Will Kagan get "Borked"?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's very scary to have people like this on the Court. Can you imagine what would happen to this country if we had a majority of Sotomayor and Kagan types on the court?

As I posted in that other thread, in a recent case Sotomayor voted that it was ok to give money to groups that aid terrorists. Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg all thought this was fine. Luckily they got out-voted 6-3.

I can't even imagine the things that could happen to this country if we ended up with a majority of people like Sotomayor on the Court. These people have a liberal agenda and they don't care anything about what the Consititution says.

All the justices in that ruling agreed that money in fungible and supported the portion of the bill that outlawed cash contributions to any organization on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. the vote was 9-0 on that.

what the 3 justices in the minority stated in their dissent was that non-monetary aid in the form of education (i.e.- how to resolve conflicts non-violently) shouldn't be outlawed.

this is exactly the kind of aid that was provided to both the a.n.c. and i.r.a. by non-government groups in the past. it will now be denied to groups like the pkk, which remains on the list of terrorist organizations because of it's activities in turkey. what that means is that while u.s. soldiers fought side by side with the pkk early in the iraq war, it's now illegal for u.s. citizens to offer educational assistance to that same party.

your facts are wrong. and there's legitimate reasons why the 3 justices voted as they did. i know your side hates to hear this but it's a lot more complicated than you suggest.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

All the justices in that ruling agreed that money in fungible and supported the portion of the bill that outlawed cash contributions to any organization on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. the vote was 9-0 on that.

what the 3 justices in the minority stated in their dissent was that non-monetary aid in the form of education (i.e.- how to resolve conflicts non-violently) shouldn't be outlawed.

this is exactly the kind of aid that was provided to both the a.n.c. and i.r.a. by non-government groups in the past. it will now be denied to groups like the pkk, which remains on the list of terrorist organizations because of it's activities in turkey. what that means is that while u.s. soldiers fought side by side with the pkk early in the iraq war, it's now illegal for u.s. citizens to offer educational assistance to that same party.

your facts are wrong. and there's legitimate reasons why the 3 justices voted as they did. i know your side hates to hear this but it's a lot more complicated than you suggest.

Fair enough. I stand corrected about the money part. But I still agree with the majority ruling that no "material support" should be given to terrorist groups. The dissenters (Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer) think that some types of non-monetary support is ok. I don't think any support is ok.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us...scotus.html?hp

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a quote from Kagan: She basically says that it’s fine if the law bans books because government won’t really enforce it.

What a ridiculous argument.

Here she is making this argument in front of the US Supreme Court:

http://www.breitbart.tv/kagans-own-w...ly-enforce-it/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

what the 3 justices in the minority stated in their dissent was that non-monetary aid in the form of education .

Oddly enough those same justices plus one voted against the majority and the 2nd ammendment today.