Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

She's hot. I'm guessing that she's a strong proponent for gay rights?

Not a bad choice actually. I've been reading about her since...well this thread appeared, and she seems to be left enough that many of her ideals fall in line with the democrats, but not crazy left that the republicans will have a big issue with her nomination. Unfortunately, judges should remain absolutely neutral, but alas, that doesn't flow well in today's political landscape.

93henfan wrote:She's hot. I'm guessing that she's a strong proponent for gay rights?

Holy schneikeys. I didn't think he'd be able to find a candidate uglier than Janet Napolireno. I was wrong.

At least shes as unqualified as the rest of his cabinet.................and at least she pays her taxes.

Weakest choice of all the names thrown out.

What? No Asian or Native American candidate?

93henfan wrote:She's hot. I'm guessing that she's a strong proponent for gay rights?

He said that...

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:At least shes as unqualified as the rest of his cabinet.................and at least she pays her taxes.

Weakest choice of all the names thrown out.

Great choice!



I hear she hates guns and loves wolves.

She's always reminded me of Fred Flintstone's mother-in-law.

JoltinJoe wrote:She's always reminded me of Fred Flintstone's mother-in-law.

93henfan wrote:She's hot. I'm guessing that she's a strong proponent for gay rights?

Anybody else think she looks like Dick Morris in drag?

It could have been worse, I suppose. All else equal, I would have preferred someone with judicial experience. Arguing a handful of cases as Solicitor General and running Harvard Law School for a few years don't amount to the experience I'm looking for.

At least she's not a community organizer.

I've got no problem with the selection - she was clearly one of the more moderate of the bunch (I wouldn't had like it if he went with Wood as the pick). And, she's plenty bright enough. Yeah, she's nothing to look at, which makes the ban on live video of the SC a good thing, but all in all, I think she's a good pick.

It'll be interesting if there's any resistance to this pick, not from the right, which will probably make the requisite objections and questions, but really from the left. Many saw Stevens as the ultra-liberal on the bench (not that he was, but he was perceived that way) and some on the far left may think Kagan is far too moderate to replace Stevens (in essence letting the Court drift to the right). It'll be interesting how that goes.

GannonFan wrote:I've got no problem with the selection - she was clearly one of the more moderate of the bunch (I wouldn't had like it if he went with Wood as the pick). And, she's plenty bright enough. Yeah, she's nothing to look at, which makes the ban on live video of the SC a good thing, but all in all, I think she's a good pick.

It'll be interesting if there's any resistance to this pick, not from the right, which will probably make the requisite objections and questions, but really from the left. Many saw Stevens as the ultra-liberal on the bench (not that he was, but he was perceived that way) and some on the far left may think Kagan is far too moderate to replace Stevens (in essence letting the Court drift to the right). It'll be interesting how that goes.

Agreed.

Like his selection of Sotamayor, Obama has again pushed the Court to the right.

93henfan wrote:She's hot. I'm guessing that she's a strong proponent for gay rights?

As Ursus always says, just for the story.

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I've got no problem with the selection - she was clearly one of the more moderate of the bunch (I wouldn't had like it if he went with Wood as the pick). And, she's plenty bright enough. Yeah, she's nothing to look at, which makes the ban on live video of the SC a good thing, but all in all, I think she's a good pick.

It'll be interesting if there's any resistance to this pick, not from the right, which will probably make the requisite objections and questions, but really from the left. Many saw Stevens as the ultra-liberal on the bench (not that he was, but he was perceived that way) and some on the far left may think Kagan is far too moderate to replace Stevens (in essence letting the Court drift to the right). It'll be interesting how that goes.

Agreed.

Like his selection of Sotamayor, Obama has again pushed the Court to the right.

And the key thing I like is that, like with Sotamayor, Obama has been picking pretty intelligent people. I was never a fan of the Souter and Clarence Thomas picks - I thought those guys were lightweights compared to everyone else on the Court. People can argue with the selections of Roberts and Alito that came during the Bush years, but no one can argue that those guys weren't heavyweights intellectually. I'd rather bring in top notch people than try to tilt the Court with simple political leanings.

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I've got no problem with the selection - she was clearly one of the more moderate of the bunch (I wouldn't had like it if he went with Wood as the pick). And, she's plenty bright enough. Yeah, she's nothing to look at, which makes the ban on live video of the SC a good thing, but all in all, I think she's a good pick.

It'll be interesting if there's any resistance to this pick, not from the right, which will probably make the requisite objections and questions, but really from the left. Many saw Stevens as the ultra-liberal on the bench (not that he was, but he was perceived that way) and some on the far left may think Kagan is far too moderate to replace Stevens (in essence letting the Court drift to the right). It'll be interesting how that goes.

Agreed.

Like his selection of Sotamayor, Obama has again pushed the Court to the right.

What are you guys smoking? You both essentially conclude that, because Barry didn't appoint some crackpot like Liu to SCOTUS, he's pushed the Court to the right?

Time will tell whether "Wise Latina" Sotomayor is further to the left than Souter, or Kagan is less liberal than Stevens (who, like Souter, was appointed by a Republican President). I don't think you gentlemen can draw such sweeping conclusions yet.

Ivytalk wrote:

danefan wrote:
Agreed.

Like his selection of Sotamayor, Obama has again pushed the Court to the right.

What are you guys smoking? You both essentially conclude that, because Barry didn't appoint some crackpot like Liu to SCOTUS, he's pushed the Court to the right?

Time will tell whether "Wise Latina" Sotomayor is further to the left than Souter, or Kagan is less liberal than Stevens (who, like Souter, was appointed by a Republican President). I don't think you gentlemen can draw such sweeping conclusions yet.

Speculation for sure, but based on how we anticipate these justices will lean, replacing liberal justices with less liberal justices would certainly move the court to the right wouldn't it?

That's all I'm saying. But of course, Kagan could certainly turn out to be far left of Stevens.

Ivytalk wrote: What are you guys smoking? You both essentially conclude that, because Barry didn't appoint some crackpot like Liu to SCOTUS, he's pushed the Court to the right?

Well, that WILL be the argument of uberlibs like KY, dback and UNH. I'm sure they're drowning their sorrows over Liu not getting nominated (especially UNH).

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: What are you guys smoking? You both essentially conclude that, because Barry didn't appoint some crackpot like Liu to SCOTUS, he's pushed the Court to the right?

Well, that WILL be the argument of uberlibs like KY, dback and UNH. I'm sure they're drowning their sorrows over Liu not getting nominated (especially UNH).

Nah, I like the pick, at first glance

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, that WILL be the argument of uberlibs like KY, dback and UNH. I'm sure they're drowning their sorrows over Liu not getting nominated (especially UNH).

Nah, I like the pick, at first glance

Yeah, well if Liu was a big gay bear you'd be crying.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Nah, I like the pick, at first glance

Yeah, well if Liu was a big gay bear you'd be crying.

Like these guys?

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, that WILL be the argument of uberlibs like KY, dback and UNH. I'm sure they're drowning their sorrows over Liu not getting nominated (especially UNH).

Nah, I like the pick, at first glance

i thought you might...She's taken a public position against DADT.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: What are you guys smoking? You both essentially conclude that, because Barry didn't appoint some crackpot like Liu to SCOTUS, he's pushed the Court to the right?

Well, that WILL be the argument of uberlibs like KY, dback and UNH. I'm sure they're drowning their sorrows over Liu not getting nominated (especially UNH).

Liu on the Ninth Circuit will be bad enough.

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Nah, I like the pick, at first glance

i thought you might...She's taken a public position against DADT.

Yes, and I actually prefer most of the SCOTUS to be centerists...