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

Skip to comments.

Does Elena Kagen have a $20 million commitment to destroying the American Republic?
Yahoo Answers ^ | 4/24/2012 | Alan M Gottlieb

Posted on 05/01/2012 4:52:27 PM PDT by IbJensen

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last
To: IbJensen

Holy. Excrement.

Why are we just hearing this now?

Is our media all, down to the lowest Blitz, paid off to encourage this as well? Win The Future???


101 posted on 05/02/2012 6:26:25 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Thanks for posting this—I sent this to Peter King and Pat Toomey. I pray every day that the Lord would deliver us from the evil He has afflicted us with in the person of Obama and his minions, and that they all would be replaced with God’s people.


102 posted on 05/02/2012 6:54:12 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Thanks. I was addressing the contention that Kagan had dropped constitutional law.

I appreciate though your emphasizing that she dropped "common law", in favor of international law and "positive" law. This looks like a dangerous shift from the common law and natural law traditions of anglo-saxon jurisprudence, and for that matter from Mosaic law and its interpretations, both of which underlie what makes America at once unique and universal.
103 posted on 05/02/2012 7:14:30 AM PDT by kenavi (1% of the 1% were born in the 1%.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I know, it stinks. Our choice is a Mormon or a closet Muslim. I know which I won’t choose.


104 posted on 05/02/2012 7:18:41 AM PDT by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Impeach and imprison !


105 posted on 05/02/2012 7:26:35 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Nor will I, but the make-up of Congress should be vastly improved next year. If this were to become an issue, and she was clearly exposed....who knows ? She’s not black.


106 posted on 05/02/2012 7:39:18 AM PDT by chiller (Elect another batch of TPartiers and it won't matter which R we elect. WE will lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Outrageous if true.


107 posted on 05/02/2012 7:58:56 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“After graduate school Kagan went on to become Dean of Harvard Law, where she removed Constitutional Law classes from the curriculum,”

Something doesn’t smell right,,didn’t Obama go to Harvard after her? I thought he was a “Constitutional Scholar”....so how could he be that if Constitutional Law wasn’t even on the ticket at Harvard..? this doesn’t make sense


108 posted on 05/02/2012 8:17:37 AM PDT by austinaero (Obama or America - can't have both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The only possible check we have against more Commies being appointed to the Supreme Court in the next administration, is the Senate. I don’t have to tell you what to do.


Argh! We in CA couldn’t even vote out Dumb-as-Box-of-Roxer!!!


109 posted on 05/02/2012 8:18:37 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

Yes. But also, those were changes in the required core courses for freshman. Just as English departments dropped their “Great Books” courses in favor of postcolonialism and gender bending, Harvard Law dropped its core courses for freshman, which had been taught to every law student since the law school was founded.

No doubt you can elect to take a course in constitutional law, but it is not required as a basic core course. And if English Departments are any clue to the future, then in future years it is possible that as current faculty leave or retire, they will no longer have any faculty left who are competent to teach Common Law.

Harvard used to have a great English department. Now, only one professor out of twenty is worth taking a course with. And the same thing has happened in most other humanities departments. In the German department, Goethe has been replaced by German films. In the French department, Rabelais has been replaced by Sartre.


110 posted on 05/02/2012 8:34:40 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

Best post. Thank you for writing it.

I think we need to step up and revolt and Be Breitbart and vet this bastard.

We need to start with One Point of vetting him and focus on it and overwhelm ONE MSM SOURCE with it.

For instance, probably the most important of your questions is

“Did Obama enter a university as a FOREIGN student?”

If every single FReeper wrote a snail mail or whatever would affect them the most letter to, say, CNN, asking them to find evidence answering that one question, or at least ask the President why this evidence does not exist, and let this quest go public, WE CAN BLEEPING DO SOMETHING, to vet this man.

We need to start a serious campaign NOW. One network, one question. When that one is done, we can ask a different question until it, too, is either answered to our satisfaction, or clearly demonstrates lying obfuscation on the part of the President — to the American people, his boss.

Who is in?


111 posted on 05/02/2012 8:37:46 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“...The fact that Obama appointed her shows exactly what kind of traitor he is...”

Yes, but that part we already knew...and he didn’t do it alone.

What about the a***wipes in the Senate who APPROVED her and did not stand and block the nomination when they had the opportunity to do so - or at least loudly and vociferously oppose the nomination in front of cameras and microphones.

It takes a “collective” lack of testicular fortitude to produce “Epic Fails” such as her appointment represents. Same deal with Sodamajor or whatever the hell her name is, and idiot Ginsburg.


