US POLITICS: Congratulation to USA for their upcoming health

of course

http://i40.tinypic.com/oa6m8w.gif

!!

oh and holder wants to weaken miranda. what the fuck.

confirmed by cnn :/

fml

*drinks up*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FblQR8ZeUpQ

I love how every time there's a Supreme Court pick we all sit around posturing like we actually pay attention to circuit courts and judges and what qualities and experience are relevant, like we can divine the meaning behind quantity or quality of legal writing etc.

I personally am fonder of how opinions like this get trotted out to tell people "stfu & trust people who are doubtless nobler than thee"

I keep looking for something that would make me think Kagan is a terrible nominee and can't really find one. It'd be nice to have someone who is obviously a liberal (like uh, former ACLU SG Ginsburg), but I'm not persuaded to oppose the nomination outright because she didn't hire enough minority professors at Harvard.

ringing endorsement there

lol

that criticism is pretty weak imo

Well I understand opposing the nomination because she's a blank slate. But I kept reading these Greenwald posts, and seeing a million links in them, and when I took the time to actually read all of them it turns out that her biggest problems are that she didn't hire enough minorities at Harvard, and that she made some arguments in favor of dumb/evil Obama policies (i.e. she did her job).

alright so i understand the arguments as to why kagan might be better than greenwald is making her out to be -- in fact i generally agree with them. my question is this: has anyone made a case or given a reason why diane wood should not have been picked? or why kagan should've been picked over her, aside from the huffington post article which i actually thought was good, but didn't touch at all on why kagan would be better specifically than wood, if they were the final two. would obama have any firsthand knowledge about wood that would inform his decision to pick kagan over her, or is it purely ideological?

^^yes this is exactly it dude, no one is arguing that kagan is some kind of clarence monster, she'll probably be a reliable leftish justice for quite a long time - it's just, why the fuck support someone who we're unsure about and have reason to believe might be kinda conservative on executive powers when wood is so unequivocal in her views and her judicial record is so easy to parse. seriously that opinion of hers gg linked to a few weeks ago is so amazing and inspiring. and at the risk of regurgitating his talking points, it'd be different if she were replacing, like, scalia - then there would be less reason to oppose her. but why take a chance on her replacing just about the only reliable liberal on the court when there is someone else who is supremely qualified who literally poses no risk of shifting the balance to the right?

*clarence thomas-type monster......i am not on a first name basis with the dude

a pube-first basis

ugh son

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/images/clarence_thomas2.jpg

it's hard telling. accounts from the sotomayor pick make it seem like the interview was a big part of it, obama and sotomayor clicked on some i'm sure very important jurisprudential level and that was that.

xps

when wood is so unequivocal in her views and her judicial record is so easy to parse.

the senate being what it is, maybe this is the problem.

i guess obama will make a statement regarding this tomorrow?

i mean i'm not gonna act like it doesn't make perfect sense or whatever - of course obama is gonna pick someone who's gonna have his back on executive powers stuff! dude is doing tons of foreign policy ish that hardcore liberals aren't cool w/ - why would he pick someone like wood, who has very clearly defined views in the area and would almost certainly oppose certain extra-judicial decisions just about any white house would want to make, when he can pick some careerist hack like kagan who would be more sympathetic in that area but still win over 90% of libs - she's pro-choice, phew! she's probably gay and sure showed those mean army recruiters that one time!

i guess obama will make a statement regarding this tomorrow?

― J0rdan S., Monday, May 10, 2010 12:39 AM (14 seconds ago)

yeha as of an hour ago cnn was saying 10ish

clarence monster

it will be interesting to see if he echoes the sentiments of that huffpo article re her abilities wrt persuasion

some careerist hack like kagan

easy bro, it's not like she started a tumblr about hipsters or something

she's pro-choice, phew! she's probably gay and sure showed those mean army recruiters that one time!

― sveltko (k3vin k.), Sunday, May 9, 2010 11:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

let's not scoff at this

dogg the point is any fucking obama pick is going to be pro-choice and pro-gay, bfd

yo could u link that huffpo article you're referring to?

new thread imo btw

that obama is really picking kagan over wood because he just wants extra executive power is a pretty retarded suggestion - we have a far right-wing supreme court either way.

i would start the thread but the pressure of coming up with a good title is too much for me

anyway, this is the huffpo column about kagan -- it's not gonna do anything to pacify people already against her nomination, but it does make some interesting points, both about the court as a whole and about kagan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-case-for-kagan_b_551511.html

funny cuz this far-right court you're talking about has ruled 5-4 (stevens in the majority) a few times against executive powers in the past few years

xp

that you can honestly believe that obama would make a decision like this as some furtive executive power grab is just so lol

but I guess you believe that he's an evil dude and that's how evil dudes operate I guess

yeah it's not like he reconsidered his stance on FISA or the FOIA act or anything, he's a solid guy without any of the usual trappings of power - his immunity to its allure is kind of singular n'est-pas

yeah dogg i read that article a while ago, it basically doesn't say anything other than "trust me, i know her and she's gonna be great". the whole thing about her being able to sway conservatives based on the fact that she hired some white dudes at harvard is some wishful thinking BS imho - it's actually the opposite of what we want, which is someone who can make conservatives see it our way, rather than meeting them halfway, which is the best we can say about hiring a bunch of conservatives. what is the point of forging consensus with conervatives if the consensus isn't on our side?

so you want compromises where the other side suddenly agrees with you 100%

alright i bit the bullet US POLITICS: underrated supreme court decisions that i have read

what is the point of forging consensus with conservatives

well I mean I think the point of forging consensus w/conservatives is that one actually agrees with them generally about most stuff, if we're being honest

i mean that entire artice iirc goes on about how awesome kagan is without describing a single view she holds, other than that she's a "progressive". alright, if you say so, lawrence lessig.

xp no you retard, i don't want compromises at all. i want someone who has a record as being on the right side, and persuading conservatives to agree with her view of the case, rather than meeting them halfway - something wood has a record of doing, and kagan we're just praying for

and yeah i realize nine times outta ten wood and thomas may have the same view on a case - it's the close ones we're worried about

we can lock this now