- 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
Justice Kagen is saying others showed impartial and neutral views
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:20 pm
LINK
Kagan explained that Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor did something important for the Court: they made it look "impartial and neutral and fair."
"Part of the Court's strength and part of the Court's legitimacy depends on people not seeing the Court in the way that people see the other governing structures of this country now," Kagan explained. "In other words, people thinking of the Court as not politically divided in the same ways. It's not an extension of politics, but instead somehow above the fray."
So Kagen says that a couple other justices were impartial and neutral, but she couldn't even say that about her self.
She basically expects Kav to be liberal or swing voter for the court. She mad because he's conservative. Liberals>>>vote like me or you are wrong. Also I don't have to be neutral but the conservatives have to.
Kagan explained that Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor did something important for the Court: they made it look "impartial and neutral and fair."
"Part of the Court's strength and part of the Court's legitimacy depends on people not seeing the Court in the way that people see the other governing structures of this country now," Kagan explained. "In other words, people thinking of the Court as not politically divided in the same ways. It's not an extension of politics, but instead somehow above the fray."
So Kagen says that a couple other justices were impartial and neutral, but she couldn't even say that about her self.
She basically expects Kav to be liberal or swing voter for the court. She mad because he's conservative. Liberals>>>vote like me or you are wrong. Also I don't have to be neutral but the conservatives have to.
9
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:21 pm to 6R12
Roberts seems concerned with the Court's image so I suspect he's going to move more left.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:23 pm to 6R12
Kagan’s political compass is skewed, but at least she’s honest about why she doesn’t want Kavanaugh there, and that isn’t because he’s a rapist or a drunk.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:23 pm to Jake88
I read an article stating that about Roberts
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:25 pm to Jake88
quote:
Roberts seems concerned with the Court's image so I suspect he's going to move more left.
Of course he will, never an issue if the "court's image" looks "bad" for being too left.
I hate these fricking swamp rat assholes.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:25 pm to Jake88
quote:
Roberts seems concerned with the Court's image so I suspect he's going to move more left.
That's why we need a sixth vote to get around him.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:26 pm to Jake88
quote:
Roberts seems concerned with the Court's image so I suspect he's going to move more left.
Possibly, but when Trump is done draining the swamp, he will be in possession of whatever dirt Obama had on him. He will do whatever Trump wants.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:28 pm to 6R12
These statements from a Supreme Court Justice are extremely concerning.
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the constitution and defend the country against unconstitutional legislation. It is not supposed to be some idealisticly balanced nonsense.
The complete entirety of the Court's strength and legitimacy comes from the constitution. It is literally established with the purpose of the justices not being concerned with public perception but rather with upholding the constitution at all costs.
quote:
they made it look "impartial and neutral and fair."
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the constitution and defend the country against unconstitutional legislation. It is not supposed to be some idealisticly balanced nonsense.
quote:
Part of the Court's strength and part of the Court's legitimacy depends on people not seeing the Court in the way that people see the other governing structures of this country now
The complete entirety of the Court's strength and legitimacy comes from the constitution. It is literally established with the purpose of the justices not being concerned with public perception but rather with upholding the constitution at all costs.
This post was edited on 10/6/18 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:30 pm to 6R12
Leftists in power: Elections have consequences
Leftists out of power: We love bipartisanship
Leftists out of power: We love bipartisanship
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:31 pm to Nguyener
quote:yep but they long ago destroyed the constitution. It's only meaningful to the wealthy and connected.
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the constitution and defend the country against unconstitutional legislation.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:32 pm to 6R12
quote:
. It's not an extension of politics, but instead somehow above the fray."
Interesting, coming from someone who owes her position to her sexual orientation.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:35 pm to 6R12
quote:
She mad because he's conservative
I think he’s not the conservative hero that some make him out to be.
But I also think he goes in dry on progressives and left leaning views after being called a rapist by Democrats for a month. He’s only human.
Democrats made an unnecessary enemy here just like they did with Thomas.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:46 pm to dewster
You're right but compared to most of the court he is conservative.
Posted on 10/6/18 at 9:54 pm to 6R12
Well, it is true they never drift right.
I don't want to make this a huge history lesson, but from 1930 through 1959, a period of just 29 years, 4 Presidents, Hoover, FDR, Truman and Ike appointed a combined 19 justices, turning over the court, effectively twice.
Ike, a rabid, right wing, Hitler-esque *ugh* "Republican" - nominated 5 justices who would largely constitute the "Warren" court - Earl Warren, John Marshal Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Charles Evans Whittaker (although only for 5 years) and Potter Stewart.
These 5 men are largely considered liberal, conservative, extrordinarily liberal, moderate/centrist and moderate/centrist, respectively.