112 posted on 05/02/2012 8:46:47 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
"What about the a***wipes in the Senate who APPROVED her and did not stand and block the nomination when they had the opportunity to do so - or at least loudly and vociferously oppose the nomination in front of cameras and microphones."

BTTT!

113 posted on 05/02/2012 8:55:41 AM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Kinda makes it difficult to stop the other side when the people who are supposedly on our side bend over and willingly spread for them...


114 posted on 05/02/2012 9:09:21 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster
"Impeachment of Kagan isn't necessary. Obama is NOT eligible to be President. "

True Obama is not eligible, but where you going to find anybody in authority to act on that? Maybe this TN judge that has called on the courts to define "natural born" will act on it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Congress is scared to do the right thing and so is SCOTUS and the rest of the judiciary. Even state legislatures and judiciary seem to be scared of the eligibility issue.

If there is any resolution while Obama is still in office, it's more likely to be a weakening of the constitution to define Natural born = native born.

That's why we have to fight the smaller battles instead of throwing our hands up and hoping Obama and all ills associated with him will just go away.

115 posted on 05/02/2012 9:19:38 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Who’s in?

I am.


116 posted on 05/02/2012 9:23:40 AM PDT by Mountain Mary (One Nation Under God..."There I said it" ... Great One...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

Hey brother, hope things are well with you.

I don’t believe there are “sides” any more. I’ve come to the conclusion that they are all on the same “team”, the “team” bent on screwing the American people in order to retain their coveted places of “honor” in the new politburo.

See my tagline...


117 posted on 05/02/2012 9:26:40 AM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Things are so-so...up and down days of late, pretty much like all of us out, I’d guess.

As for sides, yeah, I’d say you’re pretty accurate there. It sure as hell seems it at times.

They hog and wallow at the trough that we keep filled with our taxed dollars...and then threaten us when we have the temerity to be irritated by it.

Getting old...it’s getting really, really old.


118 posted on 05/02/2012 9:42:02 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Mary

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2879016/posts

Let’s do it, Mary!


119 posted on 05/02/2012 9:46:43 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

1/3 of Americans think socialism is harmless. They just want to make things fair and even by taking from the evil rich.
As long as they get a larger cut.
The US Constitution is a outdated peice of paper and not nearly as realistic as a quasi-socialist democracy.
We are all just over reacting because we are haters, bigots and homophobes.


120 posted on 05/02/2012 11:16:31 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Thank you for reading and acting on it.

Love your idea of letter writing a talking head in the LAM, (Liberal Agenda Media).

A helpful suggestion: add “USA,” or “US,” or “American” as a modifier to the word “University” in the question that we should pose to those who have no nose for the non-vetting of Obama .

BTW, do you hear it? There it is again:

Meanwhile, the drumbeat of Dictator Obama grows louder:

regulate -— control -— destroy -— Regulate -— control -— destroy -— REgulate -— control -— destroy -— REGulate -— control -— destroy -— REGU


121 posted on 05/02/2012 12:05:42 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: All; IbJensen

Isn’t the time for this to come to light during confirmation hearings, not after the fact?


122 posted on 05/02/2012 1:10:37 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Let’s blame those RiNOs serving at the time in the rotten Senate!


123 posted on 05/02/2012 1:30:41 PM PDT by IbJensen ( I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what 0 does with mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

That’s nothing. If Obama cheats/slimes/cons his way into a second term (and with mosts cons refusing to vote for Romney, that’s looking more and more like a given)....

he’ll pull out all the stops to fundamentally transform America into the leftist and Muslim s-hole that he wants it to be. And don’t put ANYthing past his tactics in marginalizing, neutralizing and/or getting rid of his opponents.


124 posted on 05/02/2012 1:54:51 PM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

As I recall republicans were in such a minority there was nothing they could do.


125 posted on 05/02/2012 2:34:25 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

They could have stalled and filibustered and used all the tricks that the Democrats used to block nominees like Bork. But nobody did much of anything.

Lots of Republicans actually voted for the Wise Latina. I disremember how many of them voted for Kagan. But their performance was certainly pretty dismal.


126 posted on 05/02/2012 3:50:04 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; Monorprise

See post #15. Just a couple more than that voted for Sotomayor. The gang of RINOs are the ones that made a filibuster impossible.


127 posted on 05/02/2012 3:53:13 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
Holy Shiite, a traitor to American law and justice has her skinny butt on our Supreme Court.

You're wrong. Her butt is fat.

