard, Princton, AND Oxford.
She has accomplished more in her 50 years of life than ANY of us ever will.
Good for her! Bravo! I just don't think she would have been able to accomplish as much if she was married (to a man).
A LOT of super successful women aren't married......Condi Rice comes to mind...Or does Condi not count because she is a Republican?
It's funny, when Bud said
It's funny, when Bud said 'spinster' I assumed he was making up a new synonym for spin doctor...i didn't even catch it in context.
There's no reason in modern times that a woman should be judged by her willingness to get married and have babies. We're well past that sort of thinking as a society, or at least we should be. We have never asked men to choose between family life and a career and there's no reason we should ask women to do it either. A person has a right to prioritize their goals and society has no right to judge those goals.
I'm aware and I know that
I'm aware and I know that there will be a comparative.
Posted by Julie A Pappalardo
Posted by Julie A Pappalardo on May 10, 2010 - 3:29pm
Elena Kagan has earned degrees from: Harvard, Princton, AND Oxford.
She has accomplished more in her 50 years of life than ANY of us ever will.
Says who? I'm glad that education is held to such a high degree, but just because she has been fortunate to do this does not mean that I could not accomplish more than her in the next 20 years of my life.
Anyone can acheive great things if they have the will, desire and chance. Let's not over idolize a person that no one knew seven days ago please. There are a lot of smart, talented people in this world that have done a lot.
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate',
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate', she was driven. No one does the things she's done without exerting the kind of effort that would make most of us cry in our scotch at the end of every night. Her work experience and academic accomplishments could be called 'unique' in the most severe sense of the term.
Judging by her background, I would have to say her knowledge and experience qualifies her for the job. Of course, that's not for me or anyone else here to determine. Obviously she's already been through the vetting process (probably twice), now she'll go through the confirmation process.
If you hear a loud popping noise during the confirmation hearings you can rest assured that it was the distinct sound of my head exploding because a Republican Senator used the words 'protestant' and 'not married' in the same sentence.
"If you hear a loud popping
"If you hear a loud popping noise during the confirmation hearings you can rest assured that it was the distinct sound of my head exploding because a Republican Senator used the words 'protestant' and 'not married' in the same sentence."
Mercy Flight, please be on stand-by :)
Senator Orrin Hatch: Ms.
Senator Orrin Hatch: Ms. Kagan, is it true that you are an unmarried, middle-aged Jewish woman?
Elana Kagan: Umm, yes Senator, but I don't see...
Hatch: Ms. Kagan, can you explain to the American people why you aren't currently in some man's kitchen making him a steak and some mashed potatoes?
Kagan: Senator, I find your line of questioning rather irrational.
Hatch: Mr. Chairman, I think we're done here.
Chris says"...the separation
Chris says"...the separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution bars, in theory, any consideration of a person's religious beliefs when taking into account their qualifications for office."
Please explain how and where the Constitution says that.
OK Jeff, enjoy: Article 6
OK Jeff, enjoy:
Article 6 paragraph 3 states:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Questions?
Accomplishments she's like a
Accomplishments she's like a full time college student with no experience looking for her first job. So yeah lets stay with this liberal agenda stuff.....we took care of the latina female vote, now we need to make the white women voters happy so I'll give another woman a job because she is a woman and she read alot of books about law at Harvard, Princton, AND Oxford.
She also probably read quite
She also probably read quite a few of them when she was the White House Counsel, the Solicitor General and while clerking for Thurgood Marshall.
and in case you were wondering Richard, 'clerk' is not a synonym for 'secretary.'
Ms. Kagan’s resume is
Ms. Kagan’s resume is indeed, very impressive. What bothers me is her reluctance to render an opinion... on anything. The virtue of owning one’s opinion has been discussed at great length on this site.
The simple explanation could be that her past and present positions required her to represent the interests of her employers, regardless of her own personal opinion - so there is no need to rock the boat. I can certainly respect that. I’m sure we’ve all had to bite our tongues at one time or another, at work, in order to preserve our jobs.
But what if her ambiguity is by design and not default? Instead of stating an opinion and standing by it, what if she instead formulates opinions that are most likely to land her the job she has worked toward all her life.
