- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Elana Kagan v ACB
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:19 am
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:19 am
Democrats talking points about ACB are revolting.
Their latest is: “Muh ACB was only a judge for 3 years. She isn’t experienced.”
This just makes me furious. Elana Kagan was ludicrously unqualified to be on the bench. Her ONLY Legal experience was working for the Obama Administration for a year and a half. Kagan ran Harvard Law School. She wasn’t a professor. She didn’t publish. She was a fricking administrator who was well connected.
The fact that Democrats put that hack on the court on the basis of the fact that she was the coach of a softball team, will never cease to make me furious.
The fact that Democrats are now saying a woman who spent her life adding something to the legal landscape has no experience - is enough to send me over the fricking edge.
I know Mitch has the votes. But my God. The way that Democrats treat women, especially professional women makes me utterly disgusted.
Their latest is: “Muh ACB was only a judge for 3 years. She isn’t experienced.”
This just makes me furious. Elana Kagan was ludicrously unqualified to be on the bench. Her ONLY Legal experience was working for the Obama Administration for a year and a half. Kagan ran Harvard Law School. She wasn’t a professor. She didn’t publish. She was a fricking administrator who was well connected.
The fact that Democrats put that hack on the court on the basis of the fact that she was the coach of a softball team, will never cease to make me furious.
The fact that Democrats are now saying a woman who spent her life adding something to the legal landscape has no experience - is enough to send me over the fricking edge.
I know Mitch has the votes. But my God. The way that Democrats treat women, especially professional women makes me utterly disgusted.
11
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:22 am to Wednesday
Kagan may have the least experience on the SC but she doesn't have the lowest IQ. That's Sotomayor by at least 18 points.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:25 am to Zach
That is true. I probably have a higher IQ than Soltamayor and I’m just a dumb ole country lawyer.
But hells bells, at least I’ve put it on the line for someone else. Unlike Elana Kagan who could barely even call herself a lawyer.
But hells bells, at least I’ve put it on the line for someone else. Unlike Elana Kagan who could barely even call herself a lawyer.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:25 am to Wednesday
Everything theyve trotted out so far has been cartoonishly hypocritical. It's pretty funny to watch.
This post was edited on 9/27/20 at 9:56 am
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:26 am to Wednesday
And a missing talking point is that Trump is the first president ever to nominate
a mother of black children to SCOTUS.
a mother of black children to SCOTUS.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:26 am to Wednesday
Just hang onto your knickers sweatheart. You saw what they did to Kav.
The things they are going to dream up about this incredible lady are going to make Kav's circus look like a Boy Scout marsh mellow roast.
The things they are going to dream up about this incredible lady are going to make Kav's circus look like a Boy Scout marsh mellow roast.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:30 am to Vacherie Saint
It's SO cartoonish that it almost causes one to believe that it's GOT to all be part of some shrewd and cunning master plan. Almost.
Ultimately it's very simply that they are indeed cartoon characters. Which explains the cartoonishness.
Ultimately it's very simply that they are indeed cartoon characters. Which explains the cartoonishness.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:31 am to Zach
quote:A bag of Doritos has the "wise" latina by at least 18 points.
she doesn't have the lowest IQ. That's Sotomayor by at least 18 points.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:32 am to Wednesday
Kagan was liked and respected by Scalia, so she is definitely smart.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:32 am to Vacherie Saint
You're absolutely correct, but what it does is insult, debase, and generally lower the civility level for all of us. And highly discourages quality candidates to stay the heck out of the spotlight. The idiotic regressives wouldn't know class and quality if it knocked them out cold.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:36 am to bamarep
The thing I sense about ACB - is that if they go after her family she will go full mama bear. But that said, she’s the kind of person who doesn’t even have to raise her voice to get her point across, which will probably make her even more effective.
She’s the total package. So proud of my Louisiana Homegirl.
She’s the total package. So proud of my Louisiana Homegirl.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:41 am to Wednesday
Seeing how Kagan had never held a judgeship of any kind I find the Dem's argument void of any substance.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:43 am to SWCBonfire
For whoever downvoted, do some research. Scalia actively pitched Kagan as a nominee to the Obama administration. They were very good friends.
Sotomayor, not so much.
Sotomayor, not so much.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:46 am to Zach
quote:
but she doesn't have the lowest IQ. That's Sotomayor by at least 18 points.
18 points? That’s pretty specific.
Zach, have you read their personnel files?
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:46 am to Wednesday
I like you and respect your opinions, but you are way off base on this one. Sotomayor has absolutely no place on the court, but Kagan has as much place as anyone else there.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:49 am to SWCBonfire
Kagan is smart.
ACB is just as smart.
The difference is that ACB devoted her life to legal thought, and advancing the ball forward on her legal POV. Kagan has a good personality and ran Harvard Law School.
The point of the OP is that nobody even suggested that Kagan wasn’t qualified to be a SCJ and Democrats are actively pushing the point that ACB is not qualified by her experience to be SCJ.
ACB is just as smart.
The difference is that ACB devoted her life to legal thought, and advancing the ball forward on her legal POV. Kagan has a good personality and ran Harvard Law School.
The point of the OP is that nobody even suggested that Kagan wasn’t qualified to be a SCJ and Democrats are actively pushing the point that ACB is not qualified by her experience to be SCJ.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 9:54 am to Wednesday
In my mind, I'm not necessarily searching for THE most learned of all available federal jurists, but rather a nice combination of learned and pragmatic, i.e. grounded in common sense in the approach to case analysis.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 10:02 am to Wednesday
quote:Yep. We can expect the dims to embarrass themselves while trying to break her. This may be huge positive for Trump's campaign.
The thing I sense about ACB - is that if they go after her family she will go full mama bear. But that said, she’s the kind of person who doesn’t even have to raise her voice to get her point across, which will probably make her even more effective.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 10:02 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
18 points? That’s pretty specific. Zach, have you read their personnel files?
I have seen a lot of IQ scores on files of real people. That includes some politicians. And that's all Zach is gonna say about that. So don't ask for names.
Posted on 9/27/20 at 10:02 am to AggieHank86
Kagan may well be the "smartest" on the court, but her nomination was pretty absurd. She spent her career in academia and politics. She had no judicial record to be measured by, and she was confirmed pretty much on party lines. Ironically, Merrick Garland was almost certainly Obama's best pick. The other two were insanely political.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News