Kagan gets a Constitutional lesson

[BillytheC]

This is why liberal women should never be appointed to the SCOTUS - they allow their "FEELINGS" to guide them instead of the Constitution

Elena Kagan gets lesson in constitutional history after warning about court losing public approval | Blaze Media

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern Thursday over what she believes is the danger of the Supreme Court straying from public opinion.What did Kagan say?Speaking at a judicial conference in Montana, Kagan warned democracy is endangered when the highest court in a land loses touch...

www.theblaze.com

 

[nail1988]

This is why liberal women should never be appointed to the SCOTUS - they allow their "FEELINGS" to guide them instead of the Constitution

Elena Kagan gets lesson in constitutional history after warning about court losing public approval | Blaze Media

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern Thursday over what she believes is the danger of the Supreme Court straying from public opinion.What did Kagan say?Speaking at a judicial conference in Montana, Kagan warned democracy is endangered when the highest court in a land loses touch...

www.theblaze.com

Kagan and the UN WISE Latina are the two dumbest members on the Supreme Court

 

[JimGaster]

She is not an intelligent lady. Probably about as smart as that Karine Jean-Pierre idiot.

Tokenism is racism.

 

[fatman76]

This is why liberal women should never be appointed to the SCOTUS - they allow their "FEELINGS" to guide them instead of the Constitution

Elena Kagan gets lesson in constitutional history after warning about court losing public approval | Blaze Media

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern Thursday over what she believes is the danger of the Supreme Court straying from public opinion.What did Kagan say?Speaking at a judicial conference in Montana, Kagan warned democracy is endangered when the highest court in a land loses touch...

www.theblaze.com

To think this way is one thing…to say it out loud is an entirely different deal.

She’s admitting to judicial activism.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

This is why liberal women should never be appointed to the SCOTUS - they allow their "FEELINGS" to guide them instead of the Constitution

Elena Kagan gets lesson in constitutional history after warning about court losing public approval | Blaze Media

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern Thursday over what she believes is the danger of the Supreme Court straying from public opinion.What did Kagan say?Speaking at a judicial conference in Montana, Kagan warned democracy is endangered when the highest court in a land loses touch...

www.theblaze.com

Bill...not just females...this is a lib thing. They rule on what fits their agenda's, and NEVER follow the Constitution. RBG(yes, a lib woman) knew that R vs W was a very poor ruling...yet I PROMISE you she would have never voted to overturn it.

 

[NavigatorII]

This is why liberal women should never be appointed to the SCOTUS - they allow their "FEELINGS" to guide them instead of the Constitution

Elena Kagan gets lesson in constitutional history after warning about court losing public approval | Blaze Media

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern Thursday over what she believes is the danger of the Supreme Court straying from public opinion.What did Kagan say?Speaking at a judicial conference in Montana, Kagan warned democracy is endangered when the highest court in a land loses touch...

www.theblaze.com

Good find Billy. She's got ONE JOB. To uphold the US Constitution. F*ck her feelings.

 

[kalimgoodman]

This is why liberal women should never be appointed to the SCOTUS - they allow their "FEELINGS" to guide them instead of the Constitution

Elena Kagan gets lesson in constitutional history after warning about court losing public approval | Blaze Media

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern Thursday over what she believes is the danger of the Supreme Court straying from public opinion.What did Kagan say?Speaking at a judicial conference in Montana, Kagan warned democracy is endangered when the highest court in a land loses touch...

www.theblaze.com

Now do Thomas, Barrett and Alito...

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Now do Thomas, Barrett and Alito...

Examples please?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Now do Thomas, Barrett and Alito...

They don't let their feelings guide their decisions, unlike Kagan, they understand they are to follow the law as written.

Anything else?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Bill...not just females...this is a lib thing. They rule on what fits their agenda's, and NEVER follow the Constitution. RBG(yes, a lib woman) knew that R vs W was a very poor ruling...yet I PROMISE you she would have never voted to overturn it.

LIbs rule on the law as they WISH IT WAS WRITTEN, Constitutional justices rule on the law AS WRITTEN.

As Justice Scalia once said, if you don't like his decisions, talk to the people that passed the laws he ruled on.

 

[Steveerino]

LIbs rule on the law as they WISH IT WAS WRITTEN, Constitutional justices rule on the law AS WRITTEN.

As Justice Scalia once said, if you don't like his decisions, talk to the people that passed the laws he ruled on.

Scalia was brilliant and remarkably humble.