In the upcoming confirmation debate, it would be interesting, but futile, to ask Ms. Kagan whether she thinks Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce is flexible enough to justify requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. (She, of course, won’t answer this question)
I’m sure that her opinion on the Constitutional limits of the commerce clause has crossed President Obama’s mind, if not his lips. It also wouldn’t surprise me if Vice President Biden reminded her over their breakfast meeting, that health care reform is a big f*****g deal.
Something tells me that if she was very outspoken about reigning in and limiting the powers of Congress, she would not have been on the President’s short list, no matter how impressive her credentials were.
Chris, I was talking about
Chris, I was talking about "separation of church and state". I continually hear that phrase thrown about, but have yet to find the concept in the Constitution. Good reference on the second part however, spot on.
From Wikipedia, the free
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke, the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
Combined with Article 6, the
Combined with Article 6, the separation clause in the First Amendment covers the rest; sprinkle in a little Equal Protection from the Fourteenth Amendment and we have a full flavored separation stew.
It would appear that I
It would appear that I started a line of debate that I was ill-prepared to defend. I looked up the "wall of separation" quote from the Jefferson letter and it is a reasonable explanation for the origins of the phrase itself. The phrase however is taken out of context when the entire Danbury letter as well as Jefferson's entire response show that the wall of separation he was referring to maintained that the barrier prevented overreaching from both sides of the wall as well as the fact that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god" (a quote from Jefferson's response to Danbury).
The fact that the First Ammendment is known as the Establishment clause clearly defines the simplicity of the intent. The concept of separation of church and state has been hijacked to totally alienate any expression of faith in or around all aspects of public life. That was not the intention of our founding fathers as evidenced by so many expressions of faith in early government actions that in no way breached the establishment clause.
Chris and JoAnne, I also have
Chris and JoAnne, I also have to concede that the research I did to counter the argument was challenging to my preconceived notions.
Jeff, I think it is important
Jeff, I think it is important that we do our best to understand what the spirit of the law is here, maybe even more so than the letter.
It is obvious to me that religion is an important and personal subject to you and I respect that completely.
I think what our fathers were after with Article 6 and the First Amendment was true freedom of government from religious dominance and vice-versa. We have to bear in mind that the King/Queen of England was (and of course still is) the leader of the Anglican Church as well. The men who wrote our Constitution understood personally the pitfalls of state-sponsored religion. Many of their recent forbears had already fled English religious tyranny; hell, it's one of the main reasons the Mayflower set sail in the first place.
What the separation of church and state does for us, in my most humble opinion, is a beautiful thing. It allows us to live together peacefully as no multi-religious culture has ever really been able to do. We are unbound by the shackles of doctrine and are free to govern and be governed with the knowledge that the laws we obey, or choose not to obey, stem from accepted moral practices that hold true across cultural and religious divides. We grow up knowing, not thinking or hoping, but knowing, that on any given day, we will be treated the same in the eyes of the law as any other human being, no matter what we look like, or how we worship.
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are what made our melting pot happen. It was one of the first steps we took, one of the first steps ever taken in the history of the world, that led toward a truly equal society. We've fought since then for other sorts of equalities and we are still fighting today in the hope that a generation from now, there will be no test whatsoever but the true worth of a person.
The best part of all of this is that nowhere does it say that a person should ignore their religion when making decisions. The founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, were either brilliant or crazy or both for thinking that something like this could work and a couple centuries later, we're still fighting over it and for good reason.
Equality is a thought process, both the theory and the practice take effort and energy. Occasionally we even have to make a law, like Article 6, any of a number of constitutional amendments, and a multitude of other major and minor legislation to enforce what was said in the Declaration of Independence to be 'self-evident': all men are created equal. It is true, of course, that all of us are created equal but occasionally we need to be reminded of it. The single greatest pitfall to true equality would be for one group, any group to rise to supremacy (religious, racial or otherwise) with the blessing of the rest of us. Our forefathers understood that and did well to protect us. Now the Democracy is ours...if we can keep it.
