[Lindsay995]

I don’t particularly see what’s so wrong with Kagan.

Isn’t there anything else the administration’s doing to worry about?

She’s not awful and no more liberal than JP Stevens.

[MontanaBeth]

"I don’t particularly see what’s so wrong with Kagan."

Other than being a extreme liberal with an agenda on the Supreme Court, sure nothing particularly wrong with that. (S)

[RVN Airplane Driver]

I don’t particularly see what’s so wrong with Kagan. Isn’t there anything else the administration’s doing to worry about? She’s not awful and no more liberal than JP Stevens.

How big of log have you been hiding under or have you been locked up in the bathroom for the last few months?......

[MozarkDawg]

She’s not awful and no more liberal than JP Stevens.

By virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, she will extend that far left position, the rulings from it for another thirty or so years. It's not that he would have voted the same TODAY, it's that there is no chance of getting that vote turned right TOMORROW, next year, next decade, etc.

[TigersEye]

No, just because she doesn’t believe in individual rights, the RKBAs, files falsified documents with the court and has Zer0 judicial experience is no reason to reject her. /s

[CanGyrene]

I disagree,
1) She believes along with her former patron on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall, that the Court should be able to order ANY ASPECT OF A CITIZEN’s LIFE
2) She effectively refutes the First Amendment
3) She has tried to hide her antipathy for the Second Amendment, but failed
4) She has had ZERO experience as a Judge, and as this article points out has NO concern with politicizing and effectively LYING to the Supreme Court - which whatever is said about Klayman in the past (all of which I do not agree with) if he pulls this off should likely get the CMoH.
5) To date has exhibited a totally NON-judicial approach to the Constitution, effectively stating that ‘activist’ judicial legislation from the bench is a part of her proposed job
There are a number of other compelling reasons why this alleged woman could not be LESS qualified for the position - not to speak of the extraordinary harm she could do to the country during her tenure.

[skr]

If she’s willing to falsify reports, she doesn’t need to have anything to do with the Justice Department, not even as an ambulance chaser.

[Missouri gal]

Ditto to what CanGyrene says PLUS supports SHARIA, for God's sake, but cannot bring herself to affirm either the Declaration of Independence OR the United States Constitution, PLUS has broken the law at least twice to support her activist agenda during Clinton years. She is a gay activist; that should clue you in to the total lack of moral standard which underlies law in any society. The role of a Supreme Court judge is to rule whether a law agrees with or contradicts the US Constitution, and to reject any law that conflicts with the Constitution. How can she do that, since she rejects the Constitution entirely?