 

[IrishPokerDog]

This is why liberal women should never be appointed to the SCOTUS - they allow their "FEELINGS" to guide them instead of the Constitution

Elena Kagan gets lesson in constitutional history after warning about court losing public approval | Blaze Media

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern Thursday over what she believes is the danger of the Supreme Court straying from public opinion.What did Kagan say?Speaking at a judicial conference in Montana, Kagan warned democracy is endangered when the highest court in a land loses touch...

www.theblaze.com

But this is exactly why getting constitutionalists on the court is so damn important. Because this leftist tool violates her Constitutional oath of office with this stance of hers

I could care less WTF Trump did in office. As long as he appointed constitutionalists, he could run around Naked grabbing pvzzies

 

[Capt Ron 1]

But this is exactly why getting constitutionalists on the court is so damn important. Because this leftist tool violates her Constitutional oath of office with this stance of hers

I could care less WTF Trump did in office. As long as he appointed constitutionalists, he could run around Naked grabbing pvzzies

Better than lib men grabbing dinghies...its what they do! LOLOL (still true)

 

[kalimgoodman]

But this is exactly why getting constitutionalists on the court is so damn important. Because this leftist tool violates her Constitutional oath of office with this stance of hers

I could care less WTF Trump did in office. As long as he appointed constitutionalists, he could run around Naked grabbing pvzzies

Who on the court is a constitutionalist?

 

[NavigatorII]

Who on the court is a constitutionalist?

Pretty much all of the ones who weren't appointed by Dimtards, sans Roberts.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Pretty much all of the ones who weren't appointed by Dimtards, sans Roberts.

Interesting

 

[nail1988]

Who on the court is a constitutionalist?

they are originalist

Aledo and Thomas are in the mold of Scalia

Barrett and Gorsuch are close

Kavanugh is the weak sister of the conservatives. . I think he turns out like his fraud mentor Robert’s. Hope I’m wrong

 

[jfegaly]

This is why it’s important to stop the BS of calling America a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Period. Calling it a democracy allows silly thinking like that of kagan to gain traction.

 

[kalimgoodman]

they are originalist

Aledo and Thomas are in the mold of Scalia

Barrett and Gorsuch are close

Kavanugh is the weak sister of the conservatives. . I think he turns out like his fraud mentor Robert’s. Hope I’m wrong

What makes Roberts a "fraud"?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Who on the court is a constitutionalist?

I let you be my guide: If @kalimgoodman criticizes them, then the Justice likely follows the Constitution in their rulings.

If @kalimgoodman praises them, or refuses to criticize them for not following the Constitution (anyone notice @kalimgoodman refuses to address Kagan's comments ITT?), then that Justice is likely a political activist.

Case in point: @kalimgoodman hates hates HATES him some Clarence Thomas, and Thomas is noted by all as one of the strictest Constitutionalist Justices this nation has ever produced.

 

[IrishPokerDog]

Who on the court is a constitutionalist?

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett. I’m not sure yet about Kavanaugh.....and I’m not sure about Brown. Some of Browns rulings against Trump had constitutional arguments she made, and that’s actually a nice sign....so the jury is out on her as a SCOTUS justice.

Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not......Roberts and how he reaches conclusions is baffling

 

[kalimgoodman]

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett. I’m not sure yet about Kavanaugh.....and I’m not sure about Brown. Some of Browns rulings against Trump had constitutional arguments she made, and that’s actually a nice sign....so the jury is out on her as a SCOTUS justice.

Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not......Roberts and how he reaches conclusions is baffling

I think they all are political. I think the days of an impartial judge is over. It's not about constitution, it's about what's best for their party, them or religious beliefs.

Just read some of these opinions. They literally will contradict themselves between different ruling trying to make it fit. We need term limits badly.

Roberts for example, will vote to not make the courts political. He is aware of how bad the judges have gotten. That's the reason for the lowest approval for the Supreme Court ever.

 

[NavigatorII]

I think they all are political. I think the days of an impartial judge is over. It's not about constitution, it's about what's best for their party, them or religious beliefs.

Just read some of these opinions. They literally will contradict themselves between different ruling trying to make it fit. We need term limits badly.

Roberts for example, will vote to not make the courts political. He is aware of how bad the judges have gotten. That's the reason for the lowest approval for the Supreme Court ever.

If upholding the Constitution and it's amendments is political, what do you call ignoring it or making it up as you go? 😂

 

[kalimgoodman]

If upholding the Constitution and it's amendments is political, what do you call ignoring it or making it up as you go? 😂

When you like the ruling it's constitutional and when you don't it's what? That's why America is falling apart because people like you focus on the results you want and now how we got there.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

A racist just embarrassed a race by nominating a completely unqualified candidate. Condaleezza Rice is in the genius range. Why not nominate a qualified candidate?

 

[NavigatorII]

When you like the ruling it's constitutional and when you don't it's what? That's why America is falling apart because people like you focus on the results you want and now how we got there.

