They never looked more disgusting than they have at this puff ball 'hearing.' Graham and Hatch didn't disappoint they, as usual, made us sick!
I agree 100% and they have been for quite some time. They should get one more chance come November, however I am afraid it will be Democrat Lite. . . . .
Unfortunately, I CAN believe every word of this. They don’t call the R’s the STUPID PARTY (as opposed to the EVIL PARTY) for nothing.
No vision.
No leadership.
No COMMON SENSE.
RINOs must go!
Kagan is a Maoist, and likely a lesbian as well.
She will consistently rule against Biblical values and in favor of big, tyrannical government.
In my opinioin, it was not a coincidence that the Nazi party in Germany was rife with homosexuals. I perceive that the desire to subject people to humiliation and bondage goes hand in hand with homosexuality.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
He's just figuring this out now? Of course, there is an internal contradiction in his complaint. The Constitution created the SCOTUS. The "learned men of today" are empowered by Article 3. It's not as if this wasn't understood at the time of the ratification:
They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one.Brutus, March 1788
They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other. The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
Brutus, Jan 1788
It is to be observed, that the supreme court has the power, in the last resort, to determine all questions that may arise in the course of legal discussion, on the meaning and construction of the constitution. This power they will hold under the constitution, and independent of the legislature. The latter can no more deprive the former of this right, than either of them, or both of them together, can take from the president, with the advice of the senate, the power of making treaties, or appointing ambassadors. In determining these questions, the court must and will assume certain principles, from which they will reason, in forming their decisions. These principles, whatever they may be, when they become fixed by a course of decisions, will be adopted by the legislature, and will be the rule by which they will explain their own powers.
Brutus, Feb 1788
The only thing I could see that she was good at was avoiding giving real answers to most of the questions.
Sadly, I think she will be confirmed, and I don’t think there will be any electoral consequences for GOPers who support her. There never are.
IMO our justice system is as fair as it can be especially when compared to other systems in the world. The ‘Achilles heel’ of our system is ‘precedent’. Precedent forces decisions that rely on prior decisions that usually have no real relationship with a current case. IMO judges should decide cases with only two points of reference; original intent as stated in the Constitution, and the facts regarding the current case. A decision in a similar but unrelated case from years ago is meaningless.
At least Hatch announced he would not support her appointment. He’s a NAY vote. I don’t believe the reasons he gave, that is, I think he’d have voted to confirm her, but for his fear of the electorate.