Posted by Chris Charvella on
Posted by Chris Charvella on May 10, 2010 - 4:12pm
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate', she was driven. No one does the things she's done without exerting the kind of effort that would make most of us cry in our scotch at the end of every night. Her work experience and academic accomplishments could be called 'unique' in the most severe sense of the term.
Judging by her background, I would have to say her knowledge and experience qualifies her for the job. Of course, that's not for me or anyone else here to determine. Obviously she's already been through the vetting process (probably twice), now she'll go through the confirmation process.
No Chris she was also fortunate to gain the opportunities that she has. We are all fortunate when they come, then it is our drive and will that actually makes something of them.
I have no doubt that she is a smart, talented lady, but my comments are directed at being told that she has done more that ANY of us ever will. That takes nerve to say and I disagree.
As far as it not being our place to decide, you're right and that's what's wrong with this process. Why is it that the SC is appointed and not voted on? So that it won't be political? Hogwash. It is political.
I agree with Joanne. Her lack of willingness to put forward opinions coupled with my complaint that she has never served in the role makes me less than excited. That is not to say that as I hear more, I may not change my stance, but I have learned far too often, not much will change.
By the way, I don't drink scotch. Nasty. :-)
Chris, very well stated.
Chris, very well stated. Your first statement..."I think it is important that we do our best to understand what the spirit of the law is here, maybe even more so than the letter." brings us back to Justices. What is a Justices priority, the letter or the spirit of the law?
I would say they are equally
I would say they are equally important Jeff.
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate
Phil, she wasn't 'fortunate to gain the opportunities she has', she worked hard to create those opportunities and even harder to make the most of them.
For a libertarian, you sure place a lot of credence in the idea of fortune. I think you do her accomplishments a disservice by inferring that anyone else could do the same.
I find it incredible that Bud
I find it incredible that Bud seems to be suggesting that affirmative action is necessary to balance the Supreme Court.
Life is a mixture of
Life is a mixture of fate/fortune and what you do with what life hands you.
It's good fortunate to placed in a situation where Harvard is an option.
It's bad fate to be born in Harlem.
Kagan made the most of her good fortune.
Colin Powell overcame his fate.
Few given the opportunity to go to Harvard ever amount to much; and few born in Harlem ever become Secretary of State.
Many who have a shot at Harvard squander all of dad's wealth, and, sadly, few born in Harlem understand that they have a shot at a Harvard education if they're willing to make the effort.
Fate and fortune fall on all equally, but only a few grasp opportunity or make the necessary effort to overcome adversity (which can include being born in Harlem as well as being born in the Hamptons).
post moved to Deb
post moved to Deb Pappalardo....Doh!
Originally posted (by
Originally posted (by mistake) on Julie Pappalardo's account
JoAnne Rock wrote: <<< What bothers me is her reluctance to render an opinion... on anything.>>>
She isn't a judge yet.
JoAnne Rock wrote: <<<Instead of stating an opinion and standing by it>>>
Show me anyone in our government who has stated an opinion and stood by it!
JoAnne Rock wrote <<<But what if her ambiguity is by design and not default? what if she instead formulates opinions that are most likely to land her the job she has worked toward all her life.>>>
That could be said of any of us, I suppose. Generally, I think, an intelligent person pursues certain goals because of their feelings and passions. Not the other way around. I'm not even sure that there has been any ambiguity here. She hasn't been a judge. Which, if you read Ben Bonarigo's post you'll see that it holds no bearing here.
Another point of view, which I notice quite a lot in small towns over bigger cities is that grown adults who have a political point of view or opinion don't really know WHY they have it. For instance: Why would someone who is a firm believer in union work, and stronger government be a republican?
Sometimes I think that people just post on this site to argue. Everyone has an opinion and that's all it is. Before anyone starts going off about this woman they should first research her. And, then, if they have any beef about any part of her career, experience, etc., (not relating to her gender or marital status or what she LOOKS like) go and research the justices already on the SC to see if they were any different. Or better still, compare to those who they might have opt'd for in her place; instead of getting bits and pieces of information provided by The Batavian message board posters to formulate their opinion.