128 posted on 05/02/2012 4:37:29 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Real men are not threatened by strong women." -- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
It was well known that Kagan removed the basic common law classes that all freshmen had been required to take, and replaced them with courses in international law and “positive law”—i.e., the law is whatever the rulers say it is.

Are you telling me that 1Ls (they're not freshmen) didn't take Torts, Contracts, or Property? What's the source for 'remov[ing] the basic common law classes"? Kagan isn't qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, in my opinion, but I think there may be a misunderstanding about removing 'the basic common law classes."

129 posted on 05/02/2012 5:32:04 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; Cicero
Here's the deal. Constitutional Law is ConLaw. It usually does, and should, hold a sacred and special spot in law school. If Kagan removed it from the required curriculum shame on her. But that's ConLaw, not "the basic common law classes." And I'll wager that most students elected to take ConLaw (although that wouldn't excuse removing basic ConLaw as a required 1L class).

The 'basic common law classes' are going to be Torts, Contracts, and Property. 1Ls will frequently learn Federal Civil Procedure, but that's not common law. Some schools require Criminal Law as a 1L class, and that's a blend of ConLaw, common law, and statutory law.

What I'm saying is that 'basic common law' and ConLaw/Constitutional Law aren't considered the same thing. The first is a necessary foundation for practicing law. The second is a necessary foundation for being a free citizen.

130 posted on 05/02/2012 5:43:33 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
That's what numerous articles said at the time. And I think there was an article in Harvard Magazine. According to these sources, they took a couple of years to discuss changes in the law school curriculum, and what they came up with was a shift in the required core courses from Common Law to Positive Law and International Law, those terms all being mentioned specifically. Basically, it ties in with the idea that the Constitution is a "living document," and that law should change over time--in a liberal direction, of course. Here are extracts from a speech Kagan gave in 2008, in response to criticism of her curricular reforms. She did not eliminate all aspects of Common Law, but she certainly diminished its importance in favor of Positive Law, International Law, and what she refers to as LegReg--Regulatory legislation. In the circumstances, and under attack in the Washington Times and elsewhere, it may be assumed that she downplays the size and degree of these changes. ============ 1L reforms: The foundation of legal education is the 1L curriculum. What students learn during their 1L year shapes their sense of what law is -- its scope, its limits, its possibilities. For this reason, we focused much of our attention on this critical first year. What we did: Like most law schools, with minor variations, Harvard Law School's traditional first-year curriculum included civil procedure, criminal law and procedure, torts, property, and contracts - all worthy and important subjects but insufficient in themselves for all we need to accomplish. Ultimately, what we decided to do was to supplement this standard curriculum with three new required classes - one focusing on the statutory and regulatory aspects of law, one looking at law in a comparative or international framework, and one where students work in teams to resolve the sort of complex problems that lawyers so often confront. And to the traditionalists among you -- please don't despair! We didn't eliminate Civil Procedure or Contracts -- or any other basic 1L class. We made way for our new offerings by slightly paring the rest. Our students -- and our professors -- seem to have survived. Curriculum update: The students who arrived last September -- members of the HLS Class of 2010 -- were the first to experience these new offerings, and early reports are everything we could have hoped for. Through intensive work with statutes and regulations from the start of law school, students are developing a rich understanding of the institutional frameworks and modes of the regulatory state -- and they and their professors have been happy to find fertile connections between these materials and the rest of the first-year program. Indeed, this course -- which students call LegReg for "legislation and regulation" -- was the most favorably evaluated of any course in the first-year program last year -- a remarkable accomplishment for a new class and its teachers. The courses in international and comparative law are opening up new questions and possibilities, showing choices made by different societies and challenges that arise from globalization, while also helping every student to locate American law in the larger map of laws, politics, and histories across the world -- a critically important endeavor. 1L reforms in real-world context: In recent weeks, I suspect that all of us watching the global credit meltdown and the desperate legislative efforts to resolve the crisis have a new appreciation for the powerful roles of legislation and regulation and a transnational perspective. These recent events underscore that these matters are foundational -- are part of the core of legal thought and activity in this new century. This reality must be reflected in the curriculum of the 21st-century law school, and I'm proud that HLS is leading the way in this direction.
131 posted on 05/02/2012 5:52:39 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Oops, sorry, the bold face destroyed my paragraphs. Posting again.


That’s what numerous articles said at the time. And I think there was an article in Harvard Magazine.

According to these sources, they took a couple of years to discuss changes in the law school curriculum, and what they came up with was a shift in the required core courses from Common Law to Positive Law and International Law, those terms all being mentioned specifically.

Basically, it ties in with the idea that the Constitution is a “living document,” and that law should change over time—in a liberal direction, of course.

