Posted on 06/30/2010 7:24:42 PM PDT by dr_who
Washington – At Day 1 of her Senate confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan struck tones of modesty and restraint – the template for every nominee since Judge Robert Bork opted to go toe-to-toe with liberals on the Senate Judiciary panel in 1987 and was rejected.
“The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution,” Ms. Kagan said in her opening statement. “But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one – properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives.”
It is this time spent in other branches of government – specifically, as the Obama administration solicitor general – that, under typical circumstances, might have become a focal point of these hearings. But Republicans are treading softly in asking for Kagan’s memos as solicitor general, guided by a deep sense of injustice over a failed judicial nomination far less well known – yet little less controversial – than the Bork nomination.
From 2001 to 2003, Democrats refused to confirm President Bush’s solicitor general, Miguel Estrada, for a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It was the first-ever filibuster for an appeals-court nominee, and it centered on Mr. Bush’s refusal to give over memos produced by Mr. Estrada in his work as Bush’s top lawyer.
That shadow lingers over these hearings, with Republicans seeking to take the moral high ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
... speaking of Lindsay Graham.
These spineless losers never learn.
Since when is cowardice and lack of any discernible principles that matter "moral high ground"?
Nope. Lou’s face is wider at the top and narrower at the bottom.
Kagan’s face is the exact opposite. Her jowls are much bigger than her brain box.
To beat them, you have to be just as ruthless as your enemies. We have forgotten how to fight a war. Folks, this is war!!!
Makes sense. I can only hope that Republicans are building a case in the long term for another conservative Republican presidency soon in order to protect both popular sovereignity and the constitution.
Agreed.
Good observations...however, there does seem to be a resemblance around the eyes. Hooded...
WORTH REPEATING!
What is it that she doesn’t understand about the amendment process? The framers dealt with the interpretation issues by disallowing the possibility of a simple majority over-riding it and running roughshod over a large minority by requiring a super super majority and 3/4 of the state legislatures to amend. As Chief Justice Roberts said, if you don’t like what the Constitution requires, then amend it. You can’t override it via the normal legislative process.
There are so many things wrong with this woman being placed on a bench as a judge of anything that it boggles the mind she could be nominated and supported with a straight face. Smoking guns? She is nothing BUT smoke!
Yes there does seem to be a resemblance at the eyes, both appear hooded. However, just from my own observation, his eyes seem brighter, sharper, and not sinister. Her eyes, along with other facial features, appear much different.
She has a lot of problems, and I do not think that she is sane at all.
...although as the article hints, some of the Bush administration’s tactics could be coming back to haunt Republicans (not to mention some of Bush’s first few lackluster nominees). It’s better for Republicans to mop the floor with the opposition on questions of law and the nominee’s record than to try to play for the sympathy of tv viewers. Hell, do you think the Democrats would shrink from putting someone like John Edwards in a high court if they thought they could get away with it? After all, he’s a successful lawyer and has nice hair even though he is a white male. Conservatives need to stop playing by cynical Democrat rules and start attacking the liberal agenda for the courts directly.
That and their backsides are made of soft, nougat-centered confection (i.e., candy a$$es).
“News” organizations like AP are treating this just like Obamacare. It’s political football, followed by another victory for their guy Obama over the visiting team. Their version of “objectivity” is to avoid any discussion of why anyone would question Kagan’s qualifications, since she’s such a brilliant political athlete.
“…they don’t care about expending a lot of political capital defeating her.”
That may be true.
The sad thing is they fail to recognize they can earn political capital by standing up to the socialist threat even when they are outvoted.
Republican politicians are applauded whenever they show they are willing to fight. One only has to look at the Contract with America.
Most of us appreciated the Joe Wilson event – at least until the Repub leadership directed him to apologize to O.
Yeah, I wonder what the point of giving money to the RNC is if they’re going to try and turn into another Tory party.
OMG, she does look like him!
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.