Quote: Originally posted by swamphawk22 on 5/10/2010I think Cons got th best pick we could hope for with Obama. I know she wrote that paper in college calling for a socialist revolution in America. I know she threw the military out of Harvard. She also supported Bush positions dealing with non-traditional battlefield detentions. She seems to see the big picture and looks at the law with truly neutral eyes. Replacing Stevens she will bring the court a little to the right, just what America wants Obama to do.

Needless to say, people who actually know something about the law and the Supreme Court disagree with you

What exactly are you reading. Or to use your catch phrase "Did you actually read your post.

Everyone said they know she is liberal, except when it comes to presidential power. Also say she is not confrontational.

Most said they think something but know nothing.

I stand by my claim that she brings the court farther to the right. I realize that isnt a really big point, considering she is replacing Stevens, but it seems valid.

"further to the right" swamp, what does that mean? Are we one pu**y hair closer to the repeal of all the liberal legislation passed in the past year? Or does it confirm again that you know not of what you speak?

Quote: Originally posted by swamphawk22 on 5/10/2010What exactly are you reading.

You can't be that dumb.

He's swamphawk he gets his news from youtube and conservative radio so yes he can be that dumb

Quote: Originally posted by antonsirius on 5/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by swamphawk22 on 5/10/2010I think Cons got th best pick we could hope for with Obama. I know she wrote that paper in college calling for a socialist revolution in America. I know she threw the military out of Harvard. She also supported Bush positions dealing with non-traditional battlefield detentions. She seems to see the big picture and looks at the law with truly neutral eyes. Replacing Stevens she will bring the court a little to the right, just what America wants Obama to do.

Needless to say, people who actually know something about the law and the Supreme Court disagree with you

I like how Holtzman made that all about her.

Wouldn't have killed the NYT to try to find someone with just a little more opposition to her, too...I get that there isn't much, but they can do better than that.

It's not like they avoided conservatives in the group though. I found the article through Volokh's blog.

I mean, they could have asked Bill Kristol I suppose...

Quote: Originally Posted By nickbracco on 5/10/2010"further to the right" swamp, what does that mean? Are we one pu**y hair closer to the repeal of all the liberal legislation passed in the past year? Or does it confirm again that you know not of what you speak

I am pretty sure you know what the phrase "Further to the right" means.

I believe that if the SC will make decisions on the whole that are more to the right with her, than they would have with Stevens. And I think it will be a noticeable difference.

I feel like with all the possible disasters that could have been nominated, this is not anything that is going to harm Conservative values.

Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 5/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by swamphawk22 on 5/10/2010
I think Cons got th best pick we could hope for with Obama.

I know she wrote that paper in college calling for a socialist revolution in America. I know she threw the military out of Harvard.

She also supported Bush positions dealing with non-traditional battlefield detentions. She seems to see the big picture and looks at the law with truly neutral eyes.

Replacing Stevens she will bring the court a little to the right, just what America wants Obama to do.

Needless to say, people who actually know something about the law and the Supreme Court disagree with you

What exactly about my review do you find wrong. I read all the comments, and they all seemed to agree with me. No one actually said she will bring the court to the right, but do you actually disagree with that? Everyone else seemed to say the same thing.

I realize I could be wrong, this could be Obama's plan to slip a sleeper from the far into the court. If that is his plan I have 2 words for him...David Souter.

Quote: Originally posted by swamphawk22 on 5/11/2010I read all the comments, and they all seemed to agree with me. No one actually said she will bring the court to the right

So they all agreed with you, even though none of them said what you did. Neat trick.

Your brain is hermetically sealed.

They never used those words, but they all talked about her being more conservative on issues of presidential power. That would seem to indicate that she is actually to the right of Stevens.

Is any of this sinking in, or is our little feud more important to you than the truth?

So even though some of the respondents explicitly said things like:

"Ideologically, the nomination of Elena Kagan appears to be a wash, given that she is replacing the liberal Justice Stevens."

"If Elena Kagan is confirmed, Justice John Paul Stevens’ seat will remain in pretty solidly liberal hands for the next 40 years, if Ms. Kagan remains on the court as long as Justice Stevens has."

"In the shorter term, President Obama’s evident aspiration is that Kagan would be effective in cultivating the court’s swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and in moving him ward."

...you choose to try and parse what they said to somehow allow yourself to believe she's actually to the right of Stevens.

You couldn't find the truth with a pack of bloodhounds and the truth's sweat-stained prison shirt.

The only way she is to the right of Stevens is if Stevens is a commie.

Not sure how anyone can decide on her "liberalness" or not AS A JUDGE. Nothing there to go by. We can make educated guesses based on her other legal work, but not on anything where she actually sat in judgement. That may or may not change her views on things.