Here are extracts from a speech Kagan gave in 2008, in response to criticism of her curricular reforms. She did not eliminate all aspects of Common Law, but she certainly diminished its importance in favor of Positive Law, International Law, and what she refers to as LegReg—Regulatory legislation.

In the circumstances, and under attack in the Washington Times and elsewhere, it may be assumed that she downplays the size and degree of these changes.


1L reforms: The foundation of legal education is the 1L curriculum. What students learn during their 1L year shapes their sense of what law is — its scope, its limits, its possibilities. For this reason, we focused much of our attention on this critical first year.

What we did: Like most law schools, with minor variations, Harvard Law School’s traditional first-year curriculum included civil procedure, criminal law and procedure, torts, property, and contracts - all worthy and important subjects but insufficient in themselves for all we need to accomplish. Ultimately, what we decided to do was to supplement this standard curriculum with three new required classes - one focusing on the statutory and regulatory aspects of law, one looking at law in a comparative or international framework, and one where students work in teams to resolve the sort of complex problems that lawyers so often confront. And to the traditionalists among you — please don’t despair! We didn’t eliminate Civil Procedure or Contracts — or any other basic 1L class. We made way for our new offerings by slightly paring the rest. Our students — and our professors — seem to have survived.

Curriculum update: The students who arrived last September — members of the HLS Class of 2010 — were the first to experience these new offerings, and early reports are everything we could have hoped for. Through intensive work with statutes and regulations from the start of law school, students are developing a rich understanding of the institutional frameworks and modes of the regulatory state — and they and their professors have been happy to find fertile connections between these materials and the rest of the first-year program. Indeed, this course — which students call LegReg for “legislation and regulation” — was the most favorably evaluated of any course in the first-year program last year — a remarkable accomplishment for a new class and its teachers. The courses in international and comparative law are opening up new questions and possibilities, showing choices made by different societies and challenges that arise from globalization, while also helping every student to locate American law in the larger map of laws, politics, and histories across the world — a critically important endeavor.

1L reforms in real-world context: In recent weeks, I suspect that all of us watching the global credit meltdown and the desperate legislative efforts to resolve the crisis have a new appreciation for the powerful roles of legislation and regulation and a transnational perspective. These recent events underscore that these matters are foundational — are part of the core of legal thought and activity in this new century. This reality must be reflected in the curriculum of the 21st-century law school, and I’m proud that HLS is leading the way in this direction.


132 posted on 05/02/2012 5:54:26 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"what we decided to do was to supplement this standard curriculum with three new required classes"

Okay. According to your post, the 1L curriculum included the classes I mentioned: civil procedure, criminal law and procedure, torts, property, and contracts. It wasn't a case of me being lucky or smart. Those are simply core 1L classes.

But your posts also doesn't say that any of these classes were eliminated - the 'basic common law" ones being torts, property, and contracts. It says the standard curriculum was 'supplemented' with three new classes. Only one of the three dealt with international law. One was on complex issues. That makes sense; in the real world few legal matters are simply "hey, that's a fee simply determinable! We win!"

One is on legislation and regulation. I took classes in those areas, just not general classes and not as a 1L. The sad fact is that it would be virtually impossible to practice law today without understanding how legislation is interpreted and enforced by regulation. (I hate that, although two federal laws and the accompanying regulations have basically been my career; I advice people on how to keep the government at bay.)

You and I could probably spend a long afternoon agreeing on how judicial activism and liberals have perverted the Constitution - but as a conservative attorney, a member of the Federalist Society, I don't see anything in this new curriculum that scares me. And I don't see a thing about bowing to imperial law, or shifting to "Positive Law." You may not have quoted all you meant to quote, because I didn't see the term "Positive Law" "mentioned specifically." And we do live in a 'regulatory state." You need lawyers to protect you from that as much as the government needs lawyers to ensnare you in that (although I wish we only needed two lawyers, total, in the nation). At some point we need lawyers who understand the 'regulatory state' to dismantle it, solely because Semtex and C-4 don't work. (That was a joke, Homeland Security)

I'm simply not distressed by these changes in the curriculum, but I appreciate your concern for the Constitution.

133 posted on 05/02/2012 6:24:43 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

Fantasy on your part. Rightly or wrongly, Obama was certified by Congress as the winner of the presidential election.

You can’t remove him, you can’t even sue him (you as in you). What you can do is not vote for him and convince others to not vote for him. You won’t be changing anybodies mind with this fantasy of Obama being frogmarched out of the Whitehouse.


134 posted on 05/03/2012 2:56:14 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: XenaLee

Did you know that Obomba killed bin Laden?