JFK would add 2 very liberal judges in Goldberg and White, LBJ would add Fortas (however briefly) and Marshall, both heavily to the liberal side. Nixon would use his 4 picks on 1 solid conservative (Rehnquist), 1 lean conservative (Burger), 1 swing vote (Powell) and about the most liberal guy to serve on the court (until RBG), Harry Blackmun.
Ford also picked a liberal - John Paul Stevens.
Carter (thankfully) got no picks.
Renaldus Magnus added 3 to the court and made Rehnquist chief. O'Connor (centrist/swing vote), Kennedy (swing vote), and Scalia (conservative and probably the greatest legal mind to sit on the court of our or any other generation).
H.W. put Souter (Liberal) and Thomas (Conservative)
Clinton put Breyer (Liberal) and RBG (most liberal justice ever, except maybe Brennan and Blackmun - they're all about the same in my mind).
W put Roberts (who knows what he is?) and Alito (conservative).
Obama put in Kagan and the wise latina - however you want to consider it, these ladies are way, way, way to the left, consistently voting with RBG and Breyer in the 5-4s that matter (like D.C. versus Heller).
Trump now has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Honestly with Republican track records, I suspect that Kavanaugh ends up more like Kennedy or even Souter than Scalia, Alito or Gorsuch. And almost certainly as unreliable as Roberts - but I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
And Barrett should be up next, particularly for RBG's spot.
Interesting times.
I don't want to make this a huge history lesson, but from 1930 through 1959, a period of just 29 years, 4 Presidents, Hoover, FDR, Truman and Ike appointed a combined 19 justices, turning over the court, effectively twice.
Ike, a rabid, right wing, Hitler-esque *ugh* "Republican" - nominated 5 justices who would largely constitute the "Warren" court - Earl Warren, John Marshal Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Charles Evans Whittaker (although only for 5 years) and Potter Stewart.
These 5 men are largely considered liberal, conservative, extrordinarily liberal, moderate/centrist and moderate/centrist, respectively.
JFK would add 2 very liberal judges in Goldberg and White, LBJ would add Fortas (however briefly) and Marshall, both heavily to the liberal side. Nixon would use his 4 picks on 1 solid conservative (Rehnquist), 1 lean conservative (Burger), 1 swing vote (Powell) and about the most liberal guy to serve on the court (until RBG), Harry Blackmun.
Ford also picked a liberal - John Paul Stevens.
Carter (thankfully) got no picks.
Renaldus Magnus added 3 to the court and made Rehnquist chief. O'Connor (centrist/swing vote), Kennedy (swing vote), and Scalia (conservative and probably the greatest legal mind to sit on the court of our or any other generation).
H.W. put Souter (Liberal) and Thomas (Conservative)
Clinton put Breyer (Liberal) and RBG (most liberal justice ever, except maybe Brennan and Blackmun - they're all about the same in my mind).
W put Roberts (who knows what he is?) and Alito (conservative).
Obama put in Kagan and the wise latina - however you want to consider it, these ladies are way, way, way to the left, consistently voting with RBG and Breyer in the 5-4s that matter (like D.C. versus Heller).
Trump now has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Honestly with Republican track records, I suspect that Kavanaugh ends up more like Kennedy or even Souter than Scalia, Alito or Gorsuch. And almost certainly as unreliable as Roberts - but I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
And Barrett should be up next, particularly for RBG's spot.
Interesting times.
This post was edited on 10/6/18 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 10/6/18 at 10:11 pm to Ace Midnight
Why the frick did you get to downloads for that great piece of History?
Anyway, what I gathered from all that is liberals always appoint liberals or super liberals while conservatives are more fair-minded and are concerned with actually having good judges on the bench
Anyway, what I gathered from all that is liberals always appoint liberals or super liberals while conservatives are more fair-minded and are concerned with actually having good judges on the bench
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:20 am to nola000
quote:
Why the frick did you get to downloads for that great piece of History?
Because poorly informed folks don't like facts that challenge their myopic world view.
Posted on 10/7/18 at 7:40 am to Jake88
quote:
Roberts seems concerned with the Court's image so I suspect he's going to move more left.
The only image he should be concerned with is that Court follow the LAW.
This BS of making decisions based upon the outcome you desire has to stop. If it's unconstitutional, then so be it.
Let Congress make the laws. Let the Court decide if those laws abide by the Constitution.
Posted on 10/7/18 at 7:50 am to 6R12
You mean like how Kagan looked neutral when she didn’t recuse herself from voting on Obamacare?
Posted on 10/7/18 at 7:54 am to 6R12
Not in the least bit shocked she ould have a fundamental understanding of the court considering she’s not a judge but Marxist intelligentsia
Posted on 10/7/18 at 8:01 am to Jake88
quote:
Roberts seems concerned with the Court's image
Loved his reading with Ocare...
5-4 decision to declare it unconstitutional - which It was and required mental gymnastics to save - Court political
5-4 decision upholding Ocare based on very flawed legal reasoning - Court NOT political
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News