Posted on 06/30/2010 1:15:57 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
ABC News' Rick Klein reports: Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn has provided some of the most contentious exchanges of the rather tame Elena Kagan confirmation hearings. He's raised questions about Kagan's generally liberal political beliefs, and contends that Kagan would usher in vast expansions of government power as a member of the Supreme Court.
On ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line” today, Coburn ratcheted up his critique of Kagan, saying she hasn’t been as forthcoming about her views as she should be, and questioning her interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as well as her expressed willingness to follow court precedents.
“I think the thing that's very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find that she's ignorant of the Constitution's limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
AND she’s unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment. State’s rights, anyone?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2544603/posts
There is absolutely no downside to filibustering this buffoonish woman. Nobody but Obama wants her, she is unqualified and the public knows it, it will raise enthusiasm in the conservative base to see the GOP growing a spine, and finally, every minute spent filibustering this woman is a minute closer to election time that the rats can’t use to force something else down our throat.
Coburn would make a great president as would DeMint. Hip Hip Hooray for Coburn! the gutsy Senator from Oklahoma:)
Coburn would make a great president as would DeMint. Hip Hip Hooray for Coburn! the gutsy Senator from Oklahoma:)
I’m expecting she will be confirmed and the (R)s will do the talk circus...er...circuit saying she was obama’s pick and he deserved to get who he wanted on the court.
Filibuster becomes filibluster and the country will suffer.
The question I'd like posed is to describe the 2nd amendment "Miller" case. Not to say whether it was rightly decided, or should be upheld, etc. - just describe what it stands for. "Brief the case," if you will. Who were the parties? What were the facts, decision below, and ruling of the Supreme Court. I'd even give the nominee a couple days to read the case and prepare notes. If a potential judge can't accurately brief a 3 page opinion, that candidate has no business being behind the bench.
I still don't envision much of a fight.
She knows that she will be able to establish law from within the court bench. She should have been pushed on her defense of being “open” to new interpretations based on changes.
It's one thing to apply the freedom of a printing press to a new technology like the internet. It's another entirely to expand the definition of marriage to two men because of “moral views changing”.
So is it a change in belief or a change in technology she is talking about?
We are told that the second amendment doesn't mean the same thing as it used to because guns are more deadly etc.
If the Constitutional Amendments themselves aren't going to mean the same thing from generation to generation, then I see no reason to let the Supreme Court decisions supercede the written text of the Constitution itself for all eternity (or until a new amendment negates a SC ruling).
“saying she was obama’s pick and he deserved to get who he wanted on the court.”
This talking point is already making the rounds. And it is false.
Considering it’s a lifetime appointment shouldn’t the burden be on the nominee to prove they ARE qualified? Kagan could be on the SC for the scope of 5-6 presidencies. Why should all those future presidents have to deal with her idiotic interpretation of the law?
Because Obama liked her? Come on...
I would like to see the GOP go after this. Ignorance and general liberalism are one thing, but the lack of integrity that seems to be coming to the surface now just cannot be acceptable for a Supreme Court justice.
I used to think the exact same way - elections have consequences, and all that. But, then came October 1987 and the "borking" of Robert Bork. That was (or at least should have been), the game changer. Without Bork, we wouldn't have had Kennedy or Suter. But, we let Clinton appoint whomever he wanted, and now Obama whomever he wants, even after the Dems "borked" Miguel Estrada.
Republicans have got to stop bringing knives to gun fights. Democrats surely don't.
Hey, I think this Kagan is completely unqualified and have seen nothing to dissuade me yet.
I mean at least Sotomayor had a judicial paper trail, albeit a so so one.
I still do NOT understand why the conservatives do not make a BIG F...G DEAL AND SCENE OUT OF THIS!!
We have NOTHING to lose..we are already losing every day...what is the country going to say? the Republicans are NOT NICE?
Geeze Louise...lambast this inadequate piece of trash...Can’t anyone of our people get her to cry on the stand? she is such a lightweight and is sailing through...
they sure didn’t treat clarence Thomas, and Bork this “nicely”. For crying outloud, I would get a tougher inquisition if I tried to use an out of date coupon at the check out line!!!
Coburn blew it with this question regarding the Commerce Clause. Legislation mandating that each American’s diet include three servings of vegetables per day would not violate the Commerce Clause. The question is whether the Commerce Clause empowers such action by Congress.
It might be reasonable to argue that the Commerce Clause does not authorize legislation regarding diet. However, given the Supreme Court’s rulings in Wickard v Filburn and Gonzalez v Riach, the Commerce Clause seemingly grants unlimited power for Congress to legislate. Certainly, the dietary mandate would affect interstate commerce more than growing crops that are entirely to be used for personal consumption and which cannot legally be sold in interstate commerce. The only remaining limitation that could be applied to a dietary mandate would appear to be the Necessary and Proper Clause. There may be a reasonable argument that dietary legislation is not necessary and proper.
Such legislation would clearly violate the original intent and clear language of the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is likely that Kagan considers these to be dead letters. It would have been much, much better if Coburn had asked whether such absurd legislation violated these amendments.
The difference betweeen Miers and Kagan is that Bush nominated Miers. She was a terrible choice, and conservatives deserved better and had a chance of getting a better nominee. With Obama the next selection could be even worse.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
This should have been on the table the first day with Butchie Marxist.
She is so amazingly unqualified it is a national embarrassment that she was ever nominated.
Unfortunately, that's the same view Justice Scalia took in the medical marijuana case.
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.