If that isn’t reason enough to re-elect him for yet another four years I don’t know what is.

(He had some undefined help from the military.)


135 posted on 05/03/2012 4:03:35 AM PDT by IbJensen ( I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what 0 does with mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; Josephat
>All of his appointments would be voided as would all of the bills he has signed.

Nah, our Stalwart Defenders of the Republic in the House and Senate will simply deem the laws signed and appointments approved.

Now that is the proper level of cynicism.

136 posted on 05/03/2012 7:30:00 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan; pepsi_junkie
>Checks and balances? Weren’t we supposed to have them somehow?

The Constitution Declaration of Independence provides all the checks and balances that a legitimate American government needs. All that is required is for a People committed to defending the God-given rights of themselves and their neighbors, willing to shed sweat, tears, blood, gold and even their lives...that's the missing piece.

Fixed.

137 posted on 05/03/2012 7:36:23 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Snowe will be replaced by King, who is even further left if it will make him some money. He is one sleazy POS.


138 posted on 05/03/2012 8:34:01 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mo

I hear yee..


139 posted on 05/03/2012 8:34:22 AM PDT by kempster (HIPPO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
Could she, Elena Kagan(ovich) be related to the Stalin’s butcher of Ukraine - Lazar Kaganovich????

omg... I wouldn't be surprised. She looks like pure evil. Another mass genocide of history that the leftists, here and abroad have, nearly successfully, kept quiet/hidden/records destroyed. The Communists of Hollywood won't make any movies about their crimes against humanity.

140 posted on 05/03/2012 11:44:05 AM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Donate here!


FReepers who believe in and support our pro-life, pro-family, pro-limited government conservative causes, enjoy reading and participating on FR, think it's a worthwhile endeavor and would like to help us keep it going.
Please click the link.
The Republic you save may be your own.



141 posted on 05/03/2012 4:14:49 PM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

It seems far more plausible that some nut will just wait till there is a conservative president and then simply knock her off. It’s not like a Federal judge has all the security of the president to protect her.

The point im trying to make is not that someone will knock off Kagen, but Congress will not impeach its employees in black robes just as they haven’t for 200+ years. They have too little self-interest and too much genuine political fear.

Almost all of the time their employees rule in favor of them having practically boundless power. The Federal Constitution means nothing to their hand picked employees 90% of the time.
That is of course why most of Washington’s hand picked employees were indeed hand picked by Washington in the first place to sit in judgement of Washington’s own limits.

One might say this is the Federal Constitution’s Achilles heel, except its not part of the Federal Constitution at all. This “power” is an arrogant post-”Civil War” assertion by Washington itself that their employees have the final say on the extent of their own power.

Such a self-serving dictatorial authority never before existed and by all rights does not exist now.


142 posted on 05/03/2012 5:00:45 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen

History has a way of being molded and covered up by those who have the position and ability to keep us informed with what they want us to know (or not know). We are told propaganda with facts that may represent fantasy and smoke and mirrors.

Our politicians allowed the consolidation of the news media with Hollywood which has been a huge factor in putting power in too few hands. The media outlets should be in the hands of many separate entities and individuals instead of controlled by corporate global information managers.

When all books of the world are in digital Kindle type format, information can (and will) be readily and globally changed and edited at the whim of publishers to suit political correctness or political agendas. We see even the Bible being revised and changed regularly as the “powers that be” deem necessary.


143 posted on 05/04/2012 6:06:10 AM PDT by apoliticalone (Honest govt. that operates in the interest of US sovereignty and the people, not global $$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen
You need to worry about Ava first.

Just remember to occasionally look over your shoulder.......

144 posted on 05/04/2012 6:08:49 AM PDT by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone

Outstanding post, BTTT!


145 posted on 05/04/2012 7:49:38 AM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Oh noooo, Sharky and Ava live!! Well, even the two of you aren’t as scary as that thing called Kagan...


146 posted on 05/04/2012 7:50:39 AM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Thank you for this post!


147 posted on 05/04/2012 3:18:13 PM PDT by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Both parties KNOW it. One party simply wants to do it at a faster pace than the other.


148 posted on 05/04/2012 7:26:33 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The fact that Obama appointed her shows exactly what kind of traitor he is.

Obama and Kagen - both socialist human toilets!

149 posted on 05/04/2012 9:57:33 PM PDT by Mr Apple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1
Another term and he is likely to pack the court with two more Communists.

Then we're really scr*wed!

150 posted on 05/04/2012 10:03:29 PM PDT by Mr Apple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 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