Howard: It's VERY obvious
Howard:
It's VERY obvious that you are posting on a subject you know NOTHING about. You have NO statistics to back what you are posting.
There's a saying: "It's better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Actually, I think I know
Actually, I think I know quite about what can be accomplished through hard work and the freedom to choose one's own fate. No stats needed. It's a basic life lesson.
BTW: where's your evidence that I'm wrong, rather than an ad hominem assertion?
Howard said: Few given the
Howard said:
Few given the opportunity to go to Harvard ever amount to much;
Howard, this is obviously just your opinion. The kids that go to Ivy League colleges are our countries brightest. They REALLY are.
I was educated in private school in New England. I went to school with the "elite’s". They hated me because of my Italian name! Their parents (not just Daddy) made their money the old fashioned way…..They inherited it! These were people who (in 5th grade) would learn the definition of a new word EVERY single day to build their vocabulary so they could get into an Ivy League School. When we had to take a test, our teacher (who we had to address as Ma’am or Sir) would walk out of the room while we took it because everything was on the "honor system". Honesty and Integrity are held VERY high! We took ballroom dance (with white gloves and everything…..to my horror) every Tuesday, played sports, sailed, and did equestrian stuff on the weekends. Not to mention the volunteer work that we did every week (we visited an old folks home and were candystripers….again to my horror) which was also a part of our education. As an added bonus, when we took a math test, we had to hand in our scratch paper with our test!!! I called Greenwich Academy today to see if they still do this stuff. Guess what? They DO!! This was all so that we would be "well rounded" and have a better chance of getting into a "good school" and didn’t marry "Joe the Plumber". Debutante Cotillions REALLY happen (shudder).
Those girls were SO much smarter than me. They just were. Some of them could read a few typed pages once and have it memorized. Hillary Clinton (she went to Wellesley and graduated top of her class) can do that too…..So could Saddam Hussain. I struggled just to TRY and keep up!
Fast forward to now: These girls (who went to the ivy league) have amounted to a LOT! One girl is now the admissions director for the MBA program at Harvard( and she’s not married….gasp!). Another is a world champion squash player (also not married) and now a squash coach at an ivy league school, another had a top 10 best seller on the New York Times Best Seller list. That is out of a class of 33 girls, and I didn’t even look up ALL of them! I can go on and on.
How many Nobel Prize winners went to Harvard? How many US Presidents? Add in the rest of the Ivy League schools and the answer would be: MOST of them!
Howard, you also said:
Many who have a shot at Harvard squander all of dad's wealth
First of all, who’s to say the wealth came from Dad? These people don’t marry out of their class. Period. The money comes from Mom and Dad. If you want to get technical about it, the money came from their Grandparents who got it from their grandparents who got it from their grandparents….etc etc back to the Mayflower! And they have the genealogy to prove it. But I’m not going to get into how that works……Second of all: "old money" people don’t squander wealth. "New money" people squander wealth. People like rappers, football players (who NEVER would have gotten an education without a scholarship), Lotto winners, and rock stars squander their wealth. The "elite’s" preserve their wealth (when they aren’t giving it out to charities, and/or getting taxed to death so some irresponsible unwed teenager can pop out her 3rd kid that she can’t support).
Howard said: and few born in Harlem ever become Secretary of State.
And
few born in Harlem understand that they have a shot at a Harvard education if they're willing to make the effort.
Really throughout your post, you can just change the word "Harlem" for "Batavia". The kids here are doing the same thing. Get knocked up in High School and you get rewarded with Welfare and Food Stamps (that WE have to pay for). Why bother even trying to set a goal for ones self and work towards a better education when you can get entitlements from birth to death.
