U.S. Supreme Court's Kagan says justices must find 'common ground' again

msn ^ | 10/21/2022 | Nate Raymond

[Migraine]

Let’s restore Bible reading and prayer in school,
Let’s get rid of excessive technicalities that get criminals off the hook.
Let’s restore the original definition of marriage.

I ax ya: who politicized the Court? This woman is definitely retarded.

[ealgeone]

It’s called the Constitution.

THIS!!!

[ncalburt]

This Bull Dyke was never Qualified. to sit on the SC .
A Hard core Lesbian Left Wing Activist impersonating a Judge .

[7thOF7th]

I would submit that Justice Karen has lost her way in the SCOTUS. The only common ground she should be looking for is the Constitution!

[FLT-bird]

Ha! That’s hilarious. What “common ground” did the Warren court seek when Lefties were in the majority and decided to just legislate from the bench?

Now that more conservative justices are in the majority on of the Lefties wants to talk about “common ground”. Now its suddenly “political” to overturn past leftist diktats from the court.

Screw you Kagan. Now its our turn. Wipe out ever last thing they did. Get back to original principles.

[JayGalt]

LOL yes sir that humbleness should start with Kagan who considers the Constitution irrelevant & the self described “wise” latina.

[atc23]

When they say “common ground” I always remember firstly this : Many years ago the gay special rights movement just “wanted to be left alone and live happily”.

In 2022, they want to groom adolescents and cut the sex organs off toddlers.

[Made In The USA]

I don’t want a touchy-feely attempt finding common ground. No negotiation so both sides win. I want them to argue, rationally debate and interpret the law as written. Perhaps this job requires a skill set far beyond DEI and identity politics?!

Perhaps she’s better off as a co host on The View.

[AndyJackson]

If we are divided at home how can we support globalist wars of aggression abroad? What will the world do without American democratic leadership?

[SharpenedEdge]

I agree. Let’s meet upon “common ground.”

Let’s all assemble on the village commons, and watch Kagan, the “Wise Latina” and so many other Domestic Enemies of the Constitution swing from the gallows.

Treason should have severe consequences.

[djpg]

Other than Roe v Wade, what other precedent did the court overturn?

This is another example of the “Let’s find common ground and agree with me” ploy.

[ConservativeInPA]

Common ground. Bi-partisanship. Can’t we all just get along?

No, unless they start agreeing with conservatives. That is common ground. I do NOT vote for Republicans to become Democrats. I did not vote for Trump to put extreme amoral Marxist and eff’n idiots that don’t even know what a woman is on the USSC.

This ‘common ground’ rhetoric, is political rhetoric. Kagan is being political. She’s not risking it. She is presently risking it. Only those that don’t have the ability to think cannot see it.

Like it or not, when someone on the left, right, or in the middle suggests ‘common ground’ to avoid being political, they are making a political stance. They can’t make an argument that supports their view so they try convincing others to go along with their view based on ‘common ground’. It’s disingenuous. It’s a scam. It’s a dead give away that their ideas have no merit and will not work.

So I suggest Kagan shut her fat, ugly, baby murdering, commie mouth until she can make a real argument.

[Bob434]

Kagan “Everyone must support the left’s vile socialist agenda, or else they aren’t being bipartisan”

How about we just rule based on what the law says instead of legislating from the bench and then crying foul when that legislation gets overturned?

[DennisR]

She’s an idiot who wants to legislate from the bench. 😡

[falcon99]

Kagan’s definition of “common ground” is like all liberals — it means you must accept their view because only then can there be common ground. It is the same as when the liberals say bi-partisanship. There is no bi-partisanship without accepting the liberal position.

Second, I always have to laugh when they talk about a “conservative court”. This court is not conservative. It has three hard core librals (Kagan, Sotomayer, Jackson); two staunch conservatives (Thomas, Alito) and four mushy swing votes (Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and especially Barrett). I would say it was more a liberal court since on important conservative ideas Roberts almost always goes with the three staunch libs while Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett split.

[freedumb2003]

>>Translation: Conservative justices need to agree with me more.<<

There was no such talk when Liberals were in the majority and just issued dicta from the bench.

[verum ago]

They don’t want “common ground”. They want conservatives to cave in to them.

Yup, Leftist 101:

-Leftists have the majority: they run roughshod over everyone else and claim a 'mandate' or some sort of moral superiority

-Leftists aren't in the majority (i.e. the current Court): they whine about a 'lack of bipartisanship', or in this case- as the Court is supposedly non-partisan- she dresses it up as "common ground."

Always remember- if the Left is in power, they will crush you without conscience. If the Left isn't in power, they'll use anything that sounds good to blunt the Right.

I say it's about damned time we on the Right start using their own tactics against them. For far too long people on the Right have allowed the Left to use their own ethics and consciences against them, while the Left acts without those constraints.

People on the Right keep treating politics as a boxing match, crying foul when the Left hits below the belt, while refusing to do the same.

Well guess what? There's no referee to whine to. It's not a boxing match, it's a street fight. And if the opponent wants to play dirty, then fine- return the low blows. Personal honor is nice and all, but not when it means losing the fight, and losing all our children and future generations to the darkness of Leftism.

When the whole world was at stake, we firebombed cities, and eventually nuked a couple. Was it distasteful? Absolutely. But it was necessary to prevent something much worse, and we didn't just do it for sh*ts and giggles- the enemy provided the necessity.

Always remember- "The enemy gets a vote"
-Not just sound tactical advice on the follies of planning, but on the fundamental level of the fight itself. If the Left wants to embrace "the ends justify the means", then so should we- because the enslavement of our children is far worse than 'losing honorably.'

[AZJeep]

When they were in majority, if was all “living constitution”!
Now suddenly they should be humble and respect precedents.

[Bon of Babble]

Gee, how about The Constitution as common ground.

[Vaduz]

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wants to rewrite the Constitution after the left burns it the planks of Karl Marx ensues.