Someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/2obeb0 ^ | July 25, 2010 | Kim Patterson

[Eye of Unk]

I would be interested in just how much of a connection she had with Obamas radical associates and her tenure at Harvard, somebody may correct me if they want that she was at Harvard.

We should look way back in her past, did her timeline intersect with Obama? Weather Underground connections? For her to reach a lofty academic position I am sure she has been scrutinized and reviewed.

Kagan can be charged with treason, that is if there was any authority willing to enforce the laws, she obstructed justice by her actions of not allowing these birther cases to properly evolve through the right direction.

Having her being rewarded with a position of being a supreme court judge totaly stinks, who is next? Oprah Winfrey?

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

The thought just crossed my mind.....
was she involved with Weather Underground?

---

Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if she did - sounds like she’s about the right age.

All those commies who were trying to burn, bomb or destroy back in the early 70’s are now in their late 50’s early 60’s and are insinuating themselves into positions of power.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ‘juicy’....

[stephenjohnbanker]

They asked about bagels & cream cheese. Whadya want?

We have no representation in D.C.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Good job!

[Candor7]

And so the whimps who say they represet us allow the constitution to be destroyed. Graham should be tarred and feathered. My Irish Setter is more qulaified than Kagan to sit on SCOTUS.He is loyal.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” And so the whimps who say they represet us allow the constitution to be destroyed “

Right before our very eyes.

[LucyT]

> was she involved with Weather Underground?

> there is a good reason 0 doesn’t want anyone looking at her past.

. . . . # 40, # 41.

[Thanks tutstar.]

(I'll be offline the rest of the day.)

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Typing on the run....

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn lived in NYC when they were on the run. Kagan is from NYC. NYC is not so big when radicals gather.

(refresher: http://www.justice.gov/osg/meet-osg.html)

Need to look at a timeline later.

[bgill]

She accepted millions from Saudi for Harvard. While that may be the way things are done, it’s still not wise in post 9/11.

[Jedidah]

Kagan is indeed from NYC, but she was at Princeton for college, graduated in 1981 and was probably already at Oxford when the Brinks robbery went down and in the years afterward.

I would have no problem envisioning her as a philosophical buddy of the Ayers, but proximity and age probably rule her out. Unlike 0, she did, indeed, have an exemplary record at Princeton. Dividing her time between there and NYC while still a teen, all the while keeping her grades up, is pretty far-fetched.

Then she spent several years in England, then back to Harvard.

Doesn’t look like a trail worth following.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Thanks. I appreciate the info. :-)

[screaming eagle2]

makes me wonder if she’ll recuse herself from cases she was involved with,like the other justices

[SeaHawkFan]

The Supreme Court operates under a tradition known as “the rule of four.” It takes four of the nine justices to agree in order to “grant cert” which means to Grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and hear an appeal before the full court.

Actually, the rules of the court are based on the laws passed by Congress. If fact, every state but one codifies their judicial rules through legislation.

In the state that doesn't, the clerk of the court says that the justices have to authority to ignore the law in matters related to judicial procedure. True statement!!!

In a typical year about 95% of appeals are denied and about 5% are granted “Cert” for judicial review before the full Court.

That figure is less than 1%.

[jamese777]

“Actually, the rules of the court are based on the laws passed by Congress. If fact, every state but one codifies their judicial rules through legislation.

In the state that doesn’t, the clerk of the court says that the justices have to authority to ignore the law in matters related to judicial procedure. True statement!!!”

---

The “rule of four” on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari is the Supreme Court’s own tradition. There is no law passed by Congress that authorizes it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

---

“In a typical year about 95% of appeals are denied and about 5% are granted “Cert” for judicial review before the full Court.

That figure is less than 1%.”

The number of petitions granted varies from year to year. You are nearly correct for 2008-2009 if talking only about Plenary Review with Oral Arguments, about 1.1%. There are additional Cert petitions that are granted without plenary review.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.aspx

[opentalk]

Btt

[tutstar]

ping 8^)