Skip to comments.If Kagan is Qualified for the Supreme Court, So is Laura Ingraham
Posted on 05/10/2010 2:09:08 PM PDT by Starman417
If clerkships for former justices is the new standard, we've reached a new low!
Listening to the reaction on Talk Radio this afternoon to Obama's selection of Harvard crony Elena Kagin for nomination to the Supreme Court, a liberal caller to Sean Hannity's show struck a chord. He read off the list of George Soros/David Axelrod approved talking points and stressed that Kagin, who was never a judge and has never written an opinion, nor appeared as a lawyer before the Supreme Court was somehow qualified to sit on the High Court on the basis of her clerkship to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall.
I was an intern in the White House of President Ronald Reagan. Am I qualified to be President?
Alright, let's put that aside and consider this: among her many qualifications Laura Ingraham, clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, another black Justice. Should she also be considered for a future nomination to the High Court by GOP Presidents? What about conservative commentator Ann Coulter who clerked for Judge Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates?
Read more at floppingaces.net...
Difference is one is nominated the other isn’t and won’t be by Obama....
Laura Ingraham would be much easier on the eyes too.
Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court?
Laura is more qualified.
Difference is one is nominated the other isnt and wont be by Obama....
The point is that none of the three should be selected to be on the supreme court. There are people far better suited and qualified. Instead, hussein obama selects activists to be on the court — Latino woman and now a lesbian.
While I would prefer someone who has been a judge, in the end the number one, non-negotiable litmus test for anyone to sit on the Supreme Court is a willingness to uphold the constitution. If you are not a constitutionalist you have no business anywhere near the Supreme Court.
The issue isn’t experience. The issue is fitness based on your fealty to the constitution, your faithfulness and intent to remain true to it. No one can show me Kagan’s bona fides as a constitutionalist and it is based on this that she must be voted down. She should never have been put forward and no president who cared a fig about the constitution would ever have nominated her. She is an embarrassment.
Laura is more qualified . . . she has the right stuff.
Thank you. I needed that after seeing way too many of the liberal democrat women lately.
Actually, she has, in the Citizens United case. She was pretty much a disaster.
I’d rather he nominated Laura..... This nomination does not bode well ( but then neither did the Sotomayor nomination)
I agree but that isn’t where we are. Reality says we need to have the Republicans hold this nomination if at all possible to keep if from a floor vote. I don’t know if they will. Seven Republicans voted for Kagan for Solicitor Geneneral back in Mar. 09 and three didn’t vote.
Is Nobama qualified to be president . . . that’s a better question.
Someone needs to post the pics of the ugly lesbian liberals vs. conservative women.
Oops! I wrote that before scrolling down!
I thought that she resembled Matthew Broderick gone to seed myself...
Harriet Miers moment
There is no requirement a Justice be a Judge first. President Taft was later confirmed as Chief Justice, and I don’t think he ever clerked for anybody. I don’t really see the sense of this article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.