Free Republic

If you actually believe this guy is the enemy, you should be VERY, VERY skeptical of the information you receive from the network. It follows that it’s in his self-interest to alienate Muslims (by ginning up a controversy such as this) and strengthen anti-American sentiment to support his war on the US. As the second largest shareholder of a corporation, he wields significant power over the board and corporation—of course not controlling, but certainly significant nonetheless. And using this line of reasoning, help me explain away that picture of co-owner Rupert Murdoch smiling and shaking his hand. And for that matter, using consistent reasoning, help Murdoch investing in this guy’s Saudi media company. Is he supporting terrorism? They are business partners.

Of course, I’m not sure you really do believe that and this information only sheds light on a transparently ginned up controversy.

You conclusively say it’s different, but you don’t say why. I think that’s because the entire “terrorist-funded” controversy is a rouse.

The Saudi prince has the legal right to buy interest in a publicly traded company, News Corp. As a major stockholder, he has a right to give substantial input in the company. Whether or not he’s a terrorist, he funded the company and provides substantial input into board elections, etc. He also has a right to buy private property in Manhattan and use it as he wants. Do I disagree with his proposed use in Manhattan? Hell yes. But if he’s a terrorist (and I sincerely believe that labeling him that was nothing more than trumped up wedge-issue BS), he’s a terrorist as co-owner of Fox and as a major donor to the mosque.

That’s not quite the point. The idea is that Fox disingenuously trumped up the funding source of the mosque, or if it didn’t, then Fox is a terrorist-funded organization in the same manner that the Mosque is.

John Stewart dominated Fox News here. Insinuating that someone is funding terror when they are your own second largest shareholder is very foolish.

I think you get plenty of common law in the other courses.

And I should edit my above comment. Con law has always been elective at HLS, not recently made optional. It looks like, however, there has been a mandatory international law course added to the 1L curriculum. That’s my mistake. My thoughts on the addition remain as stated above.

I’m very familiar with the 1L curriculum at HLS. (I graduated from a similar school ~5 years ago and have quite a few friends who went there.) The course on international law is an elective which students have the option to take amongst other choices.

Further, it’s extremely flimsy to argue that providing more international law classes bears on Kagan’s constitutional philosophy. Frankly, Harvard grads need international law courses. Many work on complex, international transactions, on litigation involving cross-border contracts, or in sensitive government jobs that require an appreciation of international law. It doesn’t at all elucidate whether Kagan will use international law in interpreting the US Constitution.

I’m not sure you’re correct regarding your first point. As a threshold matter, there is no such thing as “activist law”. Activist judges, sure, and Kagan may prove to be one. She’s very much been a company woman her whole life, however, so while she may (you might argue will) defy congress as a SCOTUS judge, IMO she’s less likely to than other possibilities.

There is nothing to support your contention regarding international law. She has written almost nothing on the subject and at her Solicitor General confirmation hearing stated:

“I do not believe that international law (assuming it has not been incorporated into domestic federal law) can prevent federal and state governments from broadening the application of the death penalty should they wish to do so. In a case like Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008) [finding use of the death penalty unconstitutional for rape], the appropriate question is whether the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the application of the death penalty to a particular kind of crime, not whether international law does so.”

I believe she’s a lesbian also. She insists she’s not, but I don’t wish to test her on that ;) And anyone who is nominated will be against DADT, for abortion, and pro-gay marriage. Again, all I’m asking for is realism.

Your second point is interesting—and I don’t think you’re wrong regarding giving the nomination a vocal fight. I do think it’s a case of be careful what you wish for. I think Kagan should receive structured and scrupulous vetting. I hope she will. But defeating this nominee is problematic, IMO. I don’t think there are many more moderate possibilities, so it might not be wise to shoot all of the political capital on this nominee to get backdoored with a Pam Karlan or Harold Koh. (Sorry, I’m a bit of a SCOTUS nerd.)

Yes, but doesn’t the new term start in October? There is really no way to delay the vote until after the elections without critically disrupting the court—something that won’t be done right before an election.

But you’re right, when the pubs take over Congress in Nov, arguments against any future picks (Ginsberg?) will have much stronger bite.

Within the spectrum of realistic candidates.

You don’t have time because you can’t. And that’s OK, her record is extremely thin. However, there’s not much to justify the adjectives you’re tossing around. The court will almost certainly tilt more right with Kagan rather than Stevens on it—and much of the criticism against Kagan is from the left because she is too centrist.

To me, it’s a matter of managing expectations. You’re not going to get Miguel Estrada nominated from this congress/president. Fact. So who—that might reasonably be nominated—would be more favorable to the R’s? I can only think of Garland.

See, I’m not sure I understand this argument. Face the facts, if Kagan is shot down (and she won’t be) the next nominee will be more liberal, much more liberal. There is a dem president and dem congress—there will be a dem SCOTUS nominee. Kagan is about as unoffensive as could reasonably be expected. (Garland might be slightly more so.)

WTF? Some of these comments are absurd. This is so clearly unconstitutional it’s disgusting.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

If you support this, you ARE NOT a constitutionalist, plain and simple.

This is a terrible disaster, and there is no doubt that the government has reacted too slowly to it.

I expect a large, visible response soon in an attempt to counteract the damage already done, followed by a quick politically-motivated re-evaluation of the offshore drilling plan. I think putting future drilling plans on hold until we can definitively figure out how to avoid another disaster is good, but I wish the response to this was better.

“States have every right to enforce laws within their borders”—as long as they are constitutional. There are a number of arguments against this law’s constitutionality: fed govt. field preemption, vagueness, and equal protection violation as applied. I’m not sure what will succeed and what will fail, but that founding document makes it not quite as cut-and-dry as you would like.

We obviously are not going to agree on this. Enjoy your vision of America where police can force a man to prove to them—based on ethnicity and one or two other atmospheric considerations—that he belongs.

Something needs to be done about illegal immigration. Very much so. But IMO this is a scary law. This legislation does too much violence to the individual freedoms we should value as Americans.

The fact that you accept that level of law enforcement interference at all is a shame. As a friend of mine used to say: “Distinguishing America from the third-world is easy. In the former, citizens walk freely, without interference from soldiers; in the latter, soldiers patrol freely, without interference from citizens.” We’ve come a long way baby.

This is the scariest aspect of this law. It targets what they think are illegals today (some of whom will be legitimate US citizens—our countrymen), but who tomorrow? How can anybody be comfortable with this?

I read it as the rantings of a sick individual who is very much into the free market and sick of cronyism, overtaxation, and government bailouts. He parodied the communist creed, but there’s nothing there to indicate that he endorsed it. He listed it only to make his witticism clear. I think he was anti-capitalist if we limit our discussion to the manifestation of capitalism in this country. I read him as somewhat Ron Paulian, but certainly not communist. For whatever that’s worth...

Did you read the screed? There’s really no way he’s a communist.

Suspect class is a legal term of art with years of meaning. Your usage likely does not work.