Not ragging on you Howard...Just had to get my 2 cents in
I made a hasty read of
I made a hasty read of Howard's commentary. I thought he was channeling Sesame Street; today being sponsored by the letter H (Howard, Harlem, Harvard and the Hamptons). He's obviously elevating self-made over accident of birth- never mind the generalities. Are there actually statistics on squandered Harvard degrees and fathers wiped out by higher education bills? In deference to Harlem's famous- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Harlem,_New_York
Julie , Great post , except
Julie , Great post , except for the last part. It is my understanding that more of the government assistants abusers that get knocked up and end up having three kids we pay for are transplants from Rochester and Buffalo . I am not saying we don't have some of our own in Batavia , but the majority came from somewhere other than here but end up here due to various reasons . I do see a trend , when one family from the city moves here they bring with them friends and family. What happens is that a lot of the neighborhood ends up being big city transplants . This pushes out life long residents to the town . Unfortunate but true . This is one of the problems with the community not gelling like it used to . I am sorry but I don't want to know these people and am sick of all the porch sitters in this town . We need more people that want to come to Batavia to work . Perfect example is the house on the corner of Washington and Tracy . Used to be a nice house with nice people . They sit on the porch all day and night with no job , ten kids ,multiple families living there , smoke non stop while being pregnant, trash all over the place , flat screen TV's , lap tops , ond once again no job . Do you know who they are , didn't think so, because they are from Rochester.
Deb Pappalardo said: Before
Deb Pappalardo said:
Before anyone starts going off about this woman they should first research her.
*I spent 4 hours researching Ms. Kagan and I'm still learning more. I don't think that taking an active interest rises to the level of "going off".
Deb Pappalardo said:
She isn't a judge yet.
*I'm fully aware that she is not a judge. I didn’t realize that you had to be a judge to have an opinion.
Deb Pappalardo said:
Show me anyone in our government who has stated an opinion and stood by it!
*Show me anyone in our government that DOESN’T have an opinion. It’s their promises that they have a hard time standing by, which are too numerous to list here.
Deb Pappalardo said:
Which, if you read Ben Bonarigo's post you'll see that it holds no bearing here.
*I did read Ben’s excellent post and I agree with every word. Show me where I questioned her ability to perform the job. My ONLY concern with Ms. Kagan is which way will she lean? Will she be an activist judge?
Deb Pappalardo said:
For instance: Why would someone who is a firm believer in union work, and stronger government be a republican?
*I don’t know who or what this is referring to!
Deb Pappalardo said:
Sometimes I think that people just post on this site to argue.
*There is a huge difference between debating and arguing. People that can’t tell the difference are usually arguing. I have no animus toward anyone that I have debated on The Batavian; in fact I have a great deal of respect for their intellect and their ability to make their case.
Here’s my OPINION, laced with SPECULATION, and EXTRAPOLATED to the max:
I think that Ms. Kagan has probably dreamed of being a Supreme Court Justice since she was about 5. She went to all the “right” schools and worked very hard. By the time she was old enough to realize that her “opinions” would matter when it came to a SCOTUS nomination, she made a conscience decision not to make any that might jeopardize her chances. She was also smart enough to know that her political leanings would have to be in line with whoever was in the White House at the time of the vacancy. Afterall, vacancies don't happen all that often and she's pushing 50.
The only questions I still have are: Is she in line politically with Obama, or did she give him a snow job just to get the nomination and will she be an activist judge? Either way, she is one smart cookie.
Kudos to her for using the intellectual equivalent of sleeping her way to the top!
P.S. Julie Pappalardo
P.S.
Julie Pappalardo said:
Good for her! Bravo! I just don't think she would have been able to accomplish as much if she was married (to a man).
...as opposed to if she was married (to a woman)?
Are you suggesting that Ms. Kagan is gay?
No, I'm NOT suggesting she is
No, I'm NOT suggesting she is gay! I have no clue if she is gay and could really care less, but the Supreme Court building COULD use a makeover (grin)
My point is: Many men (not ALL) cannot handle being married to a woman more powerful amd/or smarter than them (Martha Stewart comes to mind so does Oprah). Not to mention the pressure women tend to get to stay home and raise kids instead of having a career.
On the other hand, women tend to be more supportive of their partners and wouldn't feel threatened by their other halfs success.
What do you mean by "activist judge"?
Fabulous comment on the
Fabulous comment on the makeover...LOL!...and those black robes *shudder*...hahaha!
An activist judge is like obscenity...it's hard to define but you know it when you see it.
If you do a google search on judicial activism you will find more than you care to know about the subject.