Kagan Becomes the High Court's Fourth Female Justice

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Personally, I'd prefer it if someone called me a b!tch or a harlot to my (virtual) face than be needled ineffectively with what are failed attempts at witty parlay.

But that's just me.

Forget all that subtleness. Talk dirty to me!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Forget all that subtleness. Talk dirty to me!

Ummmm, mud pies? Hardscrabble plots of land? The Gobi desert? The basement of Delta Kappa Epsilon at 4am on January 27, 1994?

[alienlovechild 75]

Does anyone have any real objections to this appointment, other than that Obama appointed her?

That's rich considering how Sen. Obama voted against CJ Roberts.

Justice appointments are pretty political nowadays and pretending otherwise isn't realistic. She's not the biggest brain out there but the left has a history of picking more politically reliable justices and that's what happened again.

[The_Dude 1,142]

That's rich considering how Sen. Obama voted against CJ Roberts.

Justice appointments are pretty political nowadays and pretending otherwise isn't realistic. She's not the biggest brain out there but the left has a history of picking more politically reliable justices and that's what happened again.

That is absoluely retarded corky. Serioulsy, when is the last supreme court justice appointment that was actually controversial? The appointments over the last 30 years have all been center left or center right. The least retard appointed was Robert Bork, so you can stop the crocodile tears.

[justashooter 430]

Seriously, you three are delusional. It is still a 5-4 conservative majority on the SCOTUS, and even the most liberal of the judges are barely center left. You make it out to be like there is suddenly going to be a mass exodus of women running out and snatching up your guns while having recreational abortions. Get a grip of reality, please.

kagan wrote the klinton 94 AWB. everybody knows this. she is not a moderate. she also clearly waffles on coburn's question, indicating that she does not have a problem with the continued abuse of the commerce clause to violate State and Individual rights. she is a Big Government schill, tried and true.

that being said, she is replacing someone with a similar track record, and there is no sign of another replacement being made in this decade.

[alienlovechild 75]

That is absoluely retarded corky. Serioulsy, when is the last supreme court justice appointment that was actually controversial? The appointments over the last 30 years have all been center left or center right. The least retard appointed was Robert Bork, so you can stop the crocodile tears.

Another TOS violation and another opinion backed with a vast void of knowledge. Do you ever get suspended?

You really don't know that many picks have gone down party lines in Senate votes and believe there isn't controversy involved? Ever heard of Justice Thomas or Harriet Miers- obviously not.

Bork was a retard? Only a partisan fool like yourself could dream up that one. Nobody said he wasn't qualified for the job.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Another TOS violation and another opinion backed with a vast void of knowledge. Do you ever get suspended?

You really don't know that many picks have gone down party lines in Senate votes and believe there isn't controversy involved? Ever heard of Justice Thomas or Harriet Miers- obviously not.

Bork was a retard? Only a partisan fool like yourself could dream up that one. Nobody said he wasn't qualified for the job.

Bingo.

Though Miers was not liked by many on both sides. Which is probably why she should have been confirmed.

Someone with a helluva lot more experience than Kagan and Democrats harassed her on "experience" - now they put in a nit wit who has an education and no law experience... joyful.

[thongd4me 69]

Now the "Supremes" have a quorum.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's rich considering how Sen. Obama voted against CJ Roberts.

Justice appointments are pretty political nowadays and pretending otherwise isn't realistic. She's not the biggest brain out there but the left has a history of picking more politically reliable justices and that's what happened again.

Why is it "rich"? Noone should have substantial reasons to oppose or endorse political appointments?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

That is absoluely retarded corky. Serioulsy, when is the last supreme court justice appointment that was actually controversial? The appointments over the last 30 years have all been center left or center right. The least retard appointed was Robert Bork, so you can stop the crocodile tears.

I'll have what you're drinking.

[alienlovechild 75]

Why is it "rich"? Noone should have substantial reasons to oppose or endorse political appointments?

Not required and most senators tend to vote on the basis of lobbying efforts and the belief that a candidate will vote the "wrong" way on their pet issues and lean the court further in the "wrong" direction.

Roberts wasn't unqualified and Obama and many Democrats took issue him on political not judicial grounds. The Court isn't as political as widely advertised and there are plenty of unanimous decisions.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Great. now were going to have cat fights over who is more mistreated Lesbians or Hispanics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not required and most senators tend to vote on the basis of lobbying efforts and the belief that a candidate will vote the "wrong" way on their pet issues and lean the court further in the "wrong" direction.

Roberts wasn't unqualified and Obama and many Democrats took issue him on political not judicial grounds. The Court isn't as political as widely advertised and there are plenty of unanimous decisions.

The question was whether should people here should have substantial reasons to oppose or endorse political appointments.

There's no "requirement" for that either, but if someone says they oppose Kagan merely because Obama appointed her or because she's a "stupid head" or a "softball playing carpet muncher" opinions like that arent very compelling. Are they.