Kagan ?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Senator Inofe is opposing her. That is no surprise but I think he makes some good points. Here is a piece of what he had to say about her:

“While her service as the Dean of Harvard Law School is an impressive credential, decisions she made in that role demonstrated poor judgment. While there, she banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus, an issue very important to me. She took the issue even further when she joined with other law school officials in a lawsuit to overturn the Solomon amendment, which was adopted by Congress to ensure that schools could not deny military recruiters access to college campuses. Claiming the Solomon Amendment was ‘immoral,’ she filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R opposing the Amendment. The Court unanimously ruled against her position and affirmed that the Solomon Amendment was constitutional."

That is from Senator Inofe's website.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/inde...6-e0c7020cdff5

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Senator Inofe is opposing her. That is no surprise but I think he makes some good points. Here is a piece of what he had to say about her:

“While her service as the Dean of Harvard Law School is an impressive credential, decisions she made in that role demonstrated poor judgment. While there, she banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus, an issue very important to me. She took the issue even further when she joined with other law school officials in a lawsuit to overturn the Solomon amendment, which was adopted by Congress to ensure that schools could not deny military recruiters access to college campuses. Claiming the Solomon Amendment was ‘immoral,’ she filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R opposing the Amendment. The Court unanimously ruled against her position and affirmed that the Solomon Amendment was constitutional."

That is from Senator Inofe's website.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/inde...6-e0c7020cdff5

I have a ton of respect for her doing that.. and I love the military.

DADT is embarassingly immoral.

[Princess Doreen]

I don't care what she looks like. I don't care what her sexual practices are. She's a liberal replacing a liberal. Did anyone expect anything different?!~

[GBBob]

[quote=Princess Doreen;646118]I don't care what she looks like. I don't care what her sexual practices are. She's a liberal replacing a liberal. Did anyone expect anything different?!~[/QUOTE]

Exactly and nope

[Danzig]

of course no one expects anything different. not regarding the pick, or the reaction to the pick.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I have a ton of respect for her doing that.. and I love the military.

DADT is embarassingly immoral.

It was nor her job to impose her views on everyone else. If she thinks that DADT is immoral, that is fine. She is entitled to her opinion. But it was not her place to try to keep the military off campus because of her disapproval of DADT.

Talk about immoral. It was immoral for her to try to restrict access to campus to a group that is entitled by law to have access to the campus.

[dellinger63]

I wonder how many Harvard students enlist per year? Seems to me she probably, inadvertently saved the military the time and cost of travel. Almost Nobel Prize worthy!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It was nor her job to impose her views on everyone else. If she thinks that DADT is immoral, that is fine. She is entitled to her opinion. But it was not her place to try to keep the military off campus because of her disapproval of DADT.

Talk about immoral. It was immoral for her to try to restrict access to campus to a group that is entitled by law to have access to the campus.

Actually, if you read into it a little.. you will find out that Harvard has an anti-discrimination policy, which she felt, and over 30 other colleges also felt the exact same way, that DADT violated her school's policy. (she is correct there)

AND, she didnt ban them from campus.. She banned them for having an office building on campus.

She had every right to stand up for her school's policy and for what is right. If people never stood up for what is right, nothing good would ever happen.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Actually, if you read into it a little.. you will find out that Harvard has an anti-discrimination policy, which she felt, and over 30 other colleges also felt the exact same way, that DADT violated her school's policy. (she is correct there)

AND, she didnt ban them from campus.. She banned them for having an office building on campus.

She had every right to stand up for her school's policy and for what is right. If people never stood up for what is right, nothing good would ever happen.

She obviously did not have every right to do it and that is why she lost unanimously when the case went to the Supreme Court.

In terms of "standing up for what is right" and "what is moral", that is completely subjective. If I am the Governor of California and I am opposed to abortion because I think it is immoral, should I try to shut down abortion clinics, even though abortion is legal in California?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It was nor her job to impose her views on everyone else. If she thinks that DADT is immoral, that is fine. She is entitled to her opinion. But it was not her place to try to keep the military off campus because of her disapproval of DADT.

Talk about immoral. It was immoral for her to try to restrict access to campus to a group that is entitled by law to have access to the campus.

DADT in my opinion is not only immoral, but unconstitutional. your analagy about being governor and barring clinics doesn't really apply either, since california isn't a private college. i can't say i blame harvard for making it difficult for the military to recruit, considering said military is discriminatory in this respect. it pains me to be critical, as i generally am supportive of my former employer. however, they are out of line on this. i hope it changes soon.

as for kagan-it seems to me that those of the other party than obama are shrilly hollering she's unfit, while feverishly searching for a reason why. if this case is the best they can do, i think she'll be passed with flying colors.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Danzig

DADT in my opinion is not only immoral, but unconstitutional. your analagy about being governor and barring clinics doesn't really apply either, since california isn't a private college. i can't say i blame harvard for making it difficult for the military to recruit, considering said military is discriminatory in this respect. it pains me to be critical, as i generally am supportive of my former employer. however, they are out of line on this. i hope it changes soon.

as for kagan-it seems to me that those of the other party than obama are shrilly hollering she's unfit, while feverishly searching for a reason why. if this case is the best they can do, i think she'll be passed with flying colors.

other than having real Americans saying she isn't qualified -
Are there reasons for her to be a Supreme Court Justice?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

other than having real Americans saying she isn't qualified -
Are there reasons for her to be a Supreme Court Justice?

exactly what does your first sentence mean?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

DADT in my opinion is not only immoral, but unconstitutional. your analagy about being governor and barring clinics doesn't really apply either, since california isn't a private college. i can't say i blame harvard for making it difficult for the military to recruit, considering said military is discriminatory in this respect. it pains me to be critical, as i generally am supportive of my former employer. however, they are out of line on this. i hope it changes soon.

as for kagan-it seems to me that those of the other party than obama are shrilly hollering she's unfit, while feverishly searching for a reason why. if this case is the best they can do, i think she'll be passed with flying colors.

You say DADT is "immoral and unconstitutional". Many people say the new law in Arizona is "immoral and unconsititutional". People sure love to throw out the line "immoral and unconstitutional" when they disagree with something.

I think banning PG1985 from this board was "immoral and unconstitutional". LOL.

[SOREHOOF]

Trying to transform the USA into a Socialist State like the ones in Europe which are failing is immoral and unconstitutional. Legislating from the bench without the consent of the governed is what this pick is all about. Obama might as well have appointed Oprah. At least people know where she stands on issues.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Trying to transform the USA into a Socialist State like the ones in Europe which are failing is immoral and unconstitutional. Legislating from the bench without the consent of the governed is what this pick is all about. Obama might as well have appointed Oprah. At least people know where she stands on issues.

what do you mean by that?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You say DADT is "immoral and unconstitutional". Many people say the new law in Arizona is "immoral and unconsititutional". People sure love to throw out the line "immoral and unconstitutional" when they disagree with something.

I think banning PG1985 from this board was "immoral and unconstitutional". LOL.

since we operate under the premise that all are created equal, i think i stand on firm ground when i say that DADT is immoral and unconstitutional, since it's blatant discrimination. that's supposed to be something the land of the free doesn't engage in.
as for az, since you're talking about lawbreakers, i don't think it applies.