Apparently you don't like the US Constitution. The job of the SCOTUS is to rule strictly based on what that document says, not feelings. It's glaringly obvious from your statement above.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Apparently you don't like the US Constitution. The job of the SCOTUS is to rule strictly based on what that document says, not feelings. It's glaringly obvious from your statement above.

You said any justice appointed by a Democrat isn't a constitutionalist. So you made the bases of your opinion political. So it's not about the constitution, it's about what political side you're on. That's your words.

 

[kalimgoodman]

A racist just embarrassed a race by nominating a completely unqualified candidate. Condaleezza Rice is in the genius range. Why not nominate a qualified candidate?

As much as i respect and like Rice, i ask. How many years were Rice a judge? Most importantly, what makes Rice more qualified than KBJ?

 

[NavigatorII]

You said any justice appointed by a Democrat isn't a constitutionalist. So you made the bases of your opinion political. So it's not about the constitution, it's about what political side you're on. That's your words.

Actions. Not words. Look at their decisions and votes. Just the facts maam, just the facts based on historical track record.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett. I’m not sure yet about Kavanaugh.....and I’m not sure about Brown. Some of Browns rulings against Trump had constitutional arguments she made, and that’s actually a nice sign....so the jury is out on her as a SCOTUS justice.

Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan are not......Roberts and how he reaches conclusions is baffling

Agree on Alito and Thomas, both strong Constitutionalist justices. Gorsuch seems to be following in their footsteps with most of his rulings. Need to see more decisions. ACB I am less sure of, and Kavanaugh has way too much of Roberts in some of his decision making.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

When you like the ruling it's constitutional and when you don't it's what? That's why America is falling apart because people like you focus on the results you want and now how we got there.

Ummmm......that's all you do, bro.

If the person is a democrat or you think they are sympathic to democratic causes, you will always defend them. Look at this thread, no honest person can defend Kagan's comments given her position. But you do what you always do, you try to deflect any criticism of the dem you like, and try to focus it on the conservatives that you don't.

It's sad, tired and unproductive. People like you that let their politics control their lives are why America is falling apart.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You said any justice appointed by a Democrat isn't a constitutionalist. So you made the bases of your opinion political. So it's not about the constitution, it's about what political side you're on. That's your words.

Name the last Justice nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president that was a constitutionalist.

Even if you didn't have me on Fake Ignore, you couldn't answer this question. Because it has never happened. There's a reason why.

 

[tb8232]

Libs don't do logic or constitution. Libs do craft fairs, yard sales and trade pot holders while double masking.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Libs don't do logic or constitution. Libs do craft fairs, yard sales and trade pot holders.

Conservatives think based on logic, libs think based on emotion.

It's far easier to manipulate someone who thinks emotionally, and who rejects logic. That's why the libs make such good sheep.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Actions. Not words. Look at their decisions and votes. Just the facts maam, just the facts based on historical track record.

Nice recovery but it's clear you view the justices as an extension of your political views.

I think all 9 are too political for me. Bad for America, results be damned.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Nice recovery but it's clear you view the justices as an extension of your political views.

Then why doesn't he defend Roberts, who was nominated and appointed by a republican?

You are trying to paint him as being political to distract from you being political. Your MO here is sad, tired and blatantly transparent.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Someoone once explained what they thought Roberts philosophy was/is. According to them, he is a pro government jurist who will try and find any reason to uphold a law.

The founders/framers were small government types so any constitutionalist would be for limited small government.

The zer0care ruling exposed him. If fact it was worse than Roe IMHO from a constitutional angle. Roe made stuff up. zer0care ignored the written constitution as the penalty, even if called a tax, was an unconstitutionally implemented head tax. He drove that bus.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

As much as i respect and like Rice, i ask. How many years were Rice a judge? Most importantly, what makes Rice more qualified than KBJ?

Rice has never been a judge. There are many who question KBJ's credentials as a judge. Many. The fact remains. Ms. Rice has an IQ in the genius range. KBJ is far short. There are many, many of the Sub Saharan family group far more qualified than KBJ. Racist Brandon made a racist choice.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Rice has never been a judge. There are many who question KBJ's credentials as a judge. Many. The fact remains. Ms. Rice has an IQ in the genius range. KBJ is far short. There are many, many of the Sub Saharan family group far more qualified than KBJ. Racist Brandon made a racist choice.

A woman who graduated from Harvard has an IQ problem? Umm ok

Also, you still didn't say how Rice is more qualified but I digress.

 

[BamaFan1137]

A woman who graduated from Harvard has an IQ problem? Umm ok

Also, you still didn't say how Rice is more qualified but I digress.

I would prefer Rice. I believe that I would prefer a woman of her integrity regardless of how I was politically affiliated.

I doubt that she could have been talked into taking it...given her integrity.