E-Mail 'NBC News: Kagan will be Obama's SCOTUS nominee to replace Stevens (MON AM UPDATE 2: IT'S OFFICIAL)' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'NBC News: Kagan will be Obama's SCOTUS nominee to replace Stevens (MON AM UPDATE 2: IT'S OFFICIAL)' to a friend

Loading ...

5 Responses to "NBC News: Kagan will be Obama’s SCOTUS nominee to replace Stevens (MON AM UPDATE 2: IT’S OFFICIAL)"

camojack says:

May 10, 2010 at 3:48 am

On the “bright” side, at least it was a liberal Justice that’s retiring.
Raul says:

May 10, 2010 at 9:53 am

That is all well and good but is the nominee pro-life?
Carlos says:

May 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm

ABC News has come up with a headline indicating that, because Kagan has no judicial history, she will be an “unknown” wild card on the court.

Yeah, right. Dean of Hawvud Law. Nominated by the most extremist president in the two-century plus history of our country. I’m just real sure every decision she makes will surprise everyone.

And the Republicans don’t have the spine or moral fiber to challenge her effectively. When it comes to standing on principal, they are (for the most part) full of jello.
NC Cop says:

May 10, 2010 at 9:10 pm

An anti-military, left winger with NO experience as a judge.

Only in an Obama world does this make sense.
Carlos says:

May 11, 2010 at 11:07 am

The “A” section of today’s birdcage liner had about three full pages of gushiness about Kagan, all boiling down to this: we don’t know what her philosophical bent on the bench will be because she’s such an enigma.

Let’s see. She supports the military in the same way the statists do, by saying “Support our troops – bring them home now!”

She is all over gay special rights, surely a hard-core conservative view.

She’s a great mediator between conservative and liberal groups, as shown by her ability to get the two factions in Hawvud Law to agree to new hires (no one says whether the new hires were conservative or liberal, or what the split was), a la Maobama.

In other words, she is not a complete unknown and, as indicated in my first comment, could only be one who “enlarges” the Constitution beyond recognition.

Whatever happened to judges just defining what the law actually says, and deciding whether that falls within the strict confines of what is allowed by the Constitution?

Comments are closed.