Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kagan Botches Oral Argument In Supreme Court Appearance At Citizens United Lawsuit
RealClearPolitics ^ | 5-10-2010 | Hot Air

Posted on 05/11/2010 8:11:43 AM PDT by raybbr

Hot Air explains how Solicitor General Elena Kagan muffed her argument in front of the Supreme Court on the Citizens United v. FEC case: In fact, the crux of the case was the issue of limiting expenditures as an expression of political speech, not contributions. Kagan started off her argument by misconstruing the issue and then offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent. Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didn’t pay much attention to them.

Transcript below:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ELENA KAGAN

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.


Number two -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either. And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.

GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case — first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley — and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.


(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blunders; citizensunited; kagan; kagantruthfile; lawsuit; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 05/11/2010 8:11:44 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

From David Horowitz's
FrontPageMag.com/DiscoverTheNetworks.org

PROFILE: ELENA KAGAN

As an undergraduate at Princeton, Kagan wrote a senior thesis titled

"To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933."

In the "Acknowledgments" section of her work, she specifically thanked her brother Marc, “whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.” In the body of the thesis, Kagan wrote:

"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?...

"Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."

Lots more on Kagan here:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2398


2 posted on 05/11/2010 8:12:23 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Jesus... she’s toeing the Obama line with every talking point he’s muttered. This woman(?) needs to be filibustered or denied. 25 - 30 years of this sort of liberalism would be devastating to our country and our Constitution.


3 posted on 05/11/2010 8:13:37 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Audio of her idiocy at the link.....


4 posted on 05/11/2010 8:14:38 AM PDT by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Just what we need- a dumbass butch on the supreme court

There can be no doubt Obambi is trying to ruin this country for good.


5 posted on 05/11/2010 8:15:37 AM PDT by Mr. K (This administration IS WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

just another example of social justice and the progressive parties drive to put their people in all places, irregardless of their qualifications.

like the current resident, this person is just not qualified.


6 posted on 05/11/2010 8:15:42 AM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Solicitor General Elena Kagan muffed her argument in front of the Supreme Court

Heh heh, they said "muffed".

7 posted on 05/11/2010 8:19:00 AM PDT by Second Amendment First ("Stripping motivated people of their dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

HA....most of Congress is “not qualified”....


8 posted on 05/11/2010 8:20:13 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Destroy AMERICA.....Vote DEMOCRAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Can’t be worse than the ridiculous lib she’s replacing.


9 posted on 05/11/2010 8:20:17 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (I'd use the /s tag but is it really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Standing in front of the Bench is a hell of a lot different than sitting behind the Bench and attempting to enforce the Constitution.


10 posted on 05/11/2010 8:22:20 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

I formally request that we avoid using her name and “oral” in the same sentence. Thanks.

SnakeDoc


11 posted on 05/11/2010 8:23:59 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility

I can appreciate your standpoint, but that’s exactly the problem we have with the USSC. The Pubbies roll over because “she’s just replacing another liberal.”

That’s not the point! We’re talking about the Constitution here.


12 posted on 05/11/2010 8:24:16 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

I think it’s very interesting and telling that no one in the MSM is talking about the historic nature of this nomination. She would be the first openly homosexual Supreme Court justice.

Sometimes, the gay community take the position that “we’re here, we’re queer” and proudly announce their homosexuality to the world. Other times, it appears that they want to hide it.

We’ve been told how damaging it has been for people to have been “in the closet” and all that. We’ve been told that homosexual rights is the next big civil rights battle. Yet a conscious decision has been made to not sell her as the historic 1st openly gay Supreme Court justice.


13 posted on 05/11/2010 8:25:25 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility

Justice Stevens was a liberal, but more wise and more old school liberal. This Kagan is a fool as her argument noted here shows. She is so dim, she went ahead parroting what her minions at the office wrote for her without having the analytical brains to see it was a misreading of the issue at hand. Why, because she is outcome and agenda based, not caring or seeing the particular issue at hand.


14 posted on 05/11/2010 8:25:31 AM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

i don’t get it


15 posted on 05/11/2010 8:26:23 AM PDT by teeman8r (NO vember is coming... vote them out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Political Hack!


16 posted on 05/11/2010 8:26:45 AM PDT by Empireoftheatom48 (Zero will never be my President, never!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

I’ve never heard, until the past few days with this lame-o the term “General So and So” for the Soliciter General. Unreal.

And you think Kagan, of all people, would be skilled at “oral presentations”

Boy, her, Ginsberg and the “wide Latina” Call them the “Lee Sisters”

Home-Lee
Ug-Lee
and Ghast-Lee

Bring in Michelle as the fourth one “UnGod-Lee”


17 posted on 05/11/2010 8:27:24 AM PDT by Mac from Cleveland ("See what you made me do?" Major Malik Hasan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theKid51; Apple Blossom

A must read


18 posted on 05/11/2010 8:28:48 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Thank You God for Freeing the Navy Seals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Don’t get me wrong. I think we should fight it. I just don’t think we’d see any different votes from her than from who she’s replacing. That goes for anyone Obama will appoint, imo. They will all be indoctrinated liberals.


19 posted on 05/11/2010 8:29:18 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (I'd use the /s tag but is it really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I’ve seen some liberal criticism that obama chooses to keep her lesbianism under wraps. Sort of like the White House version of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.


20 posted on 05/11/2010 8:29:39 AM PDT by Second Amendment First ("Stripping motivated people of their dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I guarantee that if she is confirmed the MSM will then, and only then, shout out what a grand and historic event this is, that the first “openly” homosexual has been appointed to the Supreme Court.


21 posted on 05/11/2010 8:29:52 AM PDT by Obadiah (I can see November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

“muffed her argument”

Ha ha.


22 posted on 05/11/2010 8:30:45 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

Google “muff”.


23 posted on 05/11/2010 8:31:07 AM PDT by Second Amendment First ("Stripping motivated people of their dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

Anyone nominated by Obama will be exactly the same. That does not mean we should not fight. I’m just pointing out that we can count on her to vote for the Left the same way Stevens did.


24 posted on 05/11/2010 8:31:09 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (I'd use the /s tag but is it really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
" obama chooses to keep her lesbianism under wraps"

Good luck with that.


25 posted on 05/11/2010 8:31:48 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
She reminds me of Kathy Bates, only not as pretty.


26 posted on 05/11/2010 8:32:18 AM PDT by Jaxter ("Pro Aris et Focis")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

LOL...let’s lose “muff” too when referring to the whale.


27 posted on 05/11/2010 8:34:39 AM PDT by Mountain Mary ("No weapon is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility
Can’t be worse than the ridiculous lib she’s replacing.

She's 40 years younger than the ridiculous lib she's replacing! Contemplate THAT if you will.
28 posted on 05/11/2010 8:35:56 AM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mac from Cleveland

lol.

I cannot imagine who believes the Prez should be able to ban books and films should be anywhere near the SCOTUS


29 posted on 05/11/2010 8:36:01 AM PDT by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jaxter

I haven’t mastered the art of transferring images to FR. But if you go to Lauraingraham.com, there is a wonderful likeness displayed between Ursula and EK. Maybe you can bring that over here for us! thanks..MM


30 posted on 05/11/2010 8:36:41 AM PDT by Mountain Mary ("No weapon is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Mary; Jewbacca; SnakeDoctor

Bet this thread doesn’t last long.


31 posted on 05/11/2010 8:37:12 AM PDT by Second Amendment First ("Stripping motivated people of their dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Reference bump - thanks! ;-)


32 posted on 05/11/2010 8:42:13 AM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mac from Cleveland

lol!!


33 posted on 05/11/2010 8:43:57 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion,,,,,,the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

“I will repeat what I just said, Justice Scalia.”
“YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER MS. KAGAN!”


34 posted on 05/11/2010 8:46:26 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

oh, i know what it IS... i just don’t get it... (sigh)


35 posted on 05/11/2010 8:46:30 AM PDT by teeman8r (NO vember is coming... vote them out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

She is not qualified I tell you!!!


36 posted on 05/11/2010 8:51:22 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Oral Argument In Supreme Court Appearance At Citizens United Lawsuit

You mean she muffed it?

37 posted on 05/11/2010 8:52:34 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican on the judiciary panel, said in a statement yesterday that Kagan has a “strong academic background” and that he has been “generally pleased with her job performance as solicitor general,” particularly on terrorism issues.

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-10/republicans-will-review-brief-litigation-experience-of-court-pick-kagan.html

Gomer Pyle Speaks


38 posted on 05/11/2010 8:53:34 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Afterwards, she was called on the carpet.


39 posted on 05/11/2010 8:53:59 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
They will try to get her confirmation through Lickity Split.
40 posted on 05/11/2010 8:55:07 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Is this payback for losing in the courts?


41 posted on 05/11/2010 8:55:50 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

I haven’t gotten it lately, either.


42 posted on 05/11/2010 8:56:00 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

43 posted on 05/11/2010 8:56:16 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice
44 posted on 05/11/2010 8:57:01 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Obama so far is batting a thousand. Neither candidate is qualified to be near the Supreme Court; just as he isn’t.

This what you get when you elect bottom of the barrel scum buckets.


45 posted on 05/11/2010 8:58:36 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

And Orrin Hatch will welcome “her” with open arms, gush over her brilliance and, of course, vote to confirm.


46 posted on 05/11/2010 8:58:41 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
The Hot Air piece is very interesting. The sitting Justices, right and left, with the exception of the “wise Latina” won't forget that she was unprepared for the Citizens United, nor that she did not understand the basic principles of the case. I was at the Supreme Court during the last session and it seemed to me that the other Justices really gave the “wise Latina” the cold shoulder. She seemed to be talking only to hear herself talk and it was not pertinent to the issues at hand. The danger will be that the “wise Latina” and Kagan will form a coalition of ill-informed, ill-prepared, ideologues that have no use for the Constitution and no ability to understand basic American concepts and no ability to think beyond the moment without a regard for the consequences of the future.
47 posted on 05/11/2010 9:00:16 AM PDT by madinmadtown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Whatever she may or may not have botched, there is definitely something fishy going on here.


48 posted on 05/11/2010 9:07:11 AM PDT by small voice in the wilderness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Mary
Here you go..


49 posted on 05/11/2010 9:07:41 AM PDT by Jaxter ("Pro Aris et Focis")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

John Kyl, my illustrious senator apparently already has practically.


50 posted on 05/11/2010 9:09